Skip to main content

Calling the Colorado shootings "senseless killings" is redundant. It would seem that killings are senseless, regardless of the method used. I do not want to call some of the diaries and comments I have seen here "fauxrage", as the diarists and commenters seem genuine and sincere in their beliefs, but I cannot imagine a world in which Kos diarists and otherwise sensible people would be in a pitchforks and torches mode about cars if the headlines had been:

"Man drives car at high speed into crowded movie line, kills 12, injures 60."

Before some of you go into "but that's different because guns are evil!" mode, let's look at the end results. The victims would be no less dead. I do not mean any disrespect by that observation. I am merely saying that if one of my loved ones was murdered, my grief would not be any different if it was caused by a gun, a knife or a deliberate hit & run.

The point about "senseless killings" is that they are senseless, not their quantity. Someone or possibly several someones have said or implied "if he could only have had a knife, this would not have happened". If you are one of those people, what exactly are you saying? Are you saying "killing 12 people is unacceptable, but only killing 1 or 2 is okay"? The same goes for those who blame these things on extended clips, as though being able to only kill half a dozen people before reloading is somehow more socially acceptable.

One senseless death is one too many.

This can only be addressed by looking at the people involved, and not the objects they possess. Colorado is a perfect point. The movie was a sold out midnight showing, and there were certainly lines. Holmes could have easily plowed through that line with a car at high speed. His apartment is (at the time of this writing) apparently booby-trapped with explosives, flammables, chemicals or some combination of the above. Again, something that could have readily been used against an unwitting crowd of people. This is not a false equivalency. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 and injured over 600 with nothing more than fertilizer, racing fuel and a truck, a mayhem record that no individual on a shooting spree has come close to matching.

The common factor here is that Holmes was a dangerously unhinged individual, and in the modern world that gave him several easy and impossible to ban means of causing mayhem. Guns are probably not even the easiest nor cheapest means of causing that mayhem. They just happen to be the one culturally linked to the American psyche and fairly easy for an unskilled person to cause mayhem with.

Now, in the day since the shooting, there have been plenty of senseless deaths and acts of violence that you have not been outraged over, that you have not been whipped into an artificial frenzy about. You have shown less outrage about the massacres in Syria than you have about the shooting in Colorado.

You have not been driven to post or comment about the hundreds of acts of domestic violence, dozens of alcohol-related deaths, several stabbing deaths and black lung deaths, and the hundreds of rapes and obestity-related deaths that happened yesterday.

The difference between Colorado and those other senseless deaths and acts of violence? Aside from your lack of outrage over them, the big difference is that a Colorado-style event happens once every year or two. All the others happen every day, 365 days a year.

So yes, let's have that "adult conversation" on the topic. Such a conversation would put the matter in proper perspective and put the blame on the individual responsible, and look to improve how we as a nation identify and deal with the mental illness that causes this behavior and yes, maybe even put controls in place to keep such people from having easy access to dangerous items (which might have also helped in the Virginia Tech shootings). I look forward to reading such a diary, instead of knee-jerk villification of innocent, decent, moral people who just happen to own an inanimate object you disapprove of. If I wanted irrational knee-jerk villification as a response to serious issues, I'd watch Fox News.

Jbou posted a diary with an interesting title: "Always take the opportunity a national tragedy presents to smear your enemies with blood." Are Dkos readers the sort of people to smear good people (liberal and conservative) who happen to own guns or support gun ownership, or are they going to discuss it like adults?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, good grief (18+ / 0-)
    Are Dkos readers the sort of people to smear good people (liberal and conservative) who happen to own guns or support gun ownership, or are they going to discuss it like adults?
    No one is smearing anyone here.

    As for your car analogy....

    If I want to drive a car, I have to take a written and road test to be a licensed operator of a vehicle. Then I have to buy a car, have it licensed, registered, and insured.

    If I want to own a gun, I walk into Walmart and buy one.

    And because I think this is a little bit funny, I'm smearing people?

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:17:27 AM PDT

    •  Um. Not that I'd dispute gun control is too lax. (4+ / 0-)

      But the analogy remains valid in this instance because he still had access to a car, meaning he'd passed all of those tests, just like the overwhelming majority of adults do.

      •  And we all know that when someone wants to (9+ / 0-)

        go on a killing spree, they just drive their car into a crowd. It's the most effective way of killing many people in a short amount of time.

        Oh, wait, no. They arm themselves to the teeth with guns.

        But no one who's an adult would think to bring up guns after someone kills a dozen people with guns. No, those people are just trying to smear others.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:26:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's fair; killing with cars isn't glamorous. (4+ / 0-)

          He dressed up as the Joker and did a dozen other theatrics. But the author did say,

          They just happen to be the one culturally linked to the American psyche and fairly easy for an unskilled person to cause mayhem with.
          I am really, really not a fan of guns. But with the gun lobby so strong and apparently hundreds of millions of guns already out in the 'wilds' of America so to speak,
          put the blame on the individual responsible
          Sounds like not just a fair statement, but a practical one to me.
          •  I've not seen anyone here claim that the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dave in Northridge, Recall

            guns were responsible for this rather than the person firing the gun. All I'm saying is that you can't have a conversation about incidents like this and never mention guns.

            Of course there is an individual responsible for what happened. There are a lot of other things in play as well- and all of those will be discussed.

            P.S. I am not a crackpot.

            by BoiseBlue on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:41:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have seen that claim and- (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IndieGuy, Recall

              I have definitely seen smearing. I'm also sure that a lot of it was unintentional broad brushstroking, but I'm not surprised that a few of the gun advocates have gotten frustrated.

              •  Gun advocates? What does that mean precisely? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BoiseBlue

                Is it similar to being a vaccine advocate? Or an education advocate? Or a alcohol advocate? Or a smoking advocate?

                I have guns. Several and I practice with them. I have actual ammo boxes and reloaders. But I do not advocate for guns... I don't defend guns in every situation because I don't use them to go  out and try to control the world or relieve some sickness in me by using them. Some defend guns like it is thier last bottle of booze and they are addicted.  

                My guns serve two purposes. If someone breaks into my house when I am there I will defend myself and not depend on thier mercy because that is a gamble I am unwilling to take. The other purpose is to hunt which I seldom do any more but still have the guns for if the inclination overtakes me. Its like fishing, which I used to do  but the poles and tackle have languished for years, What I do not think we need are military style weapons created to kill people... It is ridiculous to think that any weapons I could get would allow me to stand against a modern day government... Truthfully I think guns give most a false sense of security except in a very narrow manner.

                It is not childish to expect to have a discussion about access to guns when it was guns used in this case. When is it appropriate to discuss guns? Never? Because some cling to them like someone is discussing taking thier self defining power icon?  Because it gives them pleasure to hold a weapon that at any change in thier feelings or opinions, they can in turn use on those who disagree... Is that it? A feeling of power and control over thier world?  What is the fascination? Why do people believe that spending large portions of our resources stocking up on weapons is going to make anyone safer? As I understand the military does this too. They have warehouses jammed with stuff that is rotting away resources like some sick hoarder.

                How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

                by boophus on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:02:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I have seen dozens (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deedogg, gerrilea

              of people make that exact statement: guns are responsible, without access to guns this would not have happened, etc.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:01:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are deliberately (0+ / 0-)

                reading something into what you have read to agree with your preconceptions.

                But no matter. So many do so on this site concerning so many different inaccuracies they hold so dear. So many times I have asked someone who claimed there were "hundreds of diaries" supporting some heinous position, and they were only able to come up with one comment that had been hr'd into oblivion.

                I'm always amazed when people claim that guns were not a factor in a massacre where all the dead and injured were shot, and that the shooter could have used any way at all to carry out as much death and destruction. Aren't you?

          •  Totally impractical (0+ / 0-)

            Blame the shooter?!  That is exactly what he wanted.  Fame blame.  Convicting him will serve no purpose except keeping him locked up.  His fame will live on.  Someone will do a movie so we can be entertained by the gun play.

            •  Are you advocating just letting him go? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deedogg, gerrilea
              Blame the shooter?!  That is exactly what he wanted.  Fame blame.  Convicting him will serve no purpose except keeping him locked up.  


              Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

              by IndieGuy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:07:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                boophus

                But blaming him is totally irrelevant to preventing the next one.  Instead the glorification of the American gun myth reigns supreme and who will be next to prove he can one up our latest anti-hero?

                •  What??? You can't be serious here? (0+ / 0-)
                  But blaming him is totally irrelevant to preventing the next one.
                  Fist step, Identify the problem:

                  The problem is mental health services having been gutted since Reagan was in office.

                  Outcome Based Educational system that attempts behavioral modification turning our population into emotionally uncontrolled selfish animals, like Pavlov's dogs.  Serving to create the cannon fodder used by our Military Industrial Complex to send the poor of this nation to kill the poor of other nations.

                  We got the "society" they created for us.

                  Second Step, find solutions.

                  Banning everything and anything that can be used to maim and kill doesn't change the failure of people to take personal responsibility for their actions and deeds.  It's easier to blame the object than hold ourselves accountable for allowing this intentional "dumbing down" of this nation.

                  I'd love to have an adult conversation on this, truly because there will most definitely be a next time.

                  When do we become our brother's keeper again?  When do we actually help one another?  Or do we all just say, "it's not my problem" and continue to blame objects and not ourselves????

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:31:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No. She's saying not to glamorize him. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shamash

                Which will undoubtedly happen, under the pretense (sometimes sincere) of shaming him. There will be a movie about this in the next decade, I'm sure. He's theatrical in a way Cho wasn't.

                I can't speak for the diarist, but "blame on the individual," is a bit inaccurate, for me - "focus on the individual, see how he got there and prevent that," is a bit more accurate.

    •  "No one is smearing anyone here." (5+ / 0-)


      Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

      by IndieGuy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:42:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, and I'd like to add that people do do (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BoiseBlue, stellaluna, boophus

      that sort of thing with vehicles and weapons other than guns.

      But there are two big differences.

      First, because we have all but abandoned mass transit as a means of transportation, motor vehicles are necessary to daily life.  Therefore, the deaths they cause are regrettably in some sense necessary.  Guns are not.

      Second, the body count is higher with guns because you can kill more people at a greater range in a smaller amount of time.

      In closing, if someone did do that with a car and it caused America to have an adult conversation about our inconvenient polluting car culture and how we can reduce our dependence on autos, I'd be delighted.

      Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

      by journeyman on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:07:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this is not the manner in which to attempt to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, pwn3rship society

    raise the level of a conversation.

    it is, rather, a rant.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:17:50 AM PDT

    •  It is, rather, just the opposite of a rant. (6+ / 0-)

      The points raised are perfectly valid, and were raised calmly.  If you care to refute them just as calmly, please do so.


      Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

      by IndieGuy on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:43:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Using couched terms, strawman argument and (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal, vcmvo2, pwn3rship society

        hysterical characterization of ideological opponents alongside purposefully provocative rhetoric, all provided by the diarist:

        I do not want to call some of the diaries and comments I have seen here "fauxrage", as the diarists and commenters seem genuine and sincere in their beliefs, but I cannot imagine a world in which Kos diarists and otherwise sensible people would be in a pitchforks and torches mode about cars if the headlines had been:

        "Man drives car at high speed into crowded movie line, kills 12, injures 60."

        Before some of you go into "but that's different because guns are evil!" mode, let's look at the end results. The victims would be no less dead.

        I calmly refute your assessment.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:20:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Once you read the article (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pwn3rship society, Recall

        One realizes very quickly that the title in itself is a rather apparent and juvenile smear on those who don't like to deal in absolutes, would ofs/could ofs, strawmen building, and false equivalencies as this diarist is doing. This diarist is clearly more interested in point scoring and belittling those with a different point of view than in adult conversation regarding this subject.

        So yeah, lets talk about requiring adults...this diarist does a disservice to their cause and this " adult " conversation just in the title alone. Any adult can clearly see that!

        Enjoy your day.

        The Plutocratic States of America, the best government the top 1% and corporations can buy. We are the 99%-OWS.

        by emal on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary (6+ / 0-)

    We must support the entire Bill of Rights everyday.  Even the parts that guarantee rights that we may personally prefer not be used.  Pushing more gun control is bad policy and very bad for Democratic electoral chances.

    Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

    by deedogg on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:19:54 AM PDT

  •  I am done being polite (10+ / 0-)

    No one has said this:

    Before some of you go into "but that's different because guns are evil!" mode
    It doesn't even make sense. Something that is non sentient does not have the capacity to be good or evil. (did I really just have to type that).

    Strawman that deliberately misses every single argument that has been made on these pages.

    You are not doing your side any favors whatsoever.

  •  An assault rifle is specifically designed to (6+ / 0-)

    kill human beings as quickly and efficiently is possible.  One can probably find some way to use almost any object to kill another person, but it will not be as quick and efficient because that is not the purpose for which they are designed.  In fact, they all have other, non-murderous purposes.

    Oh yeah, why is it okay for the government to forbid me to have a nuclear missile in my backyard?

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:41:41 AM PDT

  •  apparently my irony meter is on the fritz (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes, IndieGuy, deedogg, gerrilea

    You all seem to forget that indeed an elderly driver hit the accelerator instead of the brake and plowed through the Santa Monica Farmer's Market in July 2003, killing 9 people and injuring 54, very close to the Aurora death toll.

    THIS is the important point here:

    The difference between Colorado and those other senseless deaths and acts of violence? Aside from your lack of outrage over them, the big difference is that a Colorado-style event happens once every year or two. All the others happen every day, 365 days a year.
    If you want to trash this diary, argue with that.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 06:43:19 AM PDT

    •  Tripped over any concrete barriers lately? (0+ / 0-)

      Apparently some if you haven't noticed the pervasive installation of concrete barriers in the last 10 years.  You know - car control.

    •  The obvious difference in the Santa Monica... (4+ / 0-)

      ...case you cited is that it was an accident. The elderly driver mistakenly hit the accelerator instead of the brakes.

      A gun has one purpose and one purpose only - to do damage. Whether that damage is to put a hole in a paper target, shatter a bottle, bring home meat for dinner or splatter someone's brains all over a theater seat, that is what it is designed to do, and that is all it is designed to do. To compare murder by gun to automobile accidents is kind of silly, IMHO.

      I don't want to ban guns, or take anyone's guns away. I do want anyone who buys a gun to have to pass a proficiency and gun safety class, and be licensed, registered and insured, just as automobile owners are. I do want measures in place to prevent the sale of huge quantities of guns and ammo in a single purchase.

      Yes, there are societal issues - issues involving the people who descend into a state of mind which turns them into mass murderers. But to deny the fact that guns - and cheap and easy access to them - are at least part of the problem is to ignore the fact that the United States has more guns per capita than any other industrialized nation, and not coincidentally, the highest rate of gun-related crime.

      I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

      by ObamOcala on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:05:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some people would like you to believe (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deedogg

        that anything like Aurora or Virginia Tech was an accident too - the people who think that because you want to restrict ammunition you want to take their guns away. That wasn't my point, but never mind.

        -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:45:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'd like you to take writing classes, diction (0+ / 0-)

        classes and be licensed to speak your mind or write your opinion in a public forum.

        Then I'd like to have psychological testing before you exercise your religion. Clearly anyone whom believes in some imaginary figure in the heavens must not be of sound mind...

        You then must pass an arbitrary battery of tests BEFORE you petition for redress of grievances.

        Driving is a privilege, owning a firearm is not.

        How do you propose we overcome the Constitution here?

        You speak with forked tongue:

        To compare murder by gun to automobile accidents is kind of silly, IMHO.
        I do want anyone who buys a gun to have to pass a proficiency and gun safety class, and be licensed, registered and insured, just as automobile owners are.
        As for this:
        the United States has more guns per capita than any other industrialized nation, and not coincidentally, the highest rate of gun-related crime.
        The UK has the highest knife attacks...

        If you ban something, of course the incidence of crimes with said object will be reduced.  Circular thinking and not productive to debating solutions that will hold up to Constitutional challenges.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:49:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As with all non-gun mass casualty events (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge

      The Santa Monica killings provoked a regulatory response:

      In addition to the cost in lives and money, the accident raised questions about Santa Monica's traffic safety system for the market, which operates Wednesdays and Saturdays on Arizona Avenue between 2nd and 4th streets. A 2000 e-mail that surfaced during legal proceedings indicated that a Santa Monica police sergeant had expressed concerns. It referred to the traffic arrangement at one alley off 2nd Street as "a potential disaster waiting to happen."

      ...

      The case focused nationwide attention on the issue of older drivers and on systems that fail to adequately screen such motorists for safety. But it also raised questions about municipal efforts to protect pedestrians at the increasing number of farmers markets nationwide.

      At the time of the crash, wooden-and-plastic sawhorses were used to block off Arizona Avenue for the market. A year after the deaths, the National Transportation Safety Board found that the city was partly to blame for the accident because the movable barriers were ineffective and a nearly 20-year-old traffic plan for the area did not comply with national, state or city guidelines. (The state Courts of Appeal found that the map did not show the barricades, casting doubt on the city's safety plan.) After the tragedy, city vehicles were used as barricades instead of sawhorses -- a fix that continues to make many market-goers uneasy.

      The city said Wednesday that it would consider changes to the barricading system. "We have consulted with traffic engineering experts and are willing to consider whatever the experts suggest," Schachtner said.

      http://articles.latimes.com/...
  •  Of course, having a conversation with people (0+ / 0-)

    like you is impossible. You reject the mere idea that someone may use a gun to kill other people.

  •  OK, let's have an adult conversation (4+ / 0-)

    1) If someone drove a car into a group of pedestrians, there would be a great deal of public outrage, including calls to limit driving licenses, and call for automobile manufacturers to make safer vehicles.

    2) The fact is that those madmen wnating to engage in mass public murder OVERWHELMINGLY choose guns instead of cars, baseball bats, knives, etc.  In fact, for ever one instance of murder by car, we can find at least 10 instances of murder using a gun.

    3) Indeed, unlike cars, guns are made to be highly lethal and are marketed for their ability to dispatch as many lives as possible.  However, cars are made to be idiot-proof safe (passive restraints, automatic air-bags, automatic parallel parking, automatic braking, etc), and safety is a big selling point.  Can you imagine if cars were marketed as having higher bumpers for maximal killing effect?

    4) In the past, when the public got outraged and demanded changes to cars to make them safer, the car makers obliged (after some resistance, yes) and safer cars were made.  Most gun makers are proud of the lethality of their product, and some refuse to make any changes that would make their products safer.

    5) Gun buyers want guns that are highly lethal,  The gun makers know this and want to keep their customers happy.  The public know this.  Hence, the outpouring of public concern and anguish at yet again another mass murder made possible by guns and gun policy.  

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:18:59 AM PDT

    •  Lets (5+ / 0-)

      1) When, after one of the several incidents in which a person behind the wheel has plowed into a group of people, has there been a hue and cry from the public to make cars more "hit & run friendly"? That is the only way a "safer vehicle" would make a difference in this case. Note that you use the term "public outrage", not "tiny but very vocal minority", so please answer with examples of "public outrage".

      2) For every murder using a rifle in 2009 there were six murders using a knife. While there were six firearm murders (all types of firearm) per knife murder, it would seem that knives are verifiably more likely to be used as a murder weapon than rifles or shotguns. So, as part of a rational conversation, one would assume you wish to regulate knives as appropriate for something that is six times as likely to be a murder weapon than either the rifle or the shotgun used in Colorado?

      3) The safety features you mention are designed to protect the occupants, who are, barring some fracture of the spacetime continuum, unlikely to be pedestrians at the time of the impact.

      4) Looking at the historical record, I see no incidence of public outrage to force the introduction of lap belts, shoulder belts, air bags or crumple zones. I do see complaints by the public about being forced to pay for these things they did not want.

      5) That is...I'm not sure what. When I buy a product, I want it to do what it is supposed to do. For instance, I hunt. I want a gun that is going to kill a deer with a well-placed shot, not merely wound it so it runs off and dies somewhere else. To make an argument that sounds like "car buyers want cars that have wheels and brakes and steering" is kind of a stretch.

      Yes, guns are designed to kill things. Knives are designed to cut things, that thing quite often being flesh. But we make a clear moral distinction that it is perfectly fine to own an entire collection of kitchen knives that can cut up a person, so long as we do not cut up a person. If guns are merely objects, then the same reasoning should apply.

      That's why we do not let prison inmates have knives or guns. They have violated that social compact. When you violate that social compact and have been judged by a fair legal system and found guilty, then your freedom to possess an item capable of causing such harm is restricted or removed.

      Not beforehand.

      •  Yes, there has. (0+ / 0-)
        1) When, after one of the several incidents in which a person behind the wheel has plowed into a group of people, has there been a hue and cry from the public to make cars more "hit & run friendly"? That is the only way a "safer vehicle" would make a difference in this case. Note that you use the term "public outrage", not "tiny but very vocal minority", so please answer with examples of "public outrage".
        There's actually been a lot of work into making cars safer for pedestrians:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        So, as part of a rational conversation, one would assume you wish to regulate knives as appropriate for something that is six times as likely to be a murder weapon than either the rifle or the shotgun used in Colorado?
        Knives are already highly regulated, often to a far greater degree than firearms:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  •  I agree about needing adult conversations. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, grover, IndieGuy, gerrilea

    As I have mentioned in other diaries I own guns and use them. I like to think I do so responsibly. And that the law should allow me to continue to do so. But I think it would be absolutely irresponsible of me to deny the fact that easy access to guns, and the cultural worship of guns leads to gun violence. Sure it's the person behind the gun. But if the gun lobby and pro-gun people aren't willing to woman-up and try to figure out a way to most effectively keep guns out of the hands of people likely to use them to indiscrimately kill then maybe none of Us deserves to have them.

    Sure this is a failure of our mental health systems. But there is no denying that that the very powerful gun lobby is the same one that supports the very people who strip funding for mental health treatment. All because that person says "I won't let them take your guns".  Just go back and look at the contempt vote for Holder if you want to see the irrational effect of the gun lobby.  

     Again, as a person who uses guns it is stupid to be so defensive about guns. I know how dangerous they are and take elaborate measures to keep them out of the hands of someone who could hurt somebody with them.  Our society ought to have the same right to create protections for the innocent against guns and the people who use them.  One thing that is for certain is that we dont have the right to insist that anyone who wants to be safe has to carry their own gun.  The car analogy, the knife one(different diary) the IED one (same different diary) are missing the point. We all know that guns are the cause of some of the violence and we definitely know they are the mechanism for the vast majority of it. Just my two cents but if gun owners don't want arbitrary restrictions on gun ownership we have to stop pretending that guns aren't a problem in this society. And start figuring out how to keep them from causing (yes causing) more problems.

    “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

    by stellaluna on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:51:47 AM PDT

    •  Recc'd for honest debate and conversation. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stellaluna

      Banning or restricting any and all objects that humans use to kill each other with will not change our nature, as a society, to be violent.

      We are inundated with violence in movies, video games, frakking cartoons and television.  Is it any wonder our fellow Americans have become what they see???

      A perfect example that I mentioned months ago.  I was off on a Monday afternoon and I turned on the boob-tube (something I hadn't done in months) and was channel surfing and I turned to the SyFy Channel, (not having a TV Guide) I sat watching the movie and within 5 minutes I saw a person being killed with a chain as it was pulled through his face by an unknown assailant.  I almost vomited and promptly turned off the "tel-lie-vision" and wrote them a letter.  The movie in question was called "Chain Letter".

      Those images are forever seared into my brain and all in less than 5 minutes at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

      Its not about the gun.

      And btw, I do not own a firearm.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:05:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The lifestyle that has been destroyed (0+ / 0-)

    I grew up on a farm.  We slept with the doors unlocked, the windows open and no gun on the farm.  My Dad was a WWII veteran.  He had no use for guns and even less use for anyone who thought they needed one.

  •  The one big problem that I see (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pwn3rship society, greenbell

    is that far to many people when you start talking about guns seem to lose their ability to think clearly. So here is my 2 cents worth First and foremost my right and your right to life should take precedent over anyone right to own a gun! You can of course kill someone with a car a screwdriver or anyone of a hundred different objects. However  a gun is made with only one use in mind and that is to kill. So to put in place some sane regulation make sense. So why is it so had to put regulation in place? If you have ever tried to talk to some not all gun owner it doesn't take long to realize that when it comes to guns some people have no common sense at all The head of the NRA is a good example of a man who has no common sense at all when it comes to guns. The right-wing is so eager to take away a women right to choose ,your right to vote etc yet when it comes to guns we are not allow to say a word!  So come on folks it is time for a sane conversations on guns we need reasonable gun laws put in place as the one we have are not working and lets face it no one need 100 round magazine and AK47 for hunting. For the record I do own guns and I do support better laws when it comes to gun ownership I also support better laws in many of the areas that were mention in this diary

    •  Thinking clearly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wordsinthewind, gerrilea

      That is a good point. It is an emotional issue, brought up after an emotionally charged event. Thinking clearly is something that groups are not known for in such cases (lynch mobs, the Patriot Act, etc.).

      But, if I said the "right to life should take precedence over anyone's right to have an abortion", you would probably not agree.

      But in both cases, someone sincerely believes that a life is put in imminent danger by the other person's so-called "right". But it is hard for you to deny their argument and then claim the exact same logic for your own. That is not "thinking clearly".

      You cannot even say it is a false equivalency. Actual lives and deeply cherished personal liberties are at stake for both arguments, or at least both sides believe so.

      If your argument on this or any subject can be stated as an objectionable right-wingnut soundbite just by changing the subject and object, then your argument is exactly as sound as that right-wingnut soundbite. If your position is more nuanced than that, then make sure you convey the differences to your audience.

      Hence my call for "adult conversation", not a conservative temper tantrum using liberal buzzwords. To those who have made calm and reasoned points, good for you, good for us, good for everyone.

      For everyone else...you make my point about adult conversation requiring adults.

  •  Tip and rec (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deedogg, gerrilea

    for making sense, something that is in short supply right now.

    I expect no good deed will go unpunished, though, so be ready for the flames that will likely be headed your way.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 09:13:25 AM PDT

  •  The other side is for the most part earnest. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deedogg, gerrilea

    Sure, they are woefully misinformed about firearms in general, the intersection of public health and safety with gun ownership, and the issues of liberty at stake.  But even most of those waving the bloody shirt come by their views honestly.  I'd say that about even those who at times come across as using tragedy after tragedy to grind their axes with the usual boogeymen (NRA, the GOP, etc.).

    If we're going to have an adult conversation, then these kiddy grade deep dives into gun facts and trivia aren't going to help.  Gun owning Democrats need to press home the fact that the debate, insofar as legislatures are concerned, is over.  Dead.  Deader than opposition to ACA.  And that continued intransigence in the face of a trend like this is sheer insanity.  

    I hope a few on the other side will do away with their own self-righteousness long enough to see how small and petty it looks when you use an outrageous attack like this to push an unpopular, liberty-squashing agenda.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site