Originally published May 28, 1999, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1332
And so it starts.
Actually, its beginnings go all the way to the beginning. There was Adam in the Garden of Eden, and he had nothing in particular to do. So God gave him what could be considered busy work: name stuff.
As was mentioned in the recent issue of Aria, naming is powerful magic, for to name something is to define it, and to define it is to control it. There is one overwhelming impulse hardwired into mankind’s mainframe: Survival. From survival stems the sex drive, necessary for man to survive as a species. That’s why it feels so good; to make it an attractive pastime in order to heighten the likelihood of perpetuating mankind. It’s sure not because it’s the most dignified looking thing a person can engage in to kill an hour or three. Or a minute or three. From survival stems the Second Amendment, and the defiant NRA war-cry about getting their guns when they are pried from their cold, dead fingers (to which the obvious response seems to be, “Sounds like a plan”). And, on a fairly global scale, from survival stems the need to control the environment in which man lives.
This one has remained the most elusive. Titanic commanded the seas, up until the time that the seas said otherwise. Californians can earthquake-proof their buildings all they want; if a crevice opens up under one, I’m sure that all those books and tsatskes neatly secured onto shelves will stay all nice and neat while the building itself topples. Tornados come sweeping in to remind us just how easily the finger of nature can wipe away whatever we’ve put up. Oh, sure, we’re tough guys when it comes to whacking down the Amazon rainforest. We can slice through acres of that in a day, no problem. Of course, when the oxygen then goes away, nature once again has the last laugh.
But another way we try to control our environment is to have it make sense. From that urge come conspiracy theories about JFK’s assassination, which were nicely skewered in the recent brilliant book by The Onion, Our Dumb Century, in which a headline for the November 22, 1963 edition of The Onion blares, “Kennedy Slain by CIA, Mafia, Castro, LBJ, Teamsters, Freemasons,” with a subheading reading, “President Shot 129 Times from 43 Different Angles.”
From that urge to make sense of the world, some would contend, comes all forms of religion.
And now we endeavor to make sense of the tragedy in Colorado. It couldn’t be something as simple as that some people are just evil and do evil things. That they do not consider human life sacred. That there’s something wrong with them. The perpetrators are not at fault, no, no. It was society. Society drove them to their brutal act.
My father bought a blue Buick a bunch of years back. My dad, he generally likes Buicks. Most Buicks have run well for him, so he’s stuck with the brand.
So he bought this blue Buick, and man, was this thing a lemon from the get-go. It was constantly in the shop. One thing went wrong with it, something else went wrong with it, and so on. And as soon as it went past the warranty period, it really went to hëll in a handbasket.
The term for what my dad did is “throw good money after bad,” because he kept sinking bucks into the stupid Buick, convinced that as soon as this one-more-thing was fixed, the car would run fine. He didn’t know, apparently, that the vehicle had actually been spit up from the bowels of hëll for the single and sole purpose of driving him nuts. Which is what it did until he got rid of it, finally and mercifully.
Everyone can accept that sometimes there are particular cars which are lemons. Which are just defects. And cars are remarkably simple machines when compared to the machine that is the human beings. Furthermore, the more complex a machine is, the more ways there are for the machine to break down, malfunction. The brake suddenly goes on the Buick while you’re driving, and suddenly that device is an engine of death, for the driver and whoever’s in its way. So when the morality brake goes on a human being—same thing applies. The thing is, society didn’t make the brake go on the car. It simply wore out, or perhaps was never installed properly to begin with. Same deal with humans.
But no, the media must discover what it was that brought about the tragedy, what facilitated the slaughter of innocents by evil people. And naturally the news media finds fault in—the entertainment media. Not that the news media itself could be at fault, oh no. The compelling and horrifying images shown on the news—a bloodied boy tottering out of a window, sobbing parents, and so forth—these pictures shown over and over again on CNN and morning news and evening news and newsbreaks—these couldn’t possibly prompt some budding sociopath to say, “Wow, great idea. I want to make people suffer, too. I want my picture on national TV. And look! All these experts are saying that even if I go in and blow away half the school, I’m not really at fault! It’s society! Where’s my gun?”
No, we must protect our children from the horrors of entertainment. Doom. They play Doom. That must be it. Sure, hundreds of thousands of kids play the same game and don’t go around icing the homecoming queen. Sure, it could even be considered that such games provide a harmless outlet for pent-up hostilities, channeling them into assault on electronic monsters rather than flesh-and-blood people. And before Doom, it was Dungeons & Dragons that was destroying children’s sense of reality and right and wrong.
An article that ran in the Washington Post, breathlessly entitled, “When Death Imitates Art,” knew right where to point the blame. The journalists wrote, among other observations:
“This slide to the shocking takes many forms. You can see it in pro wrestling, whose televised stompfests bring a ratings bonanza. You can see it in cartoons like South Park and Futurama, in which Tuesday night’s episode featured a planet run by robots whose goal is to kill all humans. And in Family Guy, a cartoon featuring an infant neo-Nazi character who keeps bumping people off.”
As if the idolizing of wrestlers is anything new. Quick, kids: Add Gorgeous George to the list of people responsible for bringing about JFK’s death. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t at fault; it was society’s worship of the long-haired wrestler that corrupted his sense of right and wrong.
South Park? An absurdist send-up, a Charlie Brown special on acid, was responsible for kids dying? I might give it some fragment of credence if only kids named Kenny had been targeted.
Futurama? The episode cited ends with the race of robots realizing that humans aren’t so bad at all. It was, in fact, an episode preaching for tolerance and against prejudice.
Family Guy? Stewie of Family Guy? A character capable of inventing world-conquering machines and yet finds himself helpless before the seductive cooing of the Teletubbies? My eldest, Shana, thinks Stewie is hilarious. I don’t for a moment think that it means Shana is now a menace to the life and limb of her fellow students.
But the article gets even better:
“Dark themes pervade the comic book industry, too. The trend started in 1986, according to some industry experts, with Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Watchman (sic.) In one, Batman ruthlessly kills off bad guys to clean up the city. The other is a murder mystery in which someone keeps snuffing out super-heroes who are discovered to be flawed characters.”
Ahhh… so now it’s the fault of comic books.
Never mind that the examples are utterly specious. Never mind that in Dark Knight Returns, Batman makes a point of using rubber bullets to cut down hordes of criminals in order to preserve their lives. Never mind that Watchmen (they couldn’t even get the name right), a complex and award-winning piece that defies any easy categorization, is a murder mystery in about the same way that Hamlet is a murder mystery (although I still take issue with several aspects of the story’s conclusion, but that’s neither here nor there). Comic books are what’s causing kids to flip out. Just like Catcher in the Rye was the cause of John Lennon’s death.
What the media pundits still don’t get is that just because evil people are attracted to certain comic books or TV shows, that doesn’t make the comics and the TV shows inherently evil. I mean, why don’t psychopaths influenced by Dark Knight Returns use rubber bullets? Why don’t readers of Watchmen imitate Night Owl or Silk Spectre and go out and try to stop crimes or rescue people from burning buildings? Why do pundits feel the need not only to hold up “negative influences” as being the only type that can possibly delineate human behavior, but also feel compelled to make stuff up when it isn’t there in the first place?
In the meantime, Chuck Heston hits the lecture circuit and warns against any infringement upon the Second Amendment. Restrictions, says he, are inherently bad because the next thing you know, “There’s no guns at all,” quoth he. Wow. Now there’s a threat to conjure with.
By all means, put an end to violence on television but keep the guns. Do away with the fictional murders but fight to maintain the means for performing the real ones. No one’s ever used a Magnavox to turn a student body into a pile of student bodies, no one’s ever used a copy of Watchmen to blow someone’s head off, but hey, one has to have priorities.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Bull. People with guns kill people. Can’t rid of the people, so therefore…
Guess it all goes back to defining a problem, looking for answers, trying to make sense of it all, looking for a convenient scapegoat. Stewie the evil baby caused the deaths in Colorado, not the guns.
In an insane world, perhaps that’s the most consistent answer yet.
(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705.)
• 
I find myself reminded of Rob Schrab’s intro to Jhonen Vasquez’ Johnny the Homicidal Maniac: Director’s Cut:
“Jhonen Vasquez has touched something important here. There’s a little monster inside all of us, a little wolf-faced monkey that needs to be satiated. As people, we mustn’t ignore that monster…
(Prolonged revenge fantasy)
“As humans, we are taught to forget that we are animals. Animals kill to survive and it’s just as natural for us. To deny nature is to deny life. Now that you’ve committed murder in your dream world, relax. Take a deep breath, give your monster a high five and put him away. You’ve just used an evil fantasy to keep you civilized and sane.
“Some may call this irresponsible advice. They kid themselves that their monster doesn’t exist. And when a person lies to themselves, there is less chance for spiritual growth. More than likely, their monster will step out of the Dreamworld and into the Realworld. That’s how a society gets messy. Lots of hungry, neglected monsters.”
Whenever the media decide to blame society, they never seem to blame it for not giving a dámņ about troubled kids or the mentally ill. No, it’s always video games and comic books where society screwed up.
Because if they blame comic books and video games, “they” don’t have to give anything up.
Providing help to troubled kids and the mentally ill takes money, y’know!
Why is this still a valid argument? The specifically engineered killing instrument didn’t do it.
Cut off the rest.
It must be that evil evil entertainment.
So, what is the cure?
“Gun control” is never about gun control. Thus, there is no proposal on the table that ALL of the guns (and the mortars, and the tanks, and the jet planes, and the nuclear bombs) be carted to the Marianas Trench and thrown over the side.
Indeed, the one gun Diane Feinstein especially doesn’t want “controlled” at all is her own.
No, what the proposal invariably reduces to is for some government hoodlum, usually on behalf of the American Fascist Party, to control opposing parties’ guns — with a gun!
This inevitably must be the proposal, because those opposed to the neo-fascists aren’t about to give up their guns voluntarily, so the only way to “control” these instruments is to take them away by force.
And, that of course is the ultimate reason why free people need to remain armed to the teeth. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants; it is its natural manure.”
Fascism is, by its nature, predatory — it requires victims to sacrifice in order to generate the level of “benefits” needed to satisfy the politically connected. The whole idea behind, e.g., Obamacare is to rob resources from a lightly impacted segment of the polity, e.g., the young, and give them to more heavily impacted (but more politically connected) segments, e.g., the old. This differs not a whit in substance from taking the resources of the despised, e.g., the Jews, and giving them to the preferred, e.g., the Aryans. Yes, the victims and the beneficiaries are different, but in terms of the morality, the behavior is the same.
In terms of the law, both practices outrage the Thirteenth Amendment, and calling it all a “tax” rather than a “punishment” saves neither.
Germany was the miracle state during the Great Depression, but that’s only because it was able to cover its profligacies by finding evermore outsiders to lunch upon. When such a system runs out of victims (or runs into too many victims still armed to the teeth and prepared to resist), it collapses.
Modern demodonkeyism will suffer the same fate. Eventually, its debts will become so great that it no longer will be able to finance its redistributions. At that point, those who love their lives but their freedom more will have to make the great exertion needed to root out the pollution. Of course, the fascists no more will give up their predatory position voluntarily than will their armed victims give up their guns.
That is when everyone will learn what the Second Amendment really is for.
Guns did not make their way into our constitutions so that we could assassinate the hedgehogs, and they certainly were not enshrined in organic law so that we could gun down each other over drug turf in downtown Chicago.
Guns are in the Constitution to serve as an ultimate check upon the pretensions of the self-annoited, and as part of that ultimate division and dispersal of power which keeps the country free. They were given legal protection in anticipation of that time when, for the purposes declared, they may have to be used.
It therefore is folly to parade endlessly the outrages committed by a few individual citizens thirsting to get their names in the newspaper (or for whatever else motivates them). Yes, it is folly to deny that this is a problem, but the point is that it is a different problem.
The cure being proposed is not narrowly focused nor properly tailored to impact solely the evil which I suspect all of us recognize exists. And, with 350 million firearms in private hands in this country, “gun control” (as that term is understood by the demodonkeys) cannot do anything other than insure an even greater number of deaths, either in the insurrection such an effort surely would generate or in a general civil war that inevitably would follow.
It is today, and never was anything more than, a “bell-the-cat” proposal.
Long.
Well-written.
Completely crackers.
Long.
Badly argued.
And in short is just a bunch of obfuscation and misdirection trying to disguise the fact that his argument comes down to “Fûçk you. I want to play with my gun.”
That’s what i said.
Excellent piece!
“… parade endlessly the outrages committed by a few individual citizens …”
They consistently refuse to print news about people who have prevented killings because they were armed – many, in fact, concealed-carry permit holders.
Or the fact that many of the criminals’ guns are illegal to begin with. Taking away legal guns does nothing to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.
Gun-control advocates invariably use strictly emotional arguments (“Oh, those icky nasty guns!!! Isn’t it just awful!!!”)
Gun control is all about consistently hitting the target.
The Second Amendment is more than just about “bearing arms”. It’s also about limiting the amount of power and control the government has over us.
The so-called “Obamacare” is all about the exact opposite: making sure the government has, and exercises, power and control over us (by forcing us to buy, under penalty of law, something we might not want – and which would be a lot cheaper if the Market were left to itself.) (Obamacare is really “ObamaInsurance”, because there is absolutely no care involved – there’s no funding for hospitals, doctors, &c. In fact, there’s the very opposite: more taxes on medical devices, such as pacemakers).
All the insurance in the world isn’t going to do you any good if there’s no-one to provide the service.
Still, maybe, in time, we’ll get used to 6-month waits for minor surgery, or for panels of lawyers and CPAs to decide whether we deserve to get the operation.
Oh, goody. More paranoia and lies.
Mike, Sean, I’m afraid more is required here than unsupported (and baseless) characterizations.
The Federalist # 28 explains the division of power that makes the Second Amendment necessary.
It’s the foundation of much in this country, including co-equal judicial review (which otherwise isn’t in the Constitution at all).
The bottom line here is that yours have put this country 17 trillion dollars in debt with 90 trillion dollars of unfunded pension liability.
That’s unsustainable, and sooner or later, the financial sands run out.
Then what?
There is a solution, not necessarily the best, but it will work, and that is for those who’ve protested the debt to secede from the Union, set up a new United States of America (United Red States of America? — or does that sound too much like communism?), and cancel the notes.
It’s the ultimate admission of national bankruptcy, which is the alternative in any event.
What then do the demodonkeys (or republicrats) do? They won’t be able to field an army (they won’t have any money to pay it, and no sane country will loan them any). I suppose the Chinese do have a stake in collection, so they could float a gang of mercenaries over here; but, sustaining such a force across the Pacific, even with a broke federal government’s acquiescence — it could loan (or give) them a couple of aircraft carriers — would be an unbelievable challenge to supply.
So, what would an effort to “preserve the union” under such conditions reduce to if not an armed conflict between those citizens who have remained armed?
Crackers? There already is a developed move under way to separate portions of Colorado from the demodonkey jáçkáššëš running (and ruining) things from Denver. How much longer before such sentiments turn universal?
Things like that only are “crackers” till they happen, at which point they’re called “history.”
And, the jáçkášš party is going to be on the wrong side of history because the numbers simply are against you.
Protecting your home from burglars has nothing to do with this (that’s one of those Ninth Amendment rights, Justice Scalia’s opinion notwithstanding). And, of course, there is no right to own guns for robbing a bank or defending drug turf.
It all boils down to what someone is going to do with them.
The gun-control fanatics make no distinctions here. They remain wedded inexorably to the idea that they can “control” the majority’s guns — with their own guns.
They fantasize about the idea that they’re “the government” and that, therefore, everyone else will roll over and play dead.
That’s the idea that’s crackers.
Robert: I agree that the situation has deteriorated to a point where the hope of any recovery – at least, any recovery resembling a civilized one – may be past.
As far as secession goes, I just remind everyone what happened the last time States tried that. (Of course, at the time, we had a real leader in office.)
“There is nothing ethical about robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
That is the whole point of “redistribution of wealth”. It is wrong, no matter what kind of euphemistic language they try to dress it up with.
The only thing that worries me about having an armed citizenry in order to defend against government is (and it is a big worry) that technology has evolved beyond the imagination of any of the Founders. The military (and I include the police) is heavily armed, not just with personal weapons, but with tanks, armed helicopters (and a few black ones), cannons, armored vehicles … you can add more materiel to that list, and they are well trained. Already, Army units have been conducting Urban Warfare training in a few of our cities. What purpose would that serve but for practice to use against us, in the event we get too uppity?
One of the few things we might learn from is the history of the French Resistance, during WW II. Many brave Frenchmen – and women – died to defeat the Germans. But this country has become such an urban sprawl that there are few forests to fight from.
“The whole idea behind, e.g., Obamacare is to rob resources from a lightly impacted segment of the polity, e.g., the young, and give them to more heavily impacted (but more politically connected) segments, e.g., the old. This differs not a whit in substance from taking the resources of the despised, e.g., the Jews, and giving them to the preferred, e.g., the Aryans.”
The problem that I see in that comparison is that while the young will eventually become the old. The Jews were not going to turn into Aryans or in more general terms the despised are not necesarilly going to turn in to the preffered.
Tony, the problem with your criticism is that all the young will NOT turn into all the old (some will die, others will move, &c.), and in any event, the comparison was an example only.
For an alternative comparison: Obamacare already is an exercise in the politicalization of “disease,” with people like Sandra Fluke demanding that young (and old) males provide her with advanced contraceptives (when an aspirin would do), the transgender crowd demanding “free” sex-change operations, the fat crowd demanding that self-induced diabetes also be on the covered list, &c. In this new Nirvana, no one will be allowed to avoid the expense of colon cancer merely by eating their broccoli and getting a proper supply of folic acid. In the mind of the demodonkey bureaucrat, one size must fit all, and no Athenian can be “independent” of the length of Procrustes bed.
That’s why, incidentally, the post office (for example) never can make any money even though it pays no taxes and no fees (Congress won’t allow it to conform its operations to the market).
Finally, this thread (if I understand it correctly) is about ethics. There is nothing ethical about robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is quite a bit that is political (whoever successfully can rob Peter to pay Paul always can count on the support of Paul). But, stealing the resources of Peter to pay Paul is not “taxation” (at least in the mind of a free man); rather, it is making “ņìggërš” (as one friend of mine once pointed out, “There are white ņìggërš too”) pick cotton (or, in the case of Obamadoctors, cotton balls) for free.
Because there is nothing ethical about that, there is every reason for free people to stay armed to the teeth.
The day will come when they will need their guns.
The only “cure” for Columbine would be a cure for psychopathy, and that would only come after early detection of it (both of which are pretty tall orders), since psychologists who have analyzed the evidence, including Harris’ journals, have concluded that both he and Dylan Klebold harbored serious psychological problems. While Klebold was a depressive who followed Harris’ lead, Harris was was “cold-blooded, predatory psychopath” and an intelligent, charming liar with “a preposterously grand superiority complex, a revulsion for authority and an excruciating need for control”, who lacked remorse or empathy for others, sought to punish them for their perceived inferiority, and who, when he was in front of adults, would tell them what they wanted to hear, and not just to protect himself, but because he lied for pleasure. It had nothing to do with bullying, violent video games, the Trenchcoat Mafia (of which he was never a member), Marilyn Manson, the bombing of Bosnia, or any of the other idiotic scapegoats that were offered to explain the massacre.
Sources:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html#sb2099208
Sounds like Christian Slater’s character in Heathers.
“… s the need to control the environment in which man lives.”
We have a pretty good handle on that – not by controlling (which is way above our skill set), but by adapting. We live in igloos in the arctic, in rain forests, in deserts, in windswept mountaintop monasteries, …
What we need to control is government – something we can (or at least, could) control – if we had the will power and the tools. China’s few hold absolute power over their multitudes. One man in North Korea rules absolutely (with a little help from his friends, who are his friends in order to stay alive.)
Here in the US, government has been growing exponentially, both in terms of size and of power. Abuses of power surface daily. Up to a certain point, we might be able to control that growth; beyond it, only force can prevail.
The pages of history are littered with the corpses of countries unwilling to arm themselves against stronger neighbors.
They also abound with the sad stories of populations forced into submission from their own leaders, because they were forbidden to be armed.
Most of the gun-related homicides (see Detroit or Baltimore &c, the homicide capitals of the world – we can even include D.C. – the so-called seat of government) are committed by people with illegal guns. Therefore, if we take away all the legal guns, there will be left a multitude of illegal ones, and the criminals will have an unprotected population to prey upon.
Had there been one or two armed citizens in Union Station the other day, a crazed murder would have been prevented.
And naturally the news media finds fault in—the entertainment media.
And not a thing has changed.
Actually, if anything, it’s worse now, because now we’ve got members of law enforcement also looking to put the blame on entertainment media ASAP, as well.
Stewie the evil baby caused the deaths in Colorado, not the guns.
And Batman apparently caused the deaths here in Colorado, too.
Had there been one or two armed citizens in Union Station the other day, a crazed murder would have been prevented.
On the other hand, there could have been a murder and a couple of accidental deaths because somebody thought they could be a hero. (But for some reason that possibility never seems to get brought up by those who like their guns far too much.)
I should point out: the first two quotes are from PAD’s article, the last is from the end of ZZMike’s post.
I should point out, Craig, that you’re still playing Pin the Bell on the Cat. That two members of Colorado’s legislature just lost their seats by recall for supporting more gun control proves this cat still has teeth.
It shouldn’t take all that much effort to find news items about people who have successfully defended themselves and their families because they were armed. The MSM tries to downplay those, because it doesn’t fit the agenda
The most recent: the convenience-store clerk who thwarted an armed robber, because he was armed – and ready. It also helped that he was a 30-year veteran who had seen combat and was superbly trained.
Of course, I won’t argue that that translates into the average man on the street.
But most people who carry guns – especially the concealed-carry permit owners – have had enough training to be effective. They’re not about to start shooting randomly, as you seem to believe.
The average gun owner who’s never seen real action is as likely to freeze and/or have his gun taken away and used against him as he is to do anything useful.
Which Union Station? I don’t recall any news items.
I do recall that, any time someone with a knife runs amuck and kills or injures people in a public place, people like you always talk about how if someone with a gun had been there, they could have prevented it.
You never seem to consider what the Bad Guy could have done in a crowd with a Glock with a thirty-round magazine.
“Which Union Station?” That was the guy who ran amok, saying he was going to kill the next white guy he came across:
http://topconservativenews.com/2013/09/union-square-victim-left-brain-dead-after-racially-motivated-attack/
That was posted before the victim died.
But: he wasn’t there with a gun. That’s a straw-man argument. What if he had had a bomb?
The point is, he didn’t have a weapon (as far as the news stories go). He attacked two other people.
I think you’ll find (and maybe we’ll both find) that the “average gun owner” – especially if he has a concealed carry permit (probably not possible in N.Y.) has had a certain amount of training.
There are cogent arguments on both sides, but still, if you’re unarmed and the other guy is, he makes the rules.
Disclaimer: I’m not a gun owner. But I do support the NRA.
The point is that people like you argue that someone with a gun could have stopped the Bad Guy – but you never address the fact that easy availability of guns implies a better-armed Bad Guy.
And all the training in the world won’t prepare you to pull that trigger when there’s an actual human being – possibly also with a gun and ready to shoot you – in front of you.
It is a simple fact that a law-abiding citizen who has never seen action is less likely to shoot than the Bad Guy who already has his gun out and is already engaged in a crime.
And the Bad Guy is more likely to shoot if you show him a gun.
My computer is trying to protect me from the flames. No matter how many times I reload the page, I can’t see the comments.
You’re certainly not missing much.
Sadly, this continues today. In late August in Louisiana, an 8-year-old boy played GRAND THEFT AUTO 4, then picked up a gun belonging to his 87-year-old grandmother and shot and killed her. The immediate reaction was a massive outcry against GTA4, as opposed to keeping loaded firearms out of the reach of 8-year-old children. To paraphrase Bill Maher, “only in America is the villain here not guns or bad parenting, but video games.”
And in California,the NRA is fighting passage of a law that would make it a misdemeanor to leave a gun where a minor can access it.
Please forgive me, Rev. Wulff, if I do not take your word for that rather outrageous claim. Please provide some supporting news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/california-gun-storage_n_3896584.html
Thanks for linking the article. The NRA wasn’t opposing it because they want to make sure children can get access to guns. They oppose it because it doesn’t do much to decrease the crime problem. They oppose it because it only forces gun owners – many of whom consider them self-defense weapons – to make sure they can’t be gotten hold of in the [admittedly unlikely] case their home is invaded. They oppose it because it’s just another in a long series of more restrictive laws that only make it harder for law-abiding people to own a piece of property, and nothing to make it harder for the criminal element to keep theirs.
You’re right. It won’t do much about crime. You know what it might do something about? Kids accidentally killing themselves or others. or at least holding adults accountable when their negligence contributes to a tragedy. I don’t think it goes far enough. I think it should be a felony nationwide to leave a loaded gun where a child can get to it, and in every one of these cases where a kid dies, the gun owner should be prosecuted for negligent homicide.
I agree 100%. I do have to wonder why there is not already such a law on the books.
There are already laws that hold homeowners responsible if a child – theirs or a neighbor’s – falls into their swimming pool and drowns.
The reason these laws aren’t already on the books is because the NRA fights them at every turn. It’s the same reason gun manufacturers are the *only* industry in this country that cannot be sued if their product malfunctions. People like to say that there are enough gun laws already that aren’t being enforced; research the Tiahrt amendments to see how the gun lobby has tied BAFTE’s hands. The gun nuts have elevated their 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights over everybody else’s God-given right to life.
The reverend needs to get his facts complete:
ATTORNEY: GUN THAT KILLED BOY WAS HIDDEN
Owner could be charged with negligence or illegal storage of weapon accessible to kids
By Pauline Repard12:01 a.m.June 12, 2013Updated9:13 p.m.June 11, 2013
SAN DIEGO — The attorney for a San Diego man whose gun was used in the accidental fatal shooting of a 10-year-old boy last week said Tuesday the weapon was well hidden and not in a plastic bin as a police search warrant said.
“It was not in a clear plastic container. It was not visible. It was not loaded,” attorney Danna Cotman said. “It would not be easily locatable without someone really looking for it.”
Fourth-grader Eric Klyaz was shot in the chest on June 4 as he and the gun owner’s 9-year-old daughter played with the weapon in the garage of the girl’s Miramar Ranch condominium. The boy died a short time later at a hospital.
Investigators have not said which child pulled the trigger.
The 9 mm semi-automatic pistol is owned by Todd Francis. He had belongings, including the gun and the ammunition, stored in the garage.
Neighbors said children often played in that garage as a sort of clubhouse.
San Diego police investigating the shooting obtained a search warrant for the garage, owned by Francis and his wife, Susan Francis.
Documents filed in support of the search warrant said the wife gave police permission to search without a warrant, but Francis did not, saying he wanted to talk to his attorney first.
The documents said officers seized a Sig-Sauer 9 mm handgun wrapped in a white T-shirt that was found on top of a Nike shoe box, a casing from a 9 mm Luger, a Remington shotgun and a Sig-Sauer plastic holster.
The warrant documents said Todd Francis told investigators he had an unloaded gun in a clear plastic storage container in the garage, and that his children didn’t know he had it.
In a statement issued by Cotman last week, Francis said the gun was hidden separate from the ammunition clip, and that neither were immediately accessible. The search warrant did not specify an ammo clip being seized.
Cotman on Tuesday declined to say how the gun was stored, if not in the plastic container. She said Francis had the weapon for home protection.
Investigators seeking the warrant told a judge that Todd and Susan Francis were in the process of a divorce, and that Todd Francis was moving to Ocean Beach. Cotman said she would not comment on whether the two are separating.
“No divorce papers are filed, no separation papers are filed,” the lawyer said. “He wasn’t living in the garage.”
Francis worked for the Transportation Security Administration in Las Vegas for at least a month, and had recently returned to San Diego, unemployed, Cotman said.
She said she would not comment on how much firearms training Francis has had.
Cotman also declined to discuss whether county Child Protective Services took custody of the two Francis children, the girl and her 14-year-old brother, as other news media have reported.
The teenager had been put in charge of his sister the afternoon she was playing with Eric in the garage, police said. When the shot was fired, the teen, a nearby repairman and several neighbors came running.
The boy was found lying on the garage floor. Eric’s parents got there quickly, and the Francises returned home separately.
Cotman said Todd Francis has volunteered to appear in court to answer any charges that might be filed in connection with his ownership or storage of the gun.
Homicide Lt. Jorge Duran said prosecutors could decide to file misdemeanor or felony charges against the gun owner for negligence or illegally storing a gun in a place accessible to children.
Staff writers Susan Shroder and Dana Littlefield contributed to this report. pauline.repard@utsandiego.com (619) 293-1865 Twitter: @pdrepard
© Copyright 2013 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC. An MLIM LLC Company. All rights reserved.
“… all the training in the world won’t prepare you to pull that trigger when there’s an actual human being – possibly also with a gun and ready to shoot you – in front of you.”
That argument is immediately and completely defeated by the news item in my 9 Sept comment.
Most all Bad Guys assume that their victims are unarmed, and when they find out that the proposed victim might shoot back, they usually turn tail and run.
Obviously, there’s nothing that will stop the determined guy with an AR-15. What I’m talking about is everybody else.
I see the usual NRA Useful Idiots arguments being put forward up above up to and including the nowhere near as accurate as they want it to be statement that most crimes committed with guns involve illegally obtained guns. Here’s a charming statistic for you in return. As of yesterday’s mass shooting in the DC Navy Yards, six of the ten worst mass shootings have happened in the last six years. But, please, keep patting yourselves on the back because you so valiantly stand against even sane gun control measures.
And you want to talk about legally VS illegally purchased firearms for moment? Fine, let’s do that.
The shipyard shooter? Despite a screwed up history, obtained his firearms legally.
The Virginia Tech shooter? Despite a screwed up history, obtained his firearms legally.
Aurora, Colorado theater shooter? He obtained his firearms legally and stocked up on thousands of rounds online in the months before the shooting.
Fort Hood shooter? Legally obtained firearm.
Newtown? Legally obtained firearms.
Binghamton, N.Y. Shooting? Legally purchased firearms.
Sikh Temple shooting? Legally purchased firearm.
Luby’s in Texas? Both guns were purchased legally despite a history of mental illness.
Santa Monica rampage? The shooter, who legally had the weapon he should not have had, built the semiautomatic rifle he used in the attack using components he legally purchased from various sources across the country.
Accent Signage Systems shooting? The shooter bought the guns legally.
Seal Beach shooting? The guns he had were purchased years earlier and legally.
Tucson shooting? Insanely, Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun.
And I could keep going. I could keep going with a massive list of mass shootings where the firearms used were purchased legally. But, please, keep patting yourselves on the back as you stand on the pile of dead bodies and raise a blood soaked hand while demanding that even common sense gun control measures need to be stopped and shut down rather than placed into law.
Be proud, boys. Be proud.
Who needs to worry about illegal guns when nobody is being stopped from getting a legal gun?
And then there’s this lovely story of two concealed carry permit holders who decided to vent their road rage by shooting and killing each other in Michigan.
“Authorities say both men had licenses to carry concealed weapons.”
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/268289/280/Enraged-drivers-shoot-kill-each-other
Do they qualify as the bad men with guns or the good men that stop them? Or do you check both boxes here? Someone check with the NRA on that one for me.
Jerry is another who needs to get his facts straight.
The guns used at Newtown were legally owned by the MOTHER of the shooter, who had purchased the Bushmaster rifle from a gun store in Windsor Locks.
Mrs. Lanza was NOT charged as an accessory to the Sandy Hook massacre because she had been SHOT DEAD by her son in the course of his stealing the guns.
I know of no state where one “legally” obtains a firearm by burglarizing a home and killing the home owner (but maybe they do things differently in Virginia).
In any event, as any good homicide detective knows, the first people one checks when someone is killed with a gun are the victim’s relatives, and it’s unlikely (on a percentage basis) that most of the guns used in these crimes are unlawfully obtained.
So, I won’t berate him too much.
However, I really am tired of listening to demodonkeys airily tell me about how they are for only “reasonable” controls.
The fact is that Mr. Chandler has yet to put any proposal on the table. The Bushmaster probably is one of the firearms the Second Amendment specifically protects, so just what is it that you “reasonably” want to do?
Nice to know that you’re still a driveling dûmbášš. Life has so few stable constants these days.
Adam Lanza, the shooter, was living with his mother per the law enforcement investigation in the case as well as other informational sources. He didn’t have to burglarize a home and steal the guns because he was in a house filled guns and other fun toys like them. These were the household firearms of the household he lived in.
And, pursuant to the comment made above about guns in crimes being illegally obtained weapons, these were all purchased legally for that household. Spin as much as you want, but this fact will not change.
And I have put forward a number of suggestions in the past, but you were usually to busy exploring your own backside with your head to pay attention.
Jerry once again is showing his usual jáçkášš stripes:
1. First, he tries to overwhelm critics by showing how good he is at looking things up on the internet.
2. When that doesn’t work, he reverts to crude, ad hominem attacks (as if the sound of it could make for want of sense).
3. When that fails, he pulls out his 4-letter word dictionary and uses it liberally (we’ve yet to see that here though — yet).
4. When that doesn’t work, he pretends he’s an ostrich, sticks his head in the sand and ášš in the air, and demands that everyone else follow his lead in going silent.
5. When that doesn’t work, he has an apoplectic fit and foams at the mouth:
“I’ll huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow the house down!”
But, if he really were such an “expert” at looking up things on the internet, he readily would have found CNN’s report that Mrs. Lanza (the lawful owner of the rifle) was found, shot dead.
And, he still hasn’t provided, for any of us new to his antics, any LAWFUL proposal for rectifying the problem.
You could station a deputy sheriff at the school (what long has been done in this corner of Florida), but I seem to recall you weren’t for that.
Is it time to reach for that dictionary?
Now when I try to load the page, McAfee says “Risky Connection Blocked”.
What are you people doing?
Spying for the Russians; helping them to disarm the country.