Search This Blog

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Gun Violence - ongoing debate

Have we really decided that we can NEVER solve this problem?  Do we not wonder why it continues to occur here but not in countless other countries?
As I have previously said too many times, the incidents like the latest Fort Hood shooting (following the previous Ft Hood incident by a mere 5 years) finds no political will for doing anything important or substantive to address causes and prevention.  The Republican candidate for governor of TX today was interviewed on the topic and, of course, saw absolutely no need for "mental background checks" for those seeking to purchase semi-automatic handguns at TX gun dealer stores.  He would apparently rather accept the inevitability of a continuation of these incidents than dare to place any impediment in the way of any Texan no matter how impaired from exercising his 2nd amendment rights.  Sad, sad. (April 2014)

(December 2012)  I find oddly amusing the declarations by the spokespersons for the NRA as to what lessons have been learned and what ought to be done next to reduce incidence of gun deaths and shootings. My interpretation and recollection of what they have said is that none of the "blame" for the bad things that happen can be laid at their feet. None are the result of policies and actions taken at the insistence of the NRA. None are due to the requirements they have placed on elected politicians to make the 2nd amendment protections the most important protections, trumping other "rights" such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those whose rights are cut short by gun violence. They don't want to allow consideration of renewing the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. They don't want to consider the need for reducing the capacity of magazines. They don't want to allow discussion of "cop killing" bullets vs. shells appropriate for hunting most game. But these three possibilities are vitally needed and necessary now. No, I don't believe they necessarily would have totally eliminated the possibility of all bad school and public shootings. But they would reduce the annual death toll from such future events. Instead, the NRA says we should arm Barney Fife and place him in every school. Who would pay for this? Local school taxpayers, of course, who likely would not pony up the funds to accomplish this. And the NRA talks about doing something about those who are mentally incapable of handling firearms. This part of their solution, however, is only vaguely addressed. Not much of a helpful approach there, NRA.

4 comments:

Wanderinggrandpa said...

It's "one small step" the nation is taking even allowing debate to begin on this contentious issue. I hear nobody advocating repealing the 2nd Amendment or unnecessarily restricting the rights of hunters and homeowners to defend themselves & their property. But the fact that we have gone overboard in allowing assault weapons & magazines with too many bullets impinges on others rights to "life, liberty, etc." is now being discussed. Good for us! We'll see if anything actually changes or if this just ends up being a sales boon for gun dealers.

Wanderinggrandpa said...

The NRA president, Keane, when asked to discuss the liklihood of Congress passing any kind of legislation dealing with assault weapons couldn't even bring himself to respond directly. He couldn't talk about "assault weapons". He had to change the term and talk about "so-called" assault weapons. Why are they "so-called"? Why does he object to referring to automatic and semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines as assault weapons? Is any weapon worthy of the designation as an "assault weapon" in his vocabulary?

Wanderinggrandpa said...

Needless to say, I endorse the President's decision issuing the 23 Executive Orders today. More to follow.

Wanderinggrandpa said...

4/6/14 So how does the state of KS react to latest Ft Hood shooting? By denying local cities and counties any leeway to regulate the tools of gun violence in their locales. "The measure also would prevent cities and counties from enacting restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition, or imposing rules on how guns must be stored and transported. Existing ordinances would be void, and local governments could not use tax dollars for gun buy-back programs."