Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:52 PM Jul 2012

Just an observation in the wake of national shooting tragedies...

I'm guessing this won't be a popular post for some and I can understand why - because these often are contentious debates. This is just my opinion and nothing more. You may agree with it and you may not, which is perfectly within your rights.

Speaking of rights, I do find it interesting that so many people are quick to defend the rights of other gun owners in this debate. I'm not the type of person who suggests we go round up guns and that banning all guns will somehow lead to a safer society (I'm too ill-informed on the overall subject to make that claim). However, it's interesting how the first freedoms stripped when something like this happens is of those who probably don't own a gun and are just average Americans doing average, everyday things.

I was in school, elementary, back when Columbine hit. So, I saw the direct impact it had on my entire learning experience from that point forward, especially when I reached high school. The schools cracked down - you couldn't wear baggy clothes or long jackets and the school was almost always on lockdown during class hours. If you wanted to enter, and you weren't a student, you could only enter through one door, at the front of the school, and had to instantly go check in at the offices for approval. You were free to leave, of course, but it wasn't always easy gaining reentry back into the school. Our security were officers of the Salt Lake City Police Department, who patrolled the halls with guns.

So, high school was an odd experience, even though I was there after the events in Columbine.

A few years ago, Salt Lake had a mass-shooting similar to what you had in Colorado. It took place in a mall, I'm not sure if you remember hearing about it, but when the mall reopened, they dramatically changed their rules. You're now not allowed to wear clothing that is commonly recognized as gang-related (whatever the hell that is), as well as non-offensive attire and clothing that could hide weapons.

Now, I'm guessing you're going to see a new crackdown on dressing up for movie premiers. I wouldn't be surprised if this is implemented right away for any future showings of Batman and carried over for every other movie that people might dress up for when they go to a showing (whether replays of a Harry Potter film, Star Wars or whatever).

My point here is that we're always quick to defend the 2nd Amendment and demand that we don't even discuss the possibility of stricter gun control because, gosh, one gunman doesn't represent a whole group. And yet the ones who are hurt the most when something like this happens aren't the gun owners, but rather average Americans who have to once again give up just a little bit of their freedom to placate a concerned country. After Columbine, trench coats were banned. After 9/11, you were no longer allowed to greet someone at their airport gate and the list of what you couldn't take on airplanes grew so long that you could get lost just reading it. We have airport screenings, searches and paranoia to the point where people don't even feel comfortable flying anymore (ironic, considering this was supposed to make us feel comfortable flying).

And yet no one dare question the 2nd Amendment. So, as your freedom to carry a gun goes unimpeded, we're all suffering for losers who actually use a gun to open fire on a group of individuals. We have to adapt and change our lives, give up our little freedoms, just because this gunman might've looked a certain way or acted a certain way. Was it the trench coat that killed all those students at Columbine? Of course not. Did the costume this kid wore kill all those people in the movie theater? Of course not. Yet those are the first two things that will come under fire - along with movies, music, comic books and every other form of entertainment we can pin his crime on.

But guns? Don't go there! That's not even open for debate. Everything else - from his attire to the movies he watched to the way he did his hair? Absolutely fair game. Just don't talk about the weapon he used.

That's off-limits.

I find that interesting.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just an observation in the wake of national shooting tragedies... (Original Post) Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 OP
the gun lobbies right to arms Fresh_Start Jul 2012 #1
Excellent post malaise Jul 2012 #2
Evey cinema I've been to has one main entrance. RegieRocker Jul 2012 #5
He used the emergency exit door malaise Jul 2012 #13
Would it have satified you if he had tossed in an explosive and killed everyone? RegieRocker Jul 2012 #3
He didn't, though. He used a gun. Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 #6
So the f**k what RegieRocker Jul 2012 #8
No, you can't talk about guns in a rational way. Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 #11
No it is you. You're accusatory and that never RegieRocker Jul 2012 #14
I never accused anyone of anything. Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 #15
No, it's you. elehhhhna Jul 2012 #16
Yeah? Well my way is even better than yours chowder66 Jul 2012 #20
Thank you! ananda Jul 2012 #4
Why do people always work on the symptoms? Gregorian Jul 2012 #7
Nothing to gain becomes nothing to lose in a flash. And... elehhhhna Jul 2012 #18
No argument there. Edweird Jul 2012 #9
Excellent observation. archiemo Jul 2012 #10
I see your point sarisataka Jul 2012 #12
I agree with the knee jerk reactions Mojorabbit Jul 2012 #21
The picture gallery at this link lists 21 mass shootings since 1949, only Lydia Leftcoast Jul 2012 #17
AMC already banned costumes nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #19
Excellent framing of the issue. n/t chowder66 Jul 2012 #22

Fresh_Start

(11,330 posts)
1. the gun lobbies right to arms
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:56 PM
Jul 2012

is more important than the non-gun lobbies right to not have to deal with arms....

malaise

(267,823 posts)
2. Excellent post
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:58 PM
Jul 2012

Add the economic costs to security costs so that the NRA and its friends can cash in on the weapons trade.

 

RegieRocker

(4,226 posts)
5. Evey cinema I've been to has one main entrance.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:01 PM
Jul 2012

A couple of metal detectors $4600.00.
Yep that is massive to save countless lives.

malaise

(267,823 posts)
13. He used the emergency exit door
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:48 PM
Jul 2012

His car was parked right by that door - read how he did it.
Why should everyone else pay for the NRAs right to flood the planet with weapons

 

RegieRocker

(4,226 posts)
3. Would it have satified you if he had tossed in an explosive and killed everyone?
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:59 PM
Jul 2012

So you wouldn't be bothered with your troubles?

This isn't about guns, it's about the loss of loved ones and a mentally ill person that didn't get help or restrained.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
6. He didn't, though. He used a gun.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:10 PM
Jul 2012

And you missed the point entirely. You say it isn't about the guns, but is it really about the loss of loved ones? Who's going to pay in the end for this guy's shooting rampage? It won't be those with guns, since we can't ever have an open debate about the use of guns in society, it will be everyone else - from the fans who want to dress up to watch the movie, to those who look a certain way or act a certain way.

You know that. You're already starting to see the narrative take place in the media - his hair was red! Just like the Joker in a scene from the last Batman! He also reenacted a scene from one of the comic books!

The narrative is going to lead to further clamp down on OUR rights, while the weapon he uses, the way he committed the crime, will once again be ignored because you just can't talk about guns - even in a rational way. I mean, just look at your post. I felt I was pretty reasonable and you reply in a snarky way that adds little to the conversation. You can't debate guns. It just can't happen in society. So, we'll keep those off-limits, but then take away every other freedom.

 

RegieRocker

(4,226 posts)
8. So the f**k what
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:32 PM
Jul 2012

Timothy McVeigh did.

I can't talk about Guns in an rational way? It is you that can't. You're avoidance of the fact that he could have done this evil deed with many different tools is the flood light on your inability to have a discussion about guns.

There are already regulations.
They need to be enforced.
Pre Crime is not in existence yet.
A way has to be found to recognize someone about ready to go off the deep end.

If you think guns can be totally banned, your efforts are going to be wasted.

Therefore you're promoting a non solution instead of promoting a workable one.

The easiest thing is Metal Detectors. Cheap and affordable. Or allow everyone to carry concealed weapons. He wouldn't have survived 3 secs if everyone had a weapon in the theater.

Others have stated "he used gas". It was tear gas and trust me you can shoot someone under it's effects at close range.
I know. I was in the military and was often given the opportunity of experiencing it's wonderful effects.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
11. No, you can't talk about guns in a rational way.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:38 PM
Jul 2012

Just look at the tone of your post. You automatically go on the defensive and dig in to the point where debating you is useless. You use hypotherticals that do nothing to advance the argument.

How many bombings have we seen from domestic terrorists? How many shootings have we seen from domestic terrorists? When was the last time a bomb was even used in a spree killing? Most massacres in the United States are not caused by bombs or explosives, but by guns.

Of course, as you've proven, we can't talk about that. Yet how many people will freely talk about the need to ban violent video games or violent movies? How many people will now advocate for stricter laws at the front entrance of a movie theater - you know, on how you look or what you wear?

That's the point.

 

RegieRocker

(4,226 posts)
14. No it is you. You're accusatory and that never
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:48 PM
Jul 2012

helps in a discussion. I was just hitting you back. Look. As it stands now 38% of murders are committed without a gun. If you took guns out of the equation that number would go up. Many many people would still be murdered. So making guns illegal will NOT stop murder. However recognizing and getting people help is the solution. So you propose getting rid of the guns as a solution and having many people still murdered. I however propose getting people help and bringing the murder statistics way down for all types of murders.
My way saves more people. And we should start working on it right away. Start saving lives. It is the murderous intent that is our enemy not the weapon or tool choice. You want to have a discussion about that then go for it.

 

Drunken Irishman

(34,857 posts)
15. I never accused anyone of anything.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:58 PM
Jul 2012

The fact is, no one can talk about guns without being attacked as some raving loon who wants to strip away your Second Amendment rights. We're so quick to snap back at even the suggestion that maybe something should be done here and yet, that same reflex doesn't exist when actual rights are taken away. You and I both know we're not going to get stricter gun control out of this. If it didn't happen after Columbine or Virginia Tech or that shooting on the military base a few years ago, it's not going to happen from this.

But the same thing can't be said about other rights. We've seen this play before. We scapegoat a certain look or movie or style and then railroad that into the ground. With Columbine, if you were wearing a trench coat, you were obviously disturbed and a potential threat, so we shunned 'em in schools.

We're already seeing that his crime might have been inspired by Batman! And what does that do? It sets the narrative that these types of movies are bad and we care more about violent video games and violent movies and comic books and the suggestion that they might be bad for society than actually daring to question the fact this happened with a gun.

That's all I'm saying. Should we ban guns? Of course not. I don't believe we should ban guns. But then I'm also having a difficult time reconciling the idea that someone needs a semi-automatic AR-15. It seems to me, whenever these events happen, it's not the hand guns or pistols that cause the massive death toll - it's the semi-automatics. Which are perfectly legal. And you know what? Maybe they should remain legal - but don't dare question that because then you'll get attacked by pro-2nd Amendment advocates. Of course, I don't recall there ever being anything in the Constitution about semi-automatics.

 

elehhhhna

(32,076 posts)
16. No, it's you.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:21 PM
Jul 2012

"Your way", is, however, making an excellent case for healthcare for all, including mental health sceenings and treatment. So that's good.

chowder66

(9,011 posts)
20. Yeah? Well my way is even better than yours
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:38 PM
Jul 2012

Take away guns and/or regulate the hell out of them, get help for everyone including those who no longer have their stockpiles of guns, give free anger management and coping therapy to everyone, help those with mental health issues, re-civilize everyone, bring back manners and consideration of others and everything will be good all around forever and ever.

So there....

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
7. Why do people always work on the symptoms?
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:27 PM
Jul 2012

And that's even as if a symptom is baggy clothing. It isn't. But even if it were, they'd be accomplishing nothing, and most likely just irritating the real issue.

I have only begun to realize the incredibly special environment I grew up in. Intelligent, liberal, conscious. And I'm talking about where I spent my time, not my family. I found a family that was so aware. They saw right through all of the haze. Life was so easy. There was no aggression, no confusion, no adversarial positions. And from that I've always had a platform from which to see the craziness our society produces. And I believe one of the ways we got in this mess was from the top down. I don't want to blame capitalism as much as how we've designed this country. Even the way Bush defended dropping bombs on innocent people. That alone sent a message to those who hadn't formed good foundations for their lives. One of the reasons that family I spent time with was happy was that the father had inherited millions. He didn't have to run to work every morning. Money is one of the big problems that is producing this kind of behavior in society. People don't need to be rich, but running scared and perhaps ill just sets the stage. It helps create situations where children end up the victims. It doesn't take much desperation to turn someone on other people. Especially if they don't have moral values. Even if poor, a high quality education goes a long way in giving children and adults some hope.

I'm all for a society without guns. But I believe we can solve most of our problems by working on making a good society. A good society won't take up arms against each other.

 

elehhhhna

(32,076 posts)
18. Nothing to gain becomes nothing to lose in a flash. And...
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:24 PM
Jul 2012

thank you for an excellent post. Also, our Dronewar king has a Nobel Peace Prize. Jacked up world we got here. Just saying.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
12. I see your point
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:38 PM
Jul 2012

and agree with much of it.

The trouble when it comes to gun control (IMHO) is that whenever a tragedy happens there are immediate knee jerk reactions and proposals. I bet we see one before Monday. The trouble is rarely, if ever would they have one iota of affect on the incident that triggered it. Even those who propose the laws will admit this is the case.

So we have a law that really won't do anything that now riles up the pro-gun side. Despite the stereotype, many are well educated and technically knowledgeable. They will go up and rip the law to shreds showing it affects no one who is already obeying the law.

Then in comes the extremists. The NRA will oppose it talking about laws on the books and slippery slope. Brady comes in with false statistics and chanting 'we have to do something'. The NRA threatens legislators and Brady gets a celeb to make a statement.

By this time us average Joe/Janes are confused and bored of the SSDD. Congress takes the easy way out and does nothing. NRA claims victory, Brady wrings their hands both sides grow farther apart.

We wait for the next tragedy to do it all over again.

Mojorabbit

(16,020 posts)
21. I agree with the knee jerk reactions
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:39 PM
Jul 2012

and someone shouts a version of "think of the kids" and everyone gives up a bit of their freedom without fighting back to perhaps gain a bit of illusory safety. It is insidious and little by little more freedoms are lost. It is like a mini version of how the patriot act was passed.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
17. The picture gallery at this link lists 21 mass shootings since 1949, only
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:21 PM
Jul 2012

that's not all of them. Specifically, the article doesn't mention Kip Kinkel, the 15-year-old who killed his parents and shot several classmates at the Springfield, Oregon high school, and the disgruntled graduate student who killed seven professors in the physics department at the University of Iowa some time in the early 1990s; one of the victims was the husband of a former teaching colleague.

It seems that such incidents are becoming more frequent. The first I was ever aware of was the incident at the University of Texas where a man went to the top of a tower and started shooting random passersby. It's listed in the photo gallery, 1966, and he killed 16 people and wounded many others. I don't remember --and the article doesn't say--whether he killed himself or the cops killed him, but an autopsy found a brain tumor that could have warped his personality.

The next shooting I actually remember is the one in the McDonald's in San Ysidro in 1984, where 21 people were killed.

But the shootings seem to be coming closer and closer together. There have been so many that I never even heard of some of the later ones listed.

Why? Are the shooters people who would have been in locked mental hospital wards in earlier years? Are people justifiably angry but too ignorant to know the real reasons for their suffering, so they find a scapegoat?

I was in Norway at the time of the bombing and shootings there. In one orgy of killing, Breivik killed more people than are murdered in Norway in an average year. I was one of several weekend guests at the vacation home of an American friend who has been living in Norway for 35 years. What came out in the discussions was that there are plenty of guns in Norway, but mostly in the rural areas. City people just don't think they need one and have no particular desire to own one, unless they do hunting or sport shooting.

If you read the British press, you'll see a lot of concern about "knife crime." Now given the way the Conservative government there is cutting benefits right and left and leaving a lot of the poor with no way out, I'm not surprised that there's deadly crime, but note: it's almost all "knife crime."

The type of massacre that occurred in Aurora yesterday would have been impossible if the murderer had been limited to using a knife. I once read an article by a forensic pathologist about "what TV detective shows get wrong," and one of the points he made was that the common scene in which a person gets stabbed in the back and immediately drops dead is highly unlikely. Unless the attacker is knowledgeable about anatomy and/or extremely lucky, one stab wound leaves the victim in pain but quite able to fight back, so it usually takes several stab wounds to kill a person. At the end of that section of the article, the author noted that if you were in the typical Agatha Christie story where someone stabbed Colonel Mustard during a country weekend, it would be easy to find the murderer: he would be the one who was exhausted and covered with his victim's blood.

If someone came into a crowded place and started stabbing people, the rest of the crowd could rush him from all sides and subdue him at little risk to any individual. Not so with a shooter.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Just an observation in th...