Why the same old gun-control answers aren’t comforting
As the father of two small boys, I’m as haunted by last week’s massacre in Newtown, Conn., as anyone who didn’t know personally the victims or their killer.
I have the same fears as all parents anticipating the long, potentially treacherous path ahead of their children in this broken world of ours. My fears are only multiplied by my doubts there are many real options for thwarting future slayings in other unsuspecting towns.
The two primary questions we ask after mass killings are: Why do some people act so heinously? And how can we keep others from doing so?
The first question invariably draws answers like: madness, isolation, social awkwardness or marginalization, familial dysfunction, a craving for fame (or infamy), the prevalence of violence in our popular culture, and evil pure and simple.
The second question typically brings suggestions for treating these mental illnesses and social failures. That, and gun control.
Guns typically don’t make the list of answers to “why,” only to “how.” They are but one means for mass killings — albeit the most common one — not a motivation. Yet, guns become our central focus in times like these.
I understand the impulse. How do we begin to treat the mad, and especially people, such as the Newtown killer, with only mild disorders? As important as it is for us to attempt to rebuild the American family, can we wait the years or perhaps generations such an endeavor might consume, when another mass killing could happen today? How, within the bounds of constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, does one dial back the violence found in our movies, TV shows, video games and even music?
Whatever a killer’s motivation, guns seem to be his means of choice. Better to address that, right?
As keenly interested as I am in preventing the next mass public shooting, I see little reason to find comfort in gun control.
Consider the high school rampage in Columbine, Colo. The year was 1999, amid a decade-long ban on “assault weapons,” those firearms defined by nothing more than the minds of legislators who drafted the ban on them. (Indeed, the main characteristic common to the weapons banned then seems to be the likelihood one might have seen a similar weapon in a shoot-em-up, kill-em-up movie — an implicit nod to the overriding impact of our entertainment culture.)
One of the Columbine killers was armed with a pump-action shotgun (not exactly a semiautomatic weapon) he fired 25 times. He also fired 96 rounds from a 9-mm carbine while using 10-round magazines — the limit of choice for those who say 30-round magazines are the problem.
When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced his ban on sugary soft drinks larger than 16 oz., most observers recognized the folly of limiting the size of one drink when a person could simply buy two or more of them. Does no one else find it similarly illogical to think a person bent on mass murder won’t just carry multiple weapons with smaller mags, or that lives will be saved in the few seconds it would take an experienced gun handler to change magazines?
I raise these objections not to defend specific weapons or magazines with any number of bullets. Neither I nor anyone I know owns an “assault weapon” (as far as I know), and I have no particular affinity for bullets that come in sets of 20 or 30 or 40 rather than 10. While I generally support gun-ownership rights, I’m open to practical suggestions that can reasonably square with the Second Amendment.
Nor do I think the situation is hopeless, or as good as it gets. I do think we can make our communities safer. But I think the most effective solutions will be less comfortable — such as asking when it’s OK to invade the privacy of those who are dangerously mentally ill — and more expensive — such as ensuring there are armed guards or designated weapons-carrying citizens even at schools and other “gun-free zones” — than merely banning particular weapons and ammunition.
The lives of innocents deserve the fullness of our thought and attention, not old ideas that have been sitting on the shelf, waiting for a crisis.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
457 comments Add your comment
Ray
December 20th, 2012
4:55 pm
Ahhh, a walk in gun nut land . . . what a bunch of losers.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
December 20th, 2012
4:55 pm
Small minds focus on the how.
Big thinkers focus on the why.
Focus on the problem.
Ivan
December 20th, 2012
4:56 pm
“So why do the libs want to take our guns away?”
I always heard the left wants to take everyone’s guns away because, they themselves, have never learned to shoot straight.
md
December 20th, 2012
4:59 pm
“Ahhh, a walk in gun nut land . . . what a bunch of losers.”
I think that means one’s arguments are illogical so it’s time to move to stage 2….name calling.
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
4:59 pm
Hunters do not need assualt rifles. They generally stalk, take aim and fire. If fact, many military snipers use single shot 50 cal. rifles with no clips.
You do not need an assualt rifle for home defence. If you were crazy enough to shoot an AK-47 in your house, the bullet could easily go out the window and kill a child next door. In fact, a .45 shot from a handgun could do the same thing. For home defence, a skeets barrel 12 guage shotgun is the best as it will kill the bad guy without also killing the person next door.
And yet, when any mention is make about banning assualt rifles, many people yell like stuck pigs and give the impression they would rather die and go to hell before giving up their “right” to own these weapons.
Since assualt rifles are not needed either for hunting or home defence, I can only conclude the “fight to the death” attitude of those determined to have these weapons conceals some physical or psychological need that only “the big iron” can compensate for.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
December 20th, 2012
5:00 pm
One knife and 15 minutes in a room full of lambs would still equate to the same level of slaughter
It’s not the method.
Focus on the problem.
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
5:01 pm
Don’t Tread – 4:30
What is “statist”?
Stephenson Billings
December 20th, 2012
5:02 pm
Ray @ 4:55 –
Feel free to head over to Jay’s blog where you can play patty-cake and sing kumbaya w/your fellow libs….
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 20th, 2012
5:10 pm
The same low-information progs who think banning any particular kind of weapon or clip is going to solve this problem also whine about the effort to ban illegal drugs. Neither effort will accomplish anything useful.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 20th, 2012
5:12 pm
Obozo and other liberal fascists: All sideshows, all the time.
As Tib said, focus on the problem.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 20th, 2012
5:15 pm
Is it possible it makes some sense…
No.
oldguy
December 20th, 2012
5:16 pm
When it comes to debating gun laws a lot of you libs here are totally disarmed.
Ban “high caliber, military style weapons now”? The AR 15 reportedly used in the school shooting was .223 Cal., the same as the standard military arm, one of the smallest and lightest rifle rounds in existence. a very low caliber.
Banning private ownership of weapons period? Mexico totally bans private ownership of firearms (with very few exceptions) so they must be a gun killing free zone, right? How is that working out?
Almost every household in Switzerland has a firearm, the military there requires all their troops to maintain their assigned government weapons at home and almost all males are in the home guard. Per 1000 population they are the most heavily armed people on the face of the earth. Must be a free fire zone right? possible the most crime free country on the face of the earth.
Now lets look at some facts:
The CDC did a study (google it) The conclusion?
The best evidence we have to date is that if there is any positive impact from gun control laws, that the impact is so slight that we can not even detect it. The CDC study was unable to find any such benefit and recommended another as they were unable to make a determination.
The later study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review remains the largest and most extensive study conducted on the subject. With the exception of Wilson, everyone on the panel was on record as being pro-control before their appointment. The panel conducted its own research and examined 253 journal articles, 43 government publications, and 99 books.
The panel was unable to find a single law or regulation that had a positive effect of overall violent crime or accidents involving firearms. The closest to a positive effect was that gun control laws and regulations can reduce the number of suicides committed with firearms even though it has no impact on the overall rate.
That is the best evidence we have to date. So, if gun control laws at best have such little impact that it can not be detected, just what do you suggest?
I will ask one other question of you. To my knowledge, in the past 15-20 years, there has been exactly one random mass killing involving the death of at least three people that happened in a place where the victims were legally allowed to be armed. Doesn’t that suggest that such “nuts” are at least in part attempting to make sure they will encounter unarmed victims?
Why were the terrorists on 9/11 carrying only box cutters? They had done their research and knew that the government would prevent anyone on the aircraft from being armed so all they needed were simple blades to hijack the planes and kill the crew.
Gene Hollon
December 20th, 2012
5:16 pm
I have signs on my residence stating”THERE IS NOTHING INSIDE THIS HOME WORTH RISKING YOUR LIFE FOR.THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS ARMED AND WILL PROTECT LIFE,LIMB, AND PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE” These are prominently displayed. Until all you BAN THE GUN CROWD, displays in your yard or on your home “THIS PROPERTY IS A GUN FREE ZONE”you are merely parroting what some vote seeking politician or liberal CNN talking head has said .The majority of them do not know what an assault rifle.or machine gun really is.I hear this description used inappropriately over and over.It would be just as accurate to call a 4 cylinder chevy , an Indianapolis race car.Until you and they are educated sufficiently on the subject matter,all would be well advised to refrain from speaking about something you know so little about.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 20th, 2012
5:19 pm
THERE IS NOTHING INSIDE THIS HOME WORTH RISKING YOUR LIFE FOR.THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS ARMED AND WILL PROTECT LIFE,LIMB, AND PROPERTY WITH DEADLY FORCE
You have just advertised that there are guns to steal in your house.
An incredibly dumb idea.
td
December 20th, 2012
5:21 pm
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
4:59 pm
Can you please show me where the 2nd Amendment is only about hunters or even self defense?
td
December 20th, 2012
5:22 pm
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
4:59 pm
BTW: a .223 is very effective for hunting purposes and is legal to hunt with in most states.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 20th, 2012
5:25 pm
Shouldn’t we also be banning Air Jordans? No one “needs” them and they get children killed.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
5:29 pm
Lil Bar @ 5:12 – I believe our first hurdle would be the liberals actually caring if kids get killed and wanting to solve the problem.
It sounds like a callous thing to say but these are the same libs that, only after they realized they had a problem in Benghazi, went and aped for the camera in front of caskets of Stephens and the CIA heroes.
“Assault” weapons were banned in Connecticut, fat lot of good that did.
So what do the libs want to do?
Not solve the problem, obviously.
JR
December 20th, 2012
5:30 pm
“Hunters do not need assualt rifles. They generally stalk, take aim and fire. If fact, many military snipers use single shot 50 cal. rifles with no clips.
You do not need an assualt rifle for home defence. If you were crazy enough to shoot an AK-47 in your house, the bullet could easily go out the window and kill a child next door. In fact, a .45 shot from a handgun could do the same thing. For home defence, a skeets barrel 12 guage shotgun is the best as it will kill the bad guy without also killing the person next door.
And yet, when any mention is make about banning assualt rifles, many people yell like stuck pigs and give the impression they would rather die and go to hell before giving up their “right” to own these weapons.
Since assualt rifles are not needed either for hunting or home defence, I can only conclude the “fight to the death” attitude of those determined to have these weapons conceals some physical or psychological need that only “the big iron” can compensate for.”
Everything(And I mean EVERYTHING) you posted is factually inaccurate.
A: Most hunters still-hunt. Hardly anyone stalks deer around here.
B: I know a lot of people who use AR-15s for hunting. Hell, my father-in-law just switched to one because of the cheap ammo, light weight, lower recoil, and excellent accuracy. I also hunt with an AR-15.
C: Handguns are in essence a compromise. They are inherently bad at killing things. AR-15s are excellent weapons for home defense(and have become very popular for the same reason Police use them). Those reasons are:
-Easy to shoot(good ergonomics, good sights, intuitive)
-Low recoil
-Light weight
-Reduced chance of penetration(modern fragmenting ammo poses less of a risk to your neighbors than 12 gauge buckshot or pistol hollow points while still providing excellent terminal performance)
-Less likely to miss the target(easier to aim than a pistol under stress, more precise than a shotgun)
D: The reason why everyone is yelling like “stuck pigs” is because your effort to disarm them is entirely misguided and based on fantasy. You have shown your own ignorance on the capabilities(and limitations) of the weapons you are so afraid of in these posts. Its akin to banning Ford Mustangs because they are “more lethal” than minivans and because no one “needs” them.
E. We are not a need-based nation. We are a dream based nation. Pursuit of happiness. We do not ban offensive material for the sake of banning it. We sacrifice “safety” in the name of liberty every single day. That has always been the intent of this nation and its founders. Liberty should be preserved at all costs. There is no shortage of tyrannical nations in the world with “safe” disarmed citizens. Lets not add the USA to that list.
Hillbilly D
December 20th, 2012
5:30 pm
.223 is in the caliber range of a basic varmint rifle.
Interestingly enough, in Blackhawk Down (the book), one of the Delta Force guys refused to use an M-16 because of the small caliber and light load. He said he wanted to know that if he hit somebody, they weren’t going to crawl off and come back. He would only use an old style M-14.
I forget the guy’s name and if I’m not mistaken, he was one of the guys who got killed in that mess.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
5:33 pm
The AR 15 reportedly used in the school shooting was .223 Cal., the same as the standard military arm, one of the smallest and lightest rifle rounds in existence. a very low caliber.
Um, it’s called “wound ballistics” and in the .223 it’s all derived from an incredibly high muzzle velocity. That bullet could hit you in the toe and come out the top of your head. I’d rather be shot by a .44 Magnum than by a .223.
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
5:36 pm
jr
That rant illustrates exactly the mind set of those who MUST have guns for compensation purposes.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
December 20th, 2012
5:37 pm
Kamchak once again proving he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word deterrence.
td
December 20th, 2012
5:40 pm
oldguy
December 20th, 2012
5:16 pm
Excellent points.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 20th, 2012
5:44 pm
Aesop’s: I believe our first hurdle would be the liberals actually caring if kids get killed and wanting to solve the problem.
—————————–
They didn’t care when the kids doing the dying were brown, and the guns were supplied by their Nobel-prize-winning messiah.
JR
December 20th, 2012
5:45 pm
carlosgvv
Compensation is not a reason for banning them.
You posted a number of reasons why these rifles weren’t “needed” (and corrected the false statements you made). That is not a rant, but a rebuttal.
Your argument(and fears) are misguided and based on misinformation. I suggest you take a step back from the argument and take some time to gather actual facts.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 20th, 2012
5:46 pm
carlosgvv sure has a lot to say about “compensation”.
Del
December 20th, 2012
5:46 pm
JR, your post@ 5:30 was a good one.
td
December 20th, 2012
5:47 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 20th, 2012
5:33 pm
The AR 15 reportedly used in the school shooting was .223 Cal., the same as the standard military arm, one of the smallest and lightest rifle rounds in existence. a very low caliber.
Um, it’s called “wound ballistics” and in the .223 it’s all derived from an incredibly high muzzle velocity. That bullet could hit you in the toe and come out the top of your head. I’d rather be shot by a .44 Magnum than by a .223.
I may have to disagree with you on that one my friend. If I hit you in the arm with my 44 mag I am pretty sure you will not have an arm left and you surely would not be able to pursue me any longer.
Hillbilly D
December 20th, 2012
5:57 pm
If I hit you in the arm with my 44 mag I am pretty sure you will not have an arm left and you surely would not be able to pursue me any longer.
One need only to look at the .58 caliber, low velocity, weapons of the Civil War to understand that one. If you couldn’t amputate it, you were toast. And if you were hit in an arm or leg, given the bone shattering capacity, odds of an amputation were very high.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
December 20th, 2012
5:58 pm
According to Kamchak’s logic, putting up a “Beware of attack dig” sign leaves you open to having your dog kidnapped.
Give that a try, would ya Kamchak ?
Hillbilly D
December 20th, 2012
6:00 pm
I reckon the filter got my last comment. It was profound, though, I guarantee.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 20th, 2012
6:01 pm
Kamchak once again proving he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word deterrence.
Announcing to a criminal that there is something of value inside your house is “deterrence”?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Del
December 20th, 2012
6:05 pm
The reason for the lefts tunnel vision is twofold. One they hate the NRA and they hate anyone who might belong to the NRA and therefore would own guns. That’s because these folks for the most part vote for conservative candidates who the left really hates. Secondly they like Hollywood and the liberal media who likes filth in our culture because the filth merchants donate to far left politicians and further the cause of far-left ideology. The left supports filth merchants and supports them by citing the First Amendment. The issues with mass murdering mentally deranged people is another product of decadence brought to the country courtesy of the far-left that owns the Democrat party and its followers.
MarkV
December 20th, 2012
6:06 pm
The source of the high rate of gun murders in the US is an intersection of culture of violence and gun culture. The debate on this blog in the aftermath of the Newtown events is a sad evidence of that and a reason for pessimism that anything meaningful will be done about it.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
December 20th, 2012
6:17 pm
Meaningful to MarkV is exerting even more control over those he disagrees with.
td
December 20th, 2012
6:17 pm
MarkV
December 20th, 2012
6:06 pm
“intersection of culture of violence and gun culture”
Nice pretty words but what does that really mean?
MarkV
December 20th, 2012
6:27 pm
td @ 6:17 pm
It means that you can have plenty of guns in the hands of people, like in Switzerland, and still a low murder rate because of the lack of culture of violence. And you can have a very violent society, such as some primitive ones, but low murder rate when they do not have efficient means of killing themselves. We, unfortunately, have both, and the homicide rate is the result of that “intersection.”
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 20th, 2012
6:41 pm
And MarkV’s “solution” is to punish the law-abiding.
td
December 20th, 2012
6:53 pm
MarkV
December 20th, 2012
6:27 pm
We have 320 million people in this country and 300 million guns and their were 12,000 homicides by a gun in 2011. How many of those homicides were gang related or committed by people that, under current law, were not eligible to own a gun? If we say half then that would mean that 6000 homicides are worth infringing on the Constitutional rights of 320 million?
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
7:00 pm
JR – 5:45
1. Hunters do stalk. Or, did you think you just walk up to a deer, or any other game animal and start shooting.
2. Real sportsmen are like snipers – “one shot, one kill”. Spraying a deer or other animal with 15 to 20 bullets from an assualt rifle isn’t hunting, it’s bloodthirsty butchering.
3. High-powered handguns, like a .45, have a great deal of kinetic energy. They can easily penetrate a window and travel a great distance. For home defense, a .22 or .32 is probably ok.
4. I stand by banning assualt rifles. Virtully every mass murder since Colombine was committed with as assualt rifle.
5. “liberty should be preserved at all costs”. Well, since I know very well what medicines I need, it would be nice to go to the drug store and get them without haveing to go to the doctor and get a precription.
But, in the past, so many people have abused precritpion medicines(and guns), we all must suffer for their actions. Same with everyone having to be tested for a drivers license.
Bazooka
December 20th, 2012
7:02 pm
td
It is true that the number of killings based on the number of guns is a low percentage. Well the number of killings if it could be traced to violent movies and games is very low as well, yet you want to apply some sort of special tax to them.
Your logic doesn’t add up.
Please note: I am not advocating any new laws on guns, however I am calling you out for your lack of logic on this issue in regards to movies and games. Unless you have posted or willing to post a study that backs up your assertions, why are you wanting to go after “freedom of speech” via taxes?
Hillbilly D
December 20th, 2012
7:08 pm
did you think you just walk up to a deer,
Probably 99% of deer hunters, in most parts of the country, hunt from a stand. A “stand” has evolved to where many of them are basically a tree house. That’s not hunting in my opinion but that’s the way most folks do it and that’s another discussion for another day.
For home defense, a .22 or .32 is probably ok.
I’d probably agree with you on a .32 but a .22 is liable to just get you killed. I had a relative who was shot through the hips with a .22, during an altercation, shall we say, (they never could take the bullet out, it was too close to his spine) but he manged to beat the hell out of the other guy with a 2×4, after he was shot. A .22 just don’t have any knockdown power, which is what you’re after, in a self-defense situation.
Kyle Wingfield
December 20th, 2012
7:13 pm
The second part of Hillbilly’s 7:08 just might win the Internet today.
JDW
December 20th, 2012
7:16 pm
@td…”If we say half then that would mean that 6000 homicides are worth infringing on the Constitutional rights of 320 million?”
Yes
JDW
December 20th, 2012
7:25 pm
“Almost every household in Switzerland has a firearm, the military there requires all their troops to maintain their assigned government weapons at home and almost all males are in the home guard. Per 1000 population they are the most heavily armed people on the face of the earth.”
Uhhhh….no…I have seen this comment several times…
A) Swiss gun ownership is about 45 guns per 100 people…about 1/2 of the US at 89 per 100
B) Those Swiss actually are part of an organized Militia…every gun owner gets training and certification.
Not apples to apples with the US.
retiredds
December 20th, 2012
7:41 pm
This is why the NRA is not to be trusted.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/why-does-the-nra-fear-the-truth-about-gun-violence-.html
Smoke
December 20th, 2012
7:41 pm
No one can cite even one mental hental health bill introduced by the GOP since Reagan cut funding.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
December 20th, 2012
7:45 pm
Rights are absolute and are never determined by the number of people affected. That’s why they are called “rights”.
Most people know this simple fact.
Others? Not so much.
Living With Open Eyes
December 20th, 2012
7:47 pm
Intelligent people, like those who read this blog, have to acknowledge the data that clearly shows gun control saves lives. Our culture has glorified gun toting by law abiding citizens who, after some crisis, real or imagined, become the “crazies” we read about in the news stories all the time. People are more conscious about getting along with their fellow human beings when they know they will have to back up their mouths with their own bare hands instead of hiding behind guns.