Tragedies and Gun Laws
Published November 06, 2009 @ 03:55PM PT
Two tragic, violent shooting sprees in two days. Even in a country as desensitized to violence as the U.S., the events of this week have been jarring. These tragedies should remind us why gun control laws are important and should be expanded.
First, I want to say that the victims of these horrible crimes -- and their families and communities -- are in my thoughts. I don't mean to dishonor the memories of the victims by turning my attention to gun control. Instead I hope we can take this moment to consider policies that will prevent crimes like these in the future.
You know the detaiils: an Army psychologist allegedly opened fire yesterday at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 people and injuring at least 27. It's believed to be the most deadly shooting on an American military base in history. Today in Orlando, a 40-year-old man apparently entered an office building where he used to work and shot six people, killing one of them.
I don't know if their guns were legally or illegally obtained. But these crimes should demonstrate that we should be extremely careful about who has the right to a gun in our society -- and how many guns we sell. I agree with Paul Helmke, the President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who spoke out today about the Fort Hood shootings. He said:
“America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough.”
He went further, too, arguing that these murders demonstrate why Congress should reject a proposed law that would allow people who are determined to be mentally incapacitated by the VA to own guns.
“In light of what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier - it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina should be rejected," Helmke said.
Burr shot back, accusing Helmke of being disrespectful:
"It is a shame that this process has gotten to a point where some feel that they can exploit the senseless murder of American soldiers in the quest to secure personal triumph," Burr said.
Burr's press statements about the bill -- S669 -- indicate that he believes veterans are being denied their Constitutional rights on technicalities. If someone hands their financial matters over to someone else, they may also lose their right to own a gun, Burr says.
I don't know enough about this bill to have an opinion. But my immediate reaction on hearing about these two tragedies is to wonder why we have laws that allow things like concealed weapons and bulk purchases at gun shows. In a society obsessed with guns, violence follows.
Photo by Jason Sansone.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (19)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Matt has worked and volunteered in various capacities in criminal justice reform for several years. When he's not blogging, he works as the Online Communications Manager at the Innocence Project. Views expressed here are Matt's, and don't represent the positions of the Innocence Project.
Featured Criminal Justice Actions
-
-
-
Overturn the Texas Prison Book Ban
194 People
-
Overturn the Texas Prison Book Ban
The way I see it, people who want to misuse guns will acquire them in any way they can; legally or illegally. There is no reason to make gun control stricter than it already is. Not only is it a hassle for those who use guns recreationally or collect them, but it puts many people who either plan to or already do use guns as self-defense at risk; If you make it more difficult for them to legally obtain guns then they have nothing to protect them from those aforementioned people who would obtain them illegally. It would be better instead to work out a way to crack down on illegal gun sales rather than cracking down on legal gun sales. But perhaps that's just my opinion.
Posted by Preston Affleck on 11/06/2009 @ 06:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I pray for the Families of the Victims.
I think the Government should totaly change Gun Laws. Guns should baned totaly.
Thats my Opinion.I think its the only Way to create a peaceful World and stop Crimes.
Posted by Christiane Henker on 11/06/2009 @ 08:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
well if you want to leave all the gun power to your government yes...but i think that would be foolish.
Posted by tasha reed on 11/08/2009 @ 11:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
i am also in fort hood!!!!my husband is in Iraq and it is a sad thing to see a country of people who have no way of protecting themselves!!! though what happened here was deeply sad and unjustified we know here that we love our civil rights and that is one we should not so easily let go of!!!!our men who we should honor fight for us to keep our civil liberties!!!and in some ways they fight for other too as well.
Posted by tasha reed on 11/08/2009 @ 11:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
i am also in fort hood!!!!my husband is in Iraq and it is a sad thing to see a country of people who have no way of protecting themselves!!! though what happened here was deeply sad and unjustified we know here that we love our civil rights and that is one we should not so easily let go of!!!!our men who we should honor fight for us to keep our civil liberties!!!and in some ways they fight for other too as well.
Posted by tasha reed on 11/08/2009 @ 11:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When will people realize that even if guns didn't exist, there are people who would (and do) kill people with knives, hammers, cars, etc. You name it, someone can figure out a way to kill another with it.
So, if there weren't guns, would there be an anti-knife lobby, an anti-vehicle lobby, and anti-fork lobby? Face it: people kill people. The method won't matter. Punish the behavior, not the method.
You can think that if guns were illegal so-and-so would still be alive. BS. When someone decides to kill, they will find a way.
Posted by Fred Frankenberg on 11/07/2009 @ 08:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In a previous blog Matt Kelly wrote about different words to describe prisoners. http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/a_choice_of_words_prisoner_inmate_or_offender
The weapon the Fort Hood shooter used is refered to as the "cop killer" gun. Talk about offensive vocabulary! http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-fort-hood-shooter-used-cop-killer-armor-piercing-handgun-r-1257543702
Posted by Dennis G. on 11/07/2009 @ 09:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Did you expect someone in the military to not use a military grade weapon and ammo?
In the case of this particular weapon the "5-7" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_seven
- Its the really the ammo that is more problematic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7x28mm
Some variants of the ammo available in this calibre are _most definitely_ armor piercing, others are not, but as a general rule - armor piercing ammo isn't available to civilians.
And owning AP ammo is quite illegal in many places, unless you are in Law Enforcement, or IDK... maybe in the Military.
It's do to subtle differences in the bullets paired with the 5.7x28m cartridge that can make it so deadly vs. armor.
As far as I know none of the initial victims were wearing armor - (some of the police and swat units responding probably were), but the precise details about the shooting are still somewhat sparse at this point...
This debate isn't going to end because of this shooting or the one in Orlando, I don't believe the issue of gun control isn't going away anytime soon.
But using this tragedy as an excuse to inflame the gun control debate is 'Extrememly Offensive' as far as I'm concerned.
Here in Texas people were out buying all the guns they thought they might ever want in the months prior to the election - based on the assumption that Obama might push for a renewal of the “Assault Weapons Ban” or some other similar legislation.
AG Eric Holder proposed doing just that last February - but I don't think it ever went much further than that, and in my personal opinion it would be _Absolutely Disgraceful_ to see the 'gun control crowd' latch onto this tragedy at Fort Hood as a "renewed supply of ammo" for their own cause.
Posted by Bryan Snowden on 11/07/2009 @ 02:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a statement that has no validity. We have no problem of the magnitude of guns that kill. Why try to place the blame where it does not belong?
Posted by Harmon Chamberlin on 11/08/2009 @ 03:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not sure what you mean?
But first, I should probably correct one line of my prior reply, it should have read:
"I don't believe the issue of gun control is going to go away anytime soon." (I accidently left ISN'T in that line instead of changing it to IS - when I rephrased part of that line before posting.)
After re-reading this one more time, I'm hoping you were replying to Dennis.
For what its worth, I'm totally against gun control. If a person wants to harm/kill people - there are many, many other ways to do so, all it takes is a little bit of "MacGyvering"...
Improvised weapons of all sorts are known to be very lethal.
Examples of this are everywhere = I.E.D.'s kill people every day, the origin of the "molotov cocktail" is an interesting historical example, the variety of weapons that prison inmates come up with is astounding (some are very ingenious) - and disturbing.
I say we should be thankful that all this guy used was a pair of handguns. (AFIAK - I haven't checked the news this evening to see if they've released any more info yet.)
I don't know what was in his head, But I'd wager that if he all he really wanted to do was cause the most casualties & damage possible he would've gone another route.
Opening fire on base like that - from what I've heard so far, I suspect he was going for shock value & media attention... trying get people to question their support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
And in some small measure it seems to have done just that, based on some of the interviews I've seen in the news lately.
I'll stop there, I'm gone far enough 'off topic' already.
Posted by Bryan Snowden on 11/08/2009 @ 08:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Don't mean to hijack a thread but for some reason I am not able to create an original comment so I chose to reply here where I am in agreement with the previous comment. was going to stay out of this one but I can't. I guess once a soldier always a soldier and when young soldiers die I mourn.
It's bad enough when they die in combat from enemy action but we expect that and accept that it can and does happen. But when the "enemy" is, supposedly, one of our own it is difficult to accept. There is all of the rhetoric about guns do this and guns do that and talk about armor piercing "guns" by people who apparently know little about firearms. There are no armor piercing guns, armor piercing ammunition yes, guns no.
Sorry Matt, I'm with you on most justice reform issues but on this one I must disagree. I am a strong supporter of the second amendment and, dare I say it, I know I'll take flack but what the heck, I am one of those, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" types. But that is not really the issue.
The issue is what the hell happened at Ft. Hood? As more and more information has come to light it has become clear, IMHO, that guns did not kill 13 members of our Band of Brothers. Nope, not guns. it was political correctness that killed those 13 soldiers. The good Major was the instrument of destruction and if he had not had the guns it would have been something else. He was going to do damage one way or another. It seems that there were many in the military who had long known that this guy was a problem and had radical Islamic ties but due to political correctness were afraid to speak out. In the current politically correct environment a military person would be committing professional suicide to speak out. He would be branded everything from being a racist to suppressing freedom of religion and his career ruined. Did the Army fear the repercussions of censoring a Muslim? I think that is exactly the case. That’s political correctness “at its most lethal” and 13 young soldiers have paid the price.
Posted by Thomas Kinney on 11/09/2009 @ 07:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is one of the most ill-informed articles I've ever read. Studies have shown every state that has passed shall-issue concealed carry laws experienced significant reductions in their crime rate, and the vast majority of the states have passed them.
Furthermore, some communities in the United States have passed laws mandating that individuals own guns, and those communities in particular have experienced dramatic reductions in their violent crime rates.
The areas of the United States with the highest rates of violent crime are also the areas of the United States with the most restrictive gun control laws.
If European-style gun control is the reason much of Europe has a lower violent crime rate than the United States, explain why some countries in Europe that have heavily armed civilian populations such as Switzerland have even lower violent crime rates than many of the surrounding European countries that have enacted restrictive gun control legislation.
Gun control is a total sham. A lot of the violence committed around the world is caused by or related to the illicit trade in drugs. The most effective way to get rid of the violent drug cartels and gang related violence caused by the illicit drug trade is to legalize drugs so that drug cartels and drug gangs are put out of business by legitimate competition and businesses in a regulated marketplace.
Remember all the violence associated with alcohol prohibition and organized crime in the United States a long time ago? People like Al Capone? If you want to reduce violent crime, the way to do it is to put them out of business by legalizing marijuana. Primitive gangs won't be able to compete with Wal-Mart.
Posted by Jason Martin on 11/07/2009 @ 05:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Let's not forget, that one of the reasons our country has never been invaded, is because our citizens are armed.
"In a society obsessed with guns, violence follows." (?) People are obsessed with cars, fatal car wrecks follow. More people are killed in car wrecks each year than by firearms. Why not out-law cars? Or even the flu shot?
Posted by L.S. hope on 11/08/2009 @ 02:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with most of these comments. We can't keep guns away from criminals, police, governments, army's, hunters, herdsman, some security guards, or horse and pet owners who might have to put down their animal if it's fatally wounded. Who is left to take the guns away from? Me? - I don't have one. I may never get one, but if I want a gun for any reason the second amendment supports my right to have one, that alone gives me some security.
Posted by Joyce Dean Jones on 11/08/2009 @ 12:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Guns kill people. Insane people who obtain guns kill more people. We need to control this before the nutcases who strutted around Presidential events with loaded assault weapons and threatening signs spurred on by the right wing talk show marxists actually shoot someone. The 2nd amendment was for municipalities to have an armed militia. It was not meant for Granny and Uncle Bubba to own 14 assault weapons and an AK-47. This has to stop before more people die.
Posted by Susan Gessford on 11/08/2009 @ 02:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There are too many insane people out there. Maybe it's living in a world that's mad. Maybe it's ones chemicals or DNA. Look at all the methods that people use to kill people, if they want to kill a lot of people at once they use bombs. It's those people who are criminal, we don't put the weapon in jail. -- The second amendment isn't so states could have a militia it is so that a free people could have the right to revolution, -also in the constitution. The right to bare arms and the right to revolution, our for-fathers fought and won independence form England. The constitution could not be ratified until The Bill of Rights was added. This is for the people by the people, we would not be a country without it. Don't get me wrong, I'm ant-war, anti-animal cruelty and believe we should take care of our planet, but don't touch the Bill of Rights. It's all we've got, it's our birthright. Too many have died to create and protect our freedoms. This is worth fighting for, and the only reason we can comment about it is because of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
Posted by Joyce Dean Jones on 11/08/2009 @ 05:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To: Ms. Gessford, the people I see strutting around our President baring firearms, are employed by our Government.
As long as " Uncle Bubba and Granny," aren't assaulting anyone; What does it matter how many guns they accumulate?
"The Right to a revolution:" I know what side I want to be on, if it should ever come to this.
Posted by L.S. hope on 11/08/2009 @ 09:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the NRA ought to step up and realize that the "gun show" loop hole should be closed. This is where most of illegally owned guns originate from. It is the guns that are sold to criminals that has to be stopped. Gun laws, like they are here in PA, works great. I think it's a shame that the change in gun law that said that if you legallyown and carry a gun in one state you should be allowed to do so in every state didn't pass. Living in a "border area" (PA/NJ) would make me a federal gun criminal if i picked up my wife a the trainstation in the other state if i had my gun with me - that is not reasonable.
Simply: these shootings originates with a mind set - not a gun. Remove gun ownership rights for those who are mentally unstable and criminals and the loopholes that exists.
We also should remember that we live in a society of over 360 million people - to expect a 100% safe society is unrealistic.
Those who want to allow guns in schools and what not haven't thought the situation through in my opinion. Who will the police shoot at if they arrive at a school shooting and everyone is waving a gun in the air?
To restrict gun rights more will mean that the law abiding citizens are left alone. The police can't be expected to show up at the same time as the criminals to take care of things - we must have an opportunity to defend ourselves. It is a big responsibility and it requires training (you're not a pianist just because you own a piano) but we should not be denied the choise.
Posted by Lars Tofastrud on 11/09/2009 @ 02:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
what gun show loop hole? Please explain the loop hole? When I bought my gun at a gun show I had to do a background check. If you buy from an individual you don't have to, that's anywhere , I can sell a gun to anyone I want but if they can prove I knew that person had a felony I would get in trouble. There's no such thing as a gun show loophole. That's a play on words. If you buy a gun from someone with an FFL you have to have a background check. If you buy form an individual you don't. If an individual is selling a gun, that serial number is in his name if he originally bought it from an FFL holder so I don't think anyone would sell to someone they thought would use it in a crime. It would be traced back to the orignal owner.Of course there's always acceptions.
Posted by mike smith on 11/18/2009 @ 06:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.