24 July 2012


You know what's crazy? A couple of years ago, I had to buy a couple of cap guns for work, you know, props. I found just what we needed someplace online; they looked like something you'd see in an old Western, and did nothing more than go snap! and pop! when you shot them. Toys, you know. But because New York City, where I work, has strict rules about guns, I had to have the toy guns mailed to my house, outside the city (so I could hand carry them to work with me on the train). [Should I be admitting that?]

Last week, as you know, unless you live under that proverbial rock, someone shot a whole mess of people at a movie theater in Colorado, and killed twelve of them. Twelve innocent people, shot by a madman (a "fiend" in a New York Post headline I read over someone's shoulder).

And that madman bought all of his ammunition on the internet:

In the four months before the shootings, he also bought 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle and 350 shells for a 12-guage shotgun, all over the Internet.

Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty. That's a big number. That's a lot of ammo. It's mind-bogglingly crazy that anyone can buy any ammunition on the internet, and you can't even buy a toy gun to be shipped to Manhattan. And that's not even addressing the weaponry issue.

Jason Alexander wrote a rant about the weapons. In case you missed it, here, here's a quote:

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

I actually do understand that some people want to own guns for the purposes of deer hunting or target shooting. Hell, there are shooting sports in the Olympics. But assault weapons in the hands of ordinary folk? No, no, no.

What in hell are we going to do about this?


lemming said...

We'd have to take on the NRA. I'm not sure that's possible.

Then again, I didn't think I'd live to see a black man elected president.

freshhell said...

No idea.

Kizz said...

I'm learning over on Facebook today that first we're going to have to work to have the classification of guns re-worked in a sensible manner so we can have intelligent regulation. For instance, apparently a rifle suitable for hunting is classified as an assault weapon if you purchase it with a grey plastic stock rather than a wood stock (wood gets slippery and dangerous in the rain). The gun used to shoot Gabrielle Giffords was not classified as an assault weapon.

We got a lotta work ahead.

the queen said...

1. The fiend bought his body armor on-line from a place less than 10 miles from me.

2. Only allow muskets.

Jeanne said...

Not a gun owner, and never even been in a house with a gun, as far as I know. But the right to bear arms--possibly against the police and armed forces--is important. I don't think we should let the occasional madman make us lose sight of why it's part of the Bill of Rights.

Jocelyn said...

The level of vehemence brought to this discussion by NRA-ists is astonishing, as, to me, their thinking ignores all ration. Like you, I "get" hunting and sport weapons...but how can anyone argue that KILLING weapons should be so easily put into the hands of the populace at large?

The problem is, I can't see how this will change.

Gina said...

I am not anti-gu. I grew up with a father who hunted and also had a handgun for personal protection. They always scared me a litle, but I have gotten to the point where I actually enjoy participating in shooting sports (no hunting for me, though). And my son hunts. But I am still not entirely comfortable with guns. And I fully support making some HUGE changes to the gun laws in this country.

Patois42 said...

I hold out no hope that we'll be able to change it. That lack of hope makes me very sad.

Rainbow Motel said...

I don't know. We own guns for hunting, but none of them is or will ever be an assault weapon. There's no reason. No reason for home protection (if that is one's claim) or hunting. We say "moderation" and the NRA hears "obliteration". We say "wait for a permit" and the NRA hears "you might not get to have a gun". We say "ban assault weapons" and the NRA hears "get rid of all of the guns". It's sickening, because there are a ton of gun owners out there who feel just like I do and we're embarrassed and infuriated by fellow gun owners who are being so stupid. All I know is that Neo-Cons will try to find some way to blame Obama for all of it. If we don't ban assault weapons and more of these events happen, he'll be accused of elevating crime on his watch. If the assault weapons ban goes through while he's still in office...well...we already know how that's gonna go down. (sigh)