Your thoughts about Steve's essay

[GNTLGNT]

I am extremely dissapointed Stephen. As a life long reader and fellow Mainer I cringed when I saw that you had written this essay. I know you support Obama, and I have not let that bother me untilgg now. What I find most perplexing is how you can write about this tragedy when we dont even know what really happened. The media bungled this story so badly that they have no credibilty. The inconsistencies are too much to ignore. Sure, go ahead, call me a conspiracy theorist, or whatever makes you feel better. I dont care anymore. I, and many other Americans want simple answers to simple questions. Thats all. And we arent getting any. I mean, it was widely reported reported by every major network that handguns were used. This was the offical story even 24 hours after the event! Two 9mm guns, then it was four 9mm guns, then it was an ar15? What? Obviously, in the wake of the current gun grab it makes ALL the difference. Would we be having these discussions over "assault rifles" if a 9mm glock was used? There are many other things that simply dont add up. At all. And those of us who want our media to do their job are marginalized as "conpsiracy theorists" or worse----for asking simple questions..Unbelievable. In addition, i find it disingenuous and very hypocritical to express ouotrage over "assault rifles" while we have a Presidetn who drops drone bombs on innocent women and chidlren at will! Sickening.Why not demand Obama go to yemen, iraq, afghanistan, etc., and help clean up the "collateral damage" from his drones? Come on!! We just look the other way when we have the blood of thousands of little children on our hands..Sorry, that doesnt fly with me. Or how about the myriad other blatant lies and even more blatant hypocrisy from this administration? Ndaa? fast and furious? Wiretapping? Brad Manning? transparency? Whistelbowers (just prosecuted another! after singing their praises four years ago, disgusting) it goes on and on with Obama. So, sorry Stephen, this maks me sick, really. I see this as a fault of the farce that is two party politics. Imagine, how the "liberals" would feign outrage if a republican was dropping drone bombs? Am I right? yes.....So, in the wake of rampant hypocrisy and lies from this current administration , I simply cant agree Stephen. And, whats more, youve lost a reader. I wish you wouldve waited. Do you mean to tell me you have no problems with the mainstream media accoun t of what happened at Sandy Hook? I find that hard to believe,a nd I question your intergity, and your motive.....I am truly saddened. Ive just lost a best friend Stepehen, you...

...oh please, you've just proven his point...and I'm sure he'll grieve at the loss of his "best friend"...one other thing....spell/fact check.....

[Todash]

...well now, a well-reasoned piece at last, and I'm not saying that to boot-lick King...I fully agree that my NRA is coming off like a bag of wing-nuts....I've stated before and will again-that I'm a life member of said organization, but the leadership has been coming off like they've been snorting Drano...I have lost most all respect for them, but STILL believe in what started the organization in the first place...well reasoned defense of and education about the Second Amendment, plus their preservation of firearms history, education of gunowners and product reviews etc. King speaks harsh truth when he says they need to be at the site of one of these killings-mucking about in the blod and gore...I've seen humans die, and it's not pretty...the essay is a must read piece I firmly believe, and my only real quibble-is I will steadfastly argue against the fact that guns aren't tools...I know they're weapons, duh, but I'm not gonna go out in season and beat a 12 point buck to death with a circular saw...wrong tool...that's my nickle's worth and many thanks for his committment of his convictions for posterity...

Indeed, by the strict definition, they are tools, but ... I think he was referring to the silly line of reasoning that they are a completely neutral tool. Because, no, they're not. They're intended to inflict damage on another human being, and that makes them a very special subset of tools. That's all they are good for. Can you kill someone with a hammer? Sure, if you are so inclined (and very quiet, very fast, or very strong). But ye cannae build a bookshelf with a gun, laddie.

[atomicinchworm]

I am going to go ahead and say that I LOVE King's non-fiction work. I am not a big fan of his fiction, really, though I admit I do need to read some of the biggies before I really seal that opinion.

This essay pretty much echoes my own feelings on guns and American culture and entertainment industry and gun control. It is intelligently and entertainingly presented and definitely worth reading.

As I have said before, I don't like guns and will never own one, but I recognize the right for people to have them. I will never understand why people are so enraged by the idea of smart regulations and smaller clips. It's not a gateway to appealing the 2nd amendment, but a logical conclusion that guns today are perhaps too good at what they were designed to do. Would it be so bad to wait while your background check clears? Would it be so bad to not have a 30 round clip at the gun range? You certainly can't use it hunting. And you don't need it for protection.

Even if such regulations save only one or two lives or stop one mass shooting, wouldn't that be worth it? There are regulations on most of the amendments to a point. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want with no fear of consequences. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium and you can't incite violence against a person or group of people. I think that an assault weapons/large clip ban or general registration is a similar limitation.

I found the insight into Rage interesting. Rage certainly wasn't a cause of those boy's actions, maybe a subconscious influence as to the situation, and it speaks highly of SK's maturity to conscientiously remove it from print.

[Todash]

Under the current law, a trafficker can be convicted only if proven to have transferred a gun to a felon; this weakness needs fixing and I'm surprised it's not mentioned more often.

Testify! I agree; it's odd that this isn't mentioned more. I think all guns should be registered, transferring them illegally should be a crime in and of itself, AND there should a law that states that the last person who registered a gun used to commit a crime (and did not report it stolen) is automatically doing jail time. Sure, there would still be illegal weapons, but they would become painfully expensive. (NOTE: With all the illegal guns out there, it would take time for this to have an impact, there could be a transition period where people could either register their guns or, if they did not wish to do that, turn them in in some sort of buyback program. After that brief period, owning or using an unregistered gun would be illegal.)

One thing I can think of off the top of my head that needs reforming is that under current law, it is very difficult to get someone committed to a mental health facility against their will.

It is. And once you do get them committed, the bar they have to clear to get out is VERY low. The rights of the mentally ill are important, but it's silly to pretend that they don't have compliance issues.

I personally do not care if the assault weapons ban goes back into effect, but I can't say that I support it doing so. For the ten years it was in effect it had no influence on homicides at all. It would (as it did before) leave in circulation all of the material that had been manufactured before the ban. So essentially, I have a hard time seeing how the ban is not pointless to begin with. Also, I don't want our nation restricted to target pistols and shotguns. We live in an age of worldwide terror. By the time the police get to a scene, it's often too late. That is also why I do not support a 10 round limit on magazines.

The assault weapon/large clip ban will not make a big dent in numbers of people killed, I agree. But it should impact the numbers and impact of the mass shootings that have been escalating for the past several years. The guys that go barging into schools and malls and such picture themselves as visiting vengeance upon ... who? Someone. And they go loaded for bear. Did you know that Jared Lee Loughner was subdued when he stopped to change clips? I wish he hadn't been able to kill six people and injure 13 others before he had to reload. (It is also my contention that 10 years is not a very long time to determine if something makes much of a difference or not when you consider the number of those weapons out there already ... but I tend to agree with you that, in and of itself, an assault weapon ban will not greatly impact the numbers of people killed, since that is about 30,000 per year. But as part of an overall strategy, it will make a difference. If someone made me choose, though, I would choose mandatory, MANDATORY registration with severe consequences for trafficking over an assault weapon ban.)

I also understand what you say about the teachers, but teachers have a very tough time of it already. If you give a teacher a gun, they become a protector first, educator second. They also have to somehow have that gun at the ready and yet make sure none of the kids is able to get their hands on it. One strong, angry, adolescent boy could turn that into a nightmare VERY quickly. None of the teachers I know (and I have several just among my immediate family, aunts, uncles, and cousins--and most of them are politically quite conservative) want to go that route. You want to station cops at schools? That might be workable, but think about this: even if such a strategy worked perfectly, it would not really make much of a dent in the numbers of people killed annually, and ... well. Somebody is going to have to pay for it. (O noes, taxes!)

There is my thoughts on Mr. King's essay and this whole issue, and I'm thankful Mr. King has provoked discussion. Let's make it beneficial and productive!

Hear, hear!

[Gregory Markle]

I have no thoughts on Steve's essay per se because I have not read it. If there is a version posted where the .99 goes to The Second Amendment Foundation then I'll give it a go but I absolutely refuse to enrich the reality challenged individuals at the Brady Foundation.

As for the comment above mine...I have no issue with restricting firearms ownership from people whose mental faculties prevent them from determining whether a hammer or a firearm is the more appropriate tool for assembling a bookcase (likely not needed, since they would probably try to fill out the 4473 with a herring rather than using a pen)...hammers killed more people last year than the firearms proposed as being banned...and I noe which one I'd ratha defend me home agin multiple crooks wi' laddie. The comment about having to be fast/strong/quiet to use a hammer is very apt, and it's the WHOLE point of firearm defense as it empowers those who do not have those qualities against those who do. It's funny how the government refers to a semiautomatic rifle being purchased by a citizen is an "assault weapon" yet 7,000 fully automatic versions of the same firearm being put in the hands of government agents are referred to by the term "personal defense weapons"...I'd say they are FAR more "personal" in the hands of individuals than government goon squads.

[Todash]

I have not downloaded the article yet and will do this when time allows, however at first glance I do have to disagree with the premise of the 'Kardiashan culture' being the sole or main definition of current American culture. If you look at most recent shootings e.g. Columbine, you would see that a pattern emerges where the shooters were youthful males. An item often brought up in post-high school psychology courses is that late-teen males typically have brains that are still physically developing on a large scale, and completion of this development usually occurs by the mid-twenties. The profile of these shooters does point to frequent aggressive behavior or abnormal amounts of times with violent games, so one item of what the NRA (for all its bluster) says may be close to being correct as can be without this theory being thoroughly vetted in peer-study papers. If what I observe on the internet is of any indication, those meeting these profiles usually are quite distant from the 'Kardiashan culture.' There are quite a number of subcultures that fit neither this profile nor the Kardiashans and would feel insulted to be identified with either. Otherwise, I do agree that 'Kardiashan culture' people often do not meet the usually violent profile.

In any case, I have to admire Mr. King for having the courage to state his views on such a polarizing subject. Nobody wants to see the 'gun nuts' deprived of their Second Amendment rights, but the need for a compromise is too evident, and they should work on this so that laws reducing rights are not passed. It is dismaying to not only see the NRA fighting any reasonable changes to increase Public Safety e.g. a 10-round cap on magazines, but also dismaying to see politicans immediately working on more draconian modifications to existing laws to the point that rights are affected and more government interaction occurs in the public's life. Well, we will see what happens, anyway.

I think when you are able to read it, you probably won't have significant disagreement with the whole culture discussion.

[Todash]

In my opinion it doesn't really matter what is discussed or posted about this issue.....bottom line, guns aren't going away and neither is madness or atrocity. Harnessing certain weaponry andthe mentally ill would certainly help, but won't curtail an individual from doing something horrendous if they are bent on doing it.

Most aren't, though. Most people who kill other people are not hellbent on doing it, long term. If they are, agreed, they'll find a way. If someone hates you enough to kill you and has plotted it for years, you are probably a goner and might as well move to another country for your own good. But most people who lose their temper find it again very quickly. If, in the meantime, they weren't able to go pick up a gun and some ammo right away, that's probably all it will ever come to.

[Todash]

In our system, we have "term limits" it's called "the right to vote." So, I don't believe term limits are the answer. In my opinion, it will take true campaign finance reform, to change the law and effectuate change in the system.

This is kind of a side note, but I know a lot of people are for term limits for Congress. Like you, I am not, and here is why: historically, lame duck presidents (presidents who were not reelected but are serving out the remainder of their term) often take advantage of that time of, shall we say, lesser constraint to do things they might not otherwise do. Even a reelected president will feel a bit more freedom to act out his conscience. It's not evil or some kind of conspiracy; it makes sense. He doesn't have to worry about reelection, PLUS he's had a full term to get his "sea legs." And really, presidential powers are actually quite limited by the other branches.

However, suppose Congress had term limits. And suppose a significant number of members of Congress were approaching their limits, and those members of Congress had been unduly influenced by promises of, say, cushy jobs waiting for them if they could manage to get X through both houses. Sure, it's something their constituents would hate, but it's not like they're going to be in Congress anymore anyway. And Congress, as a group, has quite a bit of power, much more so than the president, really. No ... I think it's a good idea for them to always be a little worried that they might not be elected next time.

[Todash]

I have no thoughts on Steve's essay per se because I have not read it. If there is a version posted where the .99 goes to The Second Amendment Foundation then I'll give it a go but I absolutely refuse to enrich the reality challenged individuals at the Brady Foundation.

As for the comment above mine...I have no issue with restricting firearms ownership from people whose mental faculties prevent them from determining whether a hammer or a firearm is the more appropriate tool for assembling a bookcase (likely not needed, since they would probably try to fill out the 4473 with a herring rather than using a pen)...hammers killed more people last year than the firearms proposed as being banned...and I noe which one I'd ratha defend me home agin multiple crooks wi' laddie. The comment about having to be fast/strong/quiet to use a hammer is very apt, and it's the WHOLE point of firearm defense as it empowers those who do not have those qualities against those who do. It's funny how the government refers to a semiautomatic rifle being purchased by a citizen is an "assault weapon" yet 7,000 fully automatic versions of the same firearm being put in the hands of government agents are referred to by the term "personal defense weapons"...I'd say they are FAR more "personal" in the hands of individuals than government goon squads.

I'm not sure if you got what I was aiming for there. No, not a lot of people are killed by assault weapons (you compare it to blunt objects, but WOW, you should check out how many people are killed by guns overall annually!) ... but I've never heard of someone with a hammer wiping out a whole classroom of first graders, either. Going by how those people choose to arm themselves, semiautomatic rifles and large clips are the correct tools for that. I mean, I guess if you're going by sheer numbers and regard the loss of dozens of innocents at a time as acceptable collateral damage as long as it doesn't add up to much, there's not much to argue about. I suspect the families of the 45 killed last year in such shootings (more if you count the shooters) might disagree.

[exzel]

I was all set to get the essay until I saw who is getting the benefit of the donations from the sale of Guns. I don’t quite see how the Brady Campaign donations constitute "a charity to benefit victims of gun violence." And since I disagree on much of what the Brady Campaign does... I won’t purchase the King piece in order to further fuel their agenda. Alas, I was so looking forward to discussing King's piece once I had read it.