We ask ourselves the same thing every time: What will it take?
This time, it’s 50 people in Orlando taken in a burst of hate, homophobia, and gunfire. Before them, there have been school children, moviegoers, churchgoers, partygoers, law enforcement officers, and the list goes on and on.
The ultimate victims of the gun culture are common sense and policies that reflect the will and opinions of the public.
The facts are that as result of this endless litany of mass killings, gun laws have been changed: They have been made weaker.
This has been done all while the majority of Americans support reasonable laws that would take weapons off the street that are made only to kill people, that would outlaw armor-piercing bullets, and would clamp down on the ease of purchases from gun shows like those held here.
There are politicians, like those in the Tennessee Legislature, who whip up hysteria, hatred, and fear of the other for their own benefit. Their fingerprints are on the guns used in mass murders just as surely as there are those of the murderers themselves.
Today, we extend our prayers to the victims of the massacre in Orlando and their families and friends. We pray also that finally, our nation will come together to demand that our elected officials pass laws that reflect our opinions and embrace our values as Americans. Then, the murders in Orlando could have meaning.
Here’s the latest by Memphis’ award-winning cartoonist Bill Day:
Dear Republicans and Independents:
By now you know that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights has had limitations placed on its provisions. Now it is time to elect legislators who will limit the Second Amendment for the health and welfare of the Republic. We need legislators who will pass legislation that will:
1. Require background checks at gun shows and other like gatherings.
2. Ban assault weapons and other military guns.
3. Ban certain deadly bullets.
4. Ban magazines of certain sizes.
5. Ban carrying guns in certain places and let the property owners decide in other places.
It’s time to stop the madness. The right to keep and bear arms is not limitless. How long, oh how long, will it take?
GP
Molon Labe
look it up.
So which one of these reasonable measures to take weapons of war off the streets are you against?
The events in Orlando are beyond horrible. Prayers for all.
I pray something like this never happens here, but I fear it might because Memphis continues one of the least welcoming cities in the entire country for gays and lesbians.
This could easily have happened here. Agree that Memphis is very backward towards LGBT community. Impressed that Nashville’s mayor led a large vigil at city hall last night and many of the buildings and bridges were lit with rainbow colors. Won’t see that here be caused the Memphis LGBT community is smaller and much more closeted.
Mayor Strickland was at Memphis vigil
Mayor Strickland was indeed there, and I can’t remember a Memphis mayor who has attended an LGBT solidarity event.
I agree Mr. Pearson. The obvious answer is to replace the Tea Party legislators who are financed by the gun manufacturing interests. That means that concerned citizens like yourself should all pitch in to finance candidates with common sense ideas about gun policy.
Not sure what George Pearson is trying to say. I’ll ignore (for now) his idea that the Constitution isn’t valid or that only his favorite rights should be preserved, while the ones he doesn’t like should be removed. Hubris, indeed. But, none of the things he talks about would have had any impact on this shooting at all. Let’s take a look:
1) The gun used for this shooting wasn’t bought at a gun show. This law would not have prevented this shooting.
2) Assault weapon? What is that? AR-15 is not different than a deer rifle. It just look scarier, but it functions the same way as a deer rifle.
3) I think this shooter used regular bullets, nothing extraordinary. This law would only restrict those who didn’t hurt anybody.
4) Banning large magazines doesn’t do much; remember, a bullet is a bullet. BTW, since when do criminals follow laws about how they can or can’t modify their weapons? All this will do is place more rules on the people who weren’t hurting anybody.
5) I don’t think a “No Guns Allowed” sign would have stopped this shooter.
None of the options that Pearson outlined would have done a thing to prevent this most recent shooting. If we’re going to propose something in the wake of this tragedy, why pick something that has nothing to do with it. Gene may as well have said that gun owners aren’t allowed to wear white after Labor Day for all the good it would have done.
It’s too easy to dismiss Mr. Pearson’s ideas by applying it only to the latest massacre. These are common sense gun laws that even Ronald Reagan supported. Rather than try to justify and explain away, what’s the reason we can’t do these very simple things to make our country safer? Let’s put the suggestions into the larger fabric of our society. Already, the majority of Americans see the wisdom of these steps, but the public’s wishes are denied by the NRA who refuses to consider anything, even preventing gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list. Surely, we can bring some sanity to this issue.
George –
Your first point, that Gene disregards the Constitution or certain rights contained in it, is not responsive to his argument. Read his post again. He simply makes the very salient point that the rights within the Bill of Rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court has placed reasonable limits on practically every one of them (often our most cherished ones and often in the public interest), yet the dominant narrative coming from the most vocal supporters of individual gun rights is that ANY limit would violate the Second Amendment.
Tom –
It’s an amazing political feat that the talking points of unlimited individual gun rights supporters are so perfectly repeated – no matter the medium, publication, or forum. While I do not doubt the sincerity of most of these supporters (many of my loved ones, in fact, are), it is extraordinary that the very people who are responsible for the proliferation of more and bigger guns can turn around and suggest that the only conceivable answer is more guns.
So true, Will. I grew up in a family with guns all around me, but funny, there never seemed to be a need for semi-automatics.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=061316_16&utm_medium=email
Most handguns are semi-automatic. Revolvers are semi-automatic. If you grew up around a guns, you surely know this.
No one in my family ever found a use beyond a revolver, rifle and shotgun. I hope you’re not trying to equate revolvers with assault rifles that can fire 600 rounds per minute. It seems to my family that anything beyond what they had was unneeded and overcompensation.
So, you did have a use for semi-automatics, then.
We always love this pro-gun pablum. Anything to keep away from discussing real issues.
Keep from discussing the real issues? How about your feigning interest in this latest massacre to promote some far flung ideology, instead of focusing on what may prevent these tragedies in the future.
If you want to stick to the ideology that only law abiding people shouldn’t have guns, just be upfront about it. Don’t try to hide it behind some fake altruism about the latest shooting that wouldn’t be impacted in the slightest by any of your pet proposals.
I wonder how you would react if your proposals were put in place and these shootings still took place.
Do you even hear how stupid you sound? Or have you said it so long it sounds sane to you?
George, george, george. What lawabiding citizen needs a rifle that can fire 600 rounds in a minute? What lawabiding citizen needs armor-piercing ammunition? What lawabiding citizens is threatened by background checks?
Some “far flung ideology?” The majority of the public supports reasonable gun laws. Why genuflect to the extremism of NRA and the gun culture when there are modest changes that can bring some balance back into this issue?
Puhhlease! Now you’re really showing that you have no gun knowledge. No semi-automatic weapon on the plant can fire 600 rds/min. This would require the shooter to pull the trigger 10 times per second and stop to change magazine clips 20 times — all in one minute. Not at all grounded in reality.
Plus, your claim that the public supports reasonable gun laws needs an asterisk. The surveys that determined this asked respondents only if they wanted “reasonable gun laws” without defining what those were, so everyone could have a different answer. Then, people like yourself use it to try to tell us that the majority of people think like you do, when in reality it was never determined what the “reasonable gun laws” meant.
The problem here is that you’re having trouble staying focused on this one topic that you brought up yourself. Either you’re interested in solving the problem that lead to this recent shooting or you’re not. So far, you’re focusing on things that had nothing at all to do with this latest shooting, so you’re playing on people’s emotions to further an agenda that won’t stop attacks like this from happening again.
Either you’re part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.
I’m firmly on the side of gun control, but we should try and be honest. That rifle does not fire 600 rounds a minute. I’ll admit to never having shot one, but from what I have read, while this gun allows you to fire quicker than others, it does not have a 600 round clip… But the point is that clearly AR-15s and guns like it, such as the one the shooter used, were built for war. Every cop I’ve ever heard talk on the subject wants them off the street; no military person I’ve ever read thinks this gun belongs on the street. They aren’t good for hunting, and they don’t seem particularly useful for home defense. I’m sure they are a blast to fire, if you are into that sort of thing, at ranges and in the woods. But they seem to be very popular with people who want to kill many people quickly; no matter how many rounds it can or can’t fire, there has to be a reason for the popularity among the insane. So it seems to me that as adults we can decide to forgo the right to shoot this gun for the fun of it in exchange for perhaps saving 10-20 lives the next time(s) there is a mass shooting. And that we ought to be able by now to have this conversation without resorting to the same talking points we’ve lobbed at each other for 20 years, or making up the facts. So I guess my question is, what am I missing? What actual utility does this gun have for a normal person such that agreeing amongst ourselves to remove it from our gun stores would be so intolerable? What’s wrong with at least trying a ban for a while, like in the 90s, and seeing if it makes a difference? And don’t say the 2nd amendment; every right has restrictions. Try marching without a permit sometime.
We weren’t suggesting that the gun used in Orlando fired 600 rounds a minute. We were talking on the broader question of why assault weapons are needed by average citizens.
Thanks for comments.
George:
If the AK-15 is no different from deer rifle, then why manufacture it? Is it a fantasy thing to pretend to be a military person? What about ability to break down stock for hiding under clothes.
Limit magazines to 6 bullets for all hand guns and rifles!
SCM, fully automatic weapons (the kind that can fire many rds/minute) have been banned in the US since 1934. If you weren’t bringing it up in relation to the Orlando shooting (which didn’t use one of these banned weapons), why did you bring it up in response to an article titled “Orlando”? Sounds like you’re throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks.
Pearson, an AR-15 has the exact same capacity, function, and ammunition as the type of rifle that SCM said he thinks is OK. So, why make one? It has a different look than a rifle with a wood stock (some people like that look), the metal stock holds up better than the wood stock, the pistol grip is more comfortable than the wood grip, the folding or telescoping stock makes the user more comfortable, and the various barrel mounts allow for better scopes than what the wooden rifle has. None of these make the gun deadlier — they make the user more comfortable.
If you guys want to talk about something related to the Orlando shooting in the comment section of the article titled “Orlando” by all means do so. But, you haven’t mentioned anything about that shooting yet.
We brought it up to make the point that there are some perfectly sensible and widely supported changes that as we saw today can’t even be brought up on the floor of the Congress.
You seem to be fighting with ghosts. The question we asked is why does anyone need one of these guns? Why do people go to such lengths to try to conflate reasonable changes in the law with good people with guns rhetoric? No one is talking about amending the Second Amendment – although we’d support that too if it would help clarify things – or taking away guns. Why do gun advocates treat every reasonable – or even small – change as if the roof is caving in on them?
It sounds like you’re trying to create a solution in need of a problem. You obviously don’t like some kinds of guns, so you don’t think that anyone should be allowed to have them. On top of that, the “solutions” you’re proposing are hollow — they won’t reduce gun violence, have nothing to do with the article you posted, and are far from reasonable; they only restrict the right of people who weren’t shooting other people in the first place.
Besides that, the types of guns you keep wanting banned have been banned for the last 80 years.
Yes, we do have problems with weapons that were never intended for civilians to be on our streets. You say it won’t reduce gun violence – but it has in every other Western country. There is lots of research that proves that more guns results in more murders. It really defies common sense to think differently any way.
http://apps.bostonglobe.com/graphics/2016/06/make-it-stop/