NYT Herbert: A Flood Tide of Murder (getting serious about gun violence)

[chimpymustgo]

A Flood Tide of Murder
By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 10, 2011


By all means, condemn the hateful rhetoric that has poured so much poison into our political discourse. The crazies don’t kill in a vacuum, and the vilest of our political leaders and commentators deserve to be called to account for their demagoguery and the danger that comes with it. But that’s the easy part.

If we want to reverse the flood tide of killing in this country, we’ll have to do a hell of a lot more than bad-mouth a few sorry politicians and lame-brained talking heads. We need to face up to the fact that this is an insanely violent society. The vitriol that has become an integral part of our political rhetoric, most egregiously from the right, is just one of the myriad contributing factors in a society saturated in blood.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed. That figure includes suicides and accidental deaths. But homicides, deliberate killings, are a perennial scourge, and not just with guns.

-edit-

If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.


-edit-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11herbert.html?ref=opinion

[xchrom]

1. it should, but it's never going to happen. nt

[malaise]

2. Well if politicians refuse to act even when one of their own

has her life changed forever, there will be no change.

[chimpymustgo]

3. Politicians' solution: we pay for 24/7 bodyguards for them.

[malaise]

21. While cutting mental health and education budgets

See how fast they find money for themselves.

[Hoopla Phil]

47. NO! If the job is too dangerous for them - don't run for the position.

[Pancho Sanza]

5. You're right, but what act would address the problem?

I can't think of any constitutional remedy...

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

6. I don't want any infringement on either my speech or my right to own a gun. But

I do want to see our culture of violence change. When you look at Switzerland, you see evidence that society can exist peacefully even with widespread gun possession and free speech. K&R

[chimpymustgo]

7. We need gun safety laws.

[closeupready]

8. Would these laws cover law enforcement officers?

What kinds of gun safety laws do you have in mind?

[chimpymustgo]

9. Assault weapon ban. Stronger background checks (mental health screening). Why does anyone need a

semi-automatic weapon that can shoot a dozen people dead in seconds?

[Spoonman]

10. The firs time we passed an assault weapon ban,

it had no effect on crime.
I would compare your solution to putting spoiled milk back in the refrigerator and expecting it to better a week later.

Gun sales have been at an all time high for the past several years, and crime has fallen.

Care to explain that phenomenon?

[Forrest Greene]

11. Trotting Out Lame Gun Industry Propaganda

...in the face of dead children is grotesque & despicable. Care to explain that phenomenon?

[villager]

12. It's always trotted out before the blood even dries...

n/t

[Imajika]

14. But you can't counter it can you?

You just want to use the "drying blood" as an excuse to push your agenda and silence opposition.

The Assault Weapons ban achieved nothing. Period. Letting it expire did not lead to more gun violence. As gun control measures have been lifted, relaxed and abolished the national crime rate has fallen. The facts are what they are.

[Forrest Greene]

24. A Ban On Extended Magazines, For Instance,

...would have meant this shooter could have gotten off one-third the number of rounds he did before being stopped. Stopped by unarmed people, as well. The facts are what they are.

Drying blood, particularly that of children or of seventy-six year-old men who give their lives to save their spouses of many years would be enough to silence anyone possessing a little simple human decency.

[Last_Stand]

27. It was my understanding that he only got half of the "clip" emptied before it jammed...

He was stopped by unarmed people because of their bravery, the design of the magazine, the faulty spring, and because the murderer had to reload and try to clear the mechanism.

If he would have had two guns with normal sized magazines, he would caused a lot more damage.

How is it any less shameful when gun restriction advocates use this tragedy to push more losing legislation that will hurt the Democratic party in the future?

[chimpymustgo]

36. "hurt the Democratic Party"???? What about saving LIVES!

Nonsensical.

[X_Digger]

37. How exactly would it save a life? (what proposal are you endorsing to do so?) n/t

[Last_Stand]

38. How are you going to save lives...

when the Democratic party loses even more legislative influence?

How many more people will die from deregulation of goods, or food and water, or healthcare, or fucking poverty?

It's nonsensical to think that unsuccessful attempts at banning guns or accessories is going to save any lives. You might want to look at the larger picture beyond the high emotions surrounding gun violence.

[Hoopla Phil]

49. First, it doesn't' "save lives" or do you have proof? Second, remember 94?

[shadowrider]

31. Simply not true

Even with a magazine that holds 10 rounds, with practice, it can be changed in under 2 seconds. That isn't a lot of time if you have to cover 15-20 feet to get to the shooter who is in the process of reloading.

Not to mention, 10 rounds magazines are much, much more reliable than a 30 round magazine.

In other words, a ban on extended magazines wouldn't solve a damn thing.

[X_Digger]

32. google New York Reload..

..

He could have as easily just brought a second gun.

Why is it that folks think if they could just tweak this one little thing right *there* then X would have been avoided? As if someone bent on destruction is too stupid to change tactics to suit the conditions at hand?

[Last_Stand]

13. And the gun grabbers jerking their knees are always right beside them...(n/t)

[villager]

16. The predictable NRA spoon-fed rote phrases are deployed, as well...

n/t

[Last_Stand]

17. I'm not a member of the NRA...

I just don't think the Democratic party should throw away any more influence on what has been proven to be an issue that doesn't work for them.

I understand the anger and passion that drives people to demand gun control after a tragedy like this, but I don't think it's the right direction to put legislative energy.

[villager]

19. I appreciate the somewhat more level-headed reply, devoid of "hot button" phraseology

not being a member of the NRA, you're under no obligation to use their language, talking points, or test-phrases.

And I think baby and bathwater have been thrown out, in terms of the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, in order to placate gun manufacturing lobbies (posing as "citizen's groups" -- a fine old trick) like the NRA.

[Last_Stand]

22. I don't disagree with you on that...

but I think the horse has already left the barn when it comes to guns.

They're out there and it's impossible to get rid of them, so I would prefer to solve the problems that drive people to gun violence.

Your response has made me think twice about using such a loaded term...thank you.

[villager]

40. well, thank you for the rare interaction on this issue that ends peaceably

--on both sides (mine included) -- linguistically speaking.

(Or is "linguistically speaking," redundant!? ;-)

[GreenStormCloud]

35. An orginization with over 4 million volunteer members IS a citizen's group. N/T

[villager]

39. A lot of people are brainwashed into being Republicans, too

They're not truly serving citizens' interests either.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. But they are still CITIZENS, even if they are Republicans.

You tried to claim that the NRA is a gun manufacturer's lobby. That is false. There is another organization that does that. You may hate the NRA, but membership is voluntary, they pay dues, and they ARE citizens. They vote, annually, on the leadership. The NRA goes in the direction that the voting members express by their ballots. And there are over four million of them.

Face it. There are people who hold to views that are different from yours, and they are also citizens.

[villager]

44. NRA members -- like Republicans -- are easily stirred by their fears

...which proves useful for those pulling the strings, and useful for those raking in profits from gun sales.

They may be citizens -- that doesn't mean their contribution to the Republic is a positive one.

[Forrest Greene]

25. If You're Attempting To Address Me

...I said nothing about grabbing guns. What I did was characterize gun owners who crow the talking points of the corporations by whom they are owned as being grotesque & despicable. Get it straight.

[Last_Stand]

28. Okay, I have it straight now. (n/t)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

23. Thats not gun industry propaganda. Its DoJ statistics.

Unless you think the nra is in bed with the DOJ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Trotting out a Lovejoy in lieu of a reasoned response is grotesque and despicable.

Have you any factual basis for refuting what he said?

Or in this case, "refudiating"...

[spin]

34. Nope it's fact.

I don't need gun industry propaganda, I was a witness to the total failure of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Before the AWB "black rifles" were a curio that few shooters had any interest in. After the ban, every shooter I knew just had to have one. Of course, they all needed at least three hi-cap magazines to go with their new weapon.

And assault weapons and hi-cap magazines were always available, they just cost an exorbitant price.

So rather than curtail the sale and ownership of these weapons, the AWB made them extremely popular.

Why don't we do something useful like make sure sates like Arizona start putting names of people with severe mental issues into the NICS system that dealers contact to get authorization to sell a firearm. Maybe if the shooter hadn't been able to buy that Glock, this would have never happened. Like most mass shooters he was waving red flags everywhere.

[Hoopla Phil]

48. Why do you have such a problem with facts? Does it interfere with your agenda?

[beevul]

20. The AWB as it was originally written...

The AWB as it was originally written, wouyld not have prevented the shooting.

Semi-automatic firearms are generally the standard now days, and a design over a hundred years old.


Semi-automatic weapons...rather the banning of them, is a recipe for long term political defeat.

[X_Digger]

26. Ahh, already trying to spread the new meme, eh?

"safety" not "control" ... riiight.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Haven't you heard? "Gun safety" is the new "Free speech zone".

All the best authoritarians are using it!

[slackmaster]

15. "radically restrict the availability of guns" is a political loser

It's not going to happen.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chill_wind]

33. K & R.

[one-eyed fat man]

42. The Grand Experiment

Prohibition was demanded by the "dries" — primarily pietistic Protestant denominations, especially the Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers and Scandinavian Lutherans. They identified saloons as politically corrupt and drinking as a personal sin. The Klan and "dries" were a major force in the 1924 Democratic National Convention, also known as the Klanbake



Prohibition was a failure. Prohibition was created to stop social problems. What Prohibition, the “Noble” experiment, did was create more social problems. Before Prohibition was repealed in 1933, organized crime, bootlegging, illegal speakeasies, and many other problems had been created. Ironically, before the unprecedented violence of the gang wars there had never been any need for Federal gun regulations. Machineguns, cannon and the like were complete unregulated and free for any citizen to own.



Read more: http://socyberty.com/issues/the-problems-with-prohibition-why-prohibition-was-a-failure/#ixzz1AmNaCPoF

The "War on Drugs" is faring no better. Criminal enterprises awash in cash are able to corrupt police and public officials, litter our streets with corpses and fill our prisons all to supply the endless demand for recreational drugs. The waste in lives and the endemic corruption of our institutions by the unholy profits of the trade are staggering.

Yet, we are assured with the zeal and faith that a Prohibition on guns will succeed. The same criminal enterprises that bring drugs and illegal aliens across the US border, that bring military grade weaponry across the border from Guatemala to fuel their internecine battles will be be unable to smuggle guns to the US.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.-- Albert Einstein

[PavePusher]

45. And yet, with gradually fewer gun restrictions....

crime has been dropping. For several decades.

Care to explain that one?

[lawodevolution]

46. "We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while"

Yes good plan, let's ignore the real evidence and data showing that people who live in societies with low civilian access to firearms have a much higher chance of being the victims of murder and let's just assume more guns results in more crime. Don't even bother to care about the complete lack of evidence that more guns equal more violence and let's ignore the data that shows that nations with a high civilian gun possession rate are much safer because it us backed by a t test at 95% confidence interval and we don't like valid data, facts, good stats and intellectual honesty. We have an agenda and the ends justifies the means, right?
Wrong!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915

Nytimes flunked this one.