HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » "After Aurora, Micha...

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 11:48 PM

"After Aurora, Michael Tomasky on the Country the NRA Wants to See" - Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/21/after-aurora-michael-tomasky-on-the-country-the-nra-wants-to-see.html

Don’t believe those who say we will prevent horrific shootings. This is the America we live in now.

"If there’s one thing I hate hearing at times like this, it’s that violin-music language about how we must work to ensure that something like the Aurora shooting “never happens again.” I can understand why it makes people feel better in some way to say it. But really. Nonsense. We have no collective will in this country to make sure such a day never happens again. In fact, if anything, we are headed for a day when 20 percent of the people in a movie theater are armed themselves, and we have a good old shoot ’em up that would’ve made John Ford’s head spin but will make the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre’s heart soar like an eagle.


I’m not the stereotypical anti-gun liberal you probably think I am. Has something to do, I suppose, with growing up in West Virginia. I never hunted, but many of my friends did, and they weren’t nuts. They were . . . my friends. Further, I accept that guns have been a part of American life since the beginning—the first individual mandate after all, as liberals didn’t mind saying when seeking to defend the health-care law. I can understand (barely, but I can) how a person can love guns as I love guitars, which, if I had the money, I’d collect avidly.


But please. The idea that honest efforts to keep guns out of the hands of potential killers and mentally unstable people poses any rational threat to my friends or America’s hunters and collectors is completely preposterous. This is such a con. Rock-ribbed conservatives usually don’t show a great deal of sympathy for our country’s mentally ill, when the question involves social spending on their behalf; but by God try to deny them to right to bear arms, and watch how quickly and feverishly the right wing rallies to their side, linking arms as if the famous “slippery slope” would lead inevitably from the mentally ill to law-abiding citizens. (Technically, the mentally disturbed can’t buy guns, but as a practical matter, existing proscriptions are easily circumvented, as we learned with Jared Lee Loughner in Arizona)."


snip

6 replies, 1410 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply "After Aurora, Michael Tomasky on the Country the NRA Wants to See" - Daily Beast (Original post)
NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 OP
Indydem Jul 2012 #1
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jul 2012 #2
_ed_ Jul 2012 #3
Zoeisright Jul 2012 #4
ljm2002 Jul 2012 #5
happyslug Jul 2012 #6

Response to NRaleighLiberal (Original post)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 01:33 AM

1. If one honest person in that theater had a firearm, they could have saved lives.

But the theater banned them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 03:50 AM

2. Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better

After the Gabby Giffords shooting, a Long Beach (CA) man who was there was interviewed by a local L.A. television station. He said he had had his gun (legal concealed carry) but hadn't drawn it because in the confusion he couldn't distinguish the shooter from those who were trying to stop him.

In a darkened theater with tear gas in the air and a hysterical stampeding audience you are telling me a single person would have had the ability to assess the situation, see, identify, aim, shoot and kill or at least mortally wound an individual dressed for this attack -- including body armor and a gas mask? Seriously?

Besides, how are we to know who is an "honest person" if we can't do any sort of background check before selling them a gun?

This was a tragic event. Let's not try to spin fantasies concerning how it could turned out different "if only..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:24 AM

3. You are seriously paranoid

What happens when law enforcement shows up and can't tell who the "bad guy" is because there are a bunch of wannabe hero gun nuts waving their pieces around?

Only a seriously deranged fool would think that the answer to this tragedy is more guns on the scene.

Did you see the story about the Giffords shooting where the guy said that even though he had his gun, he couldn't determine who was a "good guy" vs. a "bad guy."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 12:07 AM

4. Oh that is complete bullshit.

Another shooter in a dark theater would have escalated the mayhem and increased injuries and deaths. I am so sick of that stupid "argument".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:56 AM

5. Did you read what the gunman was wearing???

Bulletproof vest, helmet, throat and groin protectors -- someone firing at him in the dark with a pistol would have had a very small chance of even slowing him down, much less killing him. The chance of hitting someone else in the theater, on the other hand, would be quite good.

And of course, if there were more than one armed patron who started shooting, there is also the chance they would be mistaken for being part of the attack.

I appreciate the thought of how we might be able to defend ourselves, whenever some nutcase goes berserk. I will admit to having fantasies, when I am on public transportation, of what I might do if some armed asshole tried to terrorize the people riding. But even while fantasizing, I consciously realize that (a) none of us knows what we would do in the actual event; and (b) it's not neat and tidy like in the movies -- if we try and do something, it can go wrong and make things worse. Even so, I hope that I would make a move if I saw a chance. Unfortunately, I don't carry a weapon with me. I'm considering going around with a cane Seriously, as an older woman, I could carry a cane and would not be looked at twice by a gunman, but I do know where to hit someone on the back of their knees to make their legs buckle. (of course one must consider that if they are holding a weapon, it might go off or they might fire it in that circumstance -- but you take your chances either way, whether you act or whether you do not act)

Ah, fantasies. Nothing like them. But my main point is this: arming everyone is not a magic bullet. Pun intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indydem (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:37 PM

6. The actual best thing to do is the CHARGE the attacker, not to shoot him

That is the recommendation for finding oneself in an ambush, staying where you are is where the ambushers wanted you to be, so easy target, to run away, gives the ambushes more time to take aim and shoot you, thus the "best" choice is to CHARGE. I did NOT say it was a good option, but it is the best.

In the Collage Park PA Shooter of 1996, the shooter took up a position with a 98 Mauser and started to shoot. The shooter had the skill and the weapon to kill a lot of people. A student saw the shooter and CHARGED the position of the Shooter and disarmed the Shooter before the shooter could kill more people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetzel_Union_Building_shooting

Notice the key was someone CHARGED the position of the Shooter, the person who CHARGED was unarmed, but by charging was able to disorientate the shooter enough to stop the shooting and to permit others to come to his aid to take the rifle from the shooting and hold the shooter till the police arrived to arrest the shooter. The Shooter was subsequently arrested and after extensive psychological exams was determined to be "Sane" but of such a limited ability that the Shooter's attorney agreed to a third degrees murder conviction (Which in Pennsylvania what other states call Second Degree, In Pennsylvania Second Degree Murder is Felony Murder as that term is used on many other states). The Shooter was to undergo psychological help while in Prison, that was part of the sentence.

My point is the best thing to do is the CHARGE such a shooter NOT to open fire on such a Shooter, thus a pistol is of limited, if no use, is such a situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread