This morning, I checked Twitter while I was waiting for the bus, hoping to hear some celebrity news or have a few laughs. Instead, I was horrified to see that a shooting had occurred at a Batman screening in Denver, Colorado. I assumed it was minor until I clicked on the link and saw that 12 people were killed, 50 wounded.
How many times are we going to hear news about a gunmen opening fire and killing people in this country? It happens often enough that we may as well be living in a war zone. We can’t go anywhere anymore, not school or work, political rallies, courthouses or movie theaters, without fearing some kind of attack. And I am beyond tired of the people who say guns aren’t the problem; people are the problem. Because those people—who deny the severity of the issue—along with the shooters, are precisely the problem.
The real terrorism in this country exists at home, with people wrapping themselves in the second amendment of the constitution and claiming it keeps us free while we all duck from gunfire.
Guns kill people. The whole purpose of a gun is to kill or severely injure another person. Mostly, they’re intended to kill. We can all pretend the purpose of a gun is to protect, an insurance policy in case something bad happens. But people buy insurance because they are pretty sure something bad is going to happen. They don’t know when, but they know they will use it. And that’s the same with guns.
Our country’s obsession with guns starts terrifyingly young. My five-year-old son is fascinated, and not because we bring it up or encourage violence in our household. Other people do, and that cultural ethos finds its way into daycare and preschool. Not to mention that it’s nearly impossible to find a show or video game that helps him understand what it means to be male in our society without blowing things up or hurting other people.
I am tired of excuses about the necessity of guns because our government may turn rogue or we’ll have an upsurge in black market sales, as though gun violence is some sort of fucking American tradition that we need to strive to preserve.
We are clearly already at war, and if we don’t stop guns and the people with guns, it’s going to get worse, to the point where we will not be able to leave our houses without fear of being shot. I’m tired of living in a country constantly under threat by people with guns. If we care about our children, we need to do something. And the answer is not more guns.
Image: “Bebe Gun Hold Up 1″ by Jolyntech
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
My stepson was out with friends seeing the midnight premiere–luckily at another theater. It’s so scary and sad and, well, sickening.
That’s terrifying. I’m so glad he’s okay. Good luck out there, Kitch.
Oh Kitch. I am so glad he is ok. Senseless and terrifying.
Well said Jana.
I agree. Humans are emotionally volatile beings. I can’t think of anything more dangerous than a mentally ill person with firearms. But even sane people can become emotionally unstable quickly and easily, and if there’s a gun around, a tragedy is sure to follow. I saw this firsthand when I worked with victims of domestic abuse.
So, you think that if guns were banned that killers wouldn’t get their hands on illegal guns?! Most of the people that use guns to go out and kill people get them illegally anyways!
Not to mention — if this killer, who shot all of these innocent people, didn’t own guns, he would have gone in there with a bomb or another means to accomplish his sick mission. Killing is in the hearts of men, not in the tools they use to do it.
Whitney, your quote—”Killing is in the hearts of men, not in the tools they use to do it”—sounds very clever, but it’s not reasonable to ignore that the men who commit mass murders in this country do it with legally bought guns, specifically assault weapons intended to kill not deer, but a large number of people.
When it comes to most things, our government puts laws in place to protect against illegal activity. For instance, when it was discovered that young people were buying pseudoephedrine to make crystal meth, a restriction was put in place that all purchasers of pseudeophedrine needed to present a government-issued ID to make sure they were of age. Yet when it comes to guns, our country’s lack of restrictions (ammunition bought on the internet, for God’s sake) make it way too easy for a mentally ill or angry person to go on a killing spree. We see the fatalities of this problem in abundance every year.
I have to agree with Whitney. Killing is in the hearts of men. Gun, knife, torch, stick. If they are angry and filled with intention, it will happen. It is usually something they learn at an early age by playing video games where they club fat men to death and kill ogres with bullets. Wait a minute. I just read that somewhere recently……… Slippery slope indeed! I can’t believe you posted this and followed it up four days later with your list of admissions.
The government, passing another asinine law, is certainly not the answer. My blood boils everytime I have to stand in line with a sinus infection with six forms of ID and a note from my mother just to meet the qualifications necessary to get a medicine I used to pick right off the shelf. Why? Because some other mope has no self-control? How about the government spend its time actually enforcing the laws on the books and backing them up with life-changing punishments instead of repeatedly punishing those of us following the laws.
Scott, that sort of pharmacy situation you speak of makes me think we need some good health reform law in this country.
And is it really a punishment to not be able to own a cabinet full of assault weapons? No. But fearing that people will walk into crowded spaces every day with their guns and kill me or my children sure does feel like a punishment to me.
I grew up around conservative Republican, NRA-supporting farmers and hunters who truly used their guns for supporting their families. But overall, I very much agree with you. I often wonder, when looking at situations where someone has needed to use a gun in self-defense, “Would that have been necessary if the attacker hadn’t have access to a gun himself?” I think that most of the time, that answer is no. I would love to see much stricter crackdowns on weapon ownership in the U.S. Maybe then people like the families of the Aurora victims won’t have empty places at the dinner table.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I grew up in an area where hunting and guns were the only way many families brought home a stable source of protein. I went to a high school where Hunter’s Safety Education was mandatory for graduation. While I strongly support gun control, I also strongly support our second amendment. I also think gun control may be less important than safety and awareness classes and training. Several other post-industrialized nations have looser restrictions and more guns than we do, with a much lower shooting incidence rate. Gun safety education is the major difference.
Thanks for your “respectful disagreement,” Sarah. And I have heard people who grow up in a hunting culture respond to this issue eloquently, like you have. I don’t think gun safety education is the main difference, though, because this man—and others before him, like the Columbine shooters—wanted to hurt and kill people. Guns were the easiest way to do that, and they are readily available to anyone who wants them. A hunting rifle is one thing, but an assault weapon and 6,000 rounds of ammunition? Why on earth would there need to be education on how to assault people, unless you’re in the midst of war? The prevalence of guns in our society makes me feel like we are at war all the time. Anywhere, at any time, an angry or undiagnosed mentally-ill person can pull out their legally bought weapons to kill people. (Meanwhile, I’d love to learn more about the countries that you say have looser restrictions, more guns and fewer fatalities. Clearly, the U.S. needs to learn a few things.)
I couldn’t agree with you more, Jana. I have a son who is about the same age as yours, and I’m a bit surprised by the number of times we have had to have the “guns are bad because they are designed to kill people” conversation already. Sadly the conversation is warranted because we are faced with so many friends and so much media that thinks guns make fantastic toys for 4-year-olds. Clearly the 2nd amendment was written at a time when semi-automatic weapons were not readily available to the public, and anyone who thinks this was the intent of our constitution is kidding him/herself. I really appreciate this post because it puts into words, much better than I am able to, exactly how I feel on the topic. Glad to hear there are other parents out there who think our gun-obsessed society is problematic because there are days when I feel I’m the only one!
My husband and I were just talking about this today. We currently live in a very hunter friendly, Southern state so I understand how people want to maintain there right to bear arms. But I don’t think the men who wrote the second amendment quite meant for us to have any kind of gun, anywhere we wanted. They couldn’t have foreseen the advancement we would make in armory. Those men needed their rifles for food, business and protection against their government. Though my family believes the idea of no guns is best, we do live in America where we love our freedoms. I can see the allowance of rifles (and yes, people can still be killed by a rifle) for civilians and other type weapons for military/law enforcement only. This includes militias. Have state run militias, made up of people registered with the government, if you like but house the weapons, which are registered with the government, at local magazines or National Guard headquarters not in their homes. The only discussions I hear is an “all or none” argument, where is the talk about a happy medium?
P.S. I think it’s funny how our government allows us to carry guns but we cannot take them into governmental buildings. Why not? That is a rhetorical question, of course. If they can acknowledge the danger to themselves, why not to their constituents? Again, another rhetorical question.