Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Jason Alexander's Gun Rant

Jason Alexender posted rant on Twitter and I wanted to share it here:


From Salon.com:

"I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of MILITIA
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right – these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn’t see it should…
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn’t have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources – sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. “Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar – plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.”

But that won’t happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don’t kill – people do. Well if that’s correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes — a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?
We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I’m an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless."

Jason Alexander


Sunday, July 22, 2012

Wow...Just wow...


This is how the shooter was dressed in Aurora, CO theater massacre. I thought the police chief said his vest was a ballistic tactical vest and he was in full body armour but this image is just showing a tactical vest. Not sure how an armed person or persons in the theater could have effectively taken him down by shooting him in a dark, loud, smokey, chaotic theater and not injured or killed innocent people in the process. They would have been better offer rushing him and tackling him to the ground.


Now...here is the gear Anders Behring Breivik was wearing when he massacred 69 People in Norway.





 Also another sick, sick individual but someone please tell me why we haven't looked at all these incidents (Auorora, Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech Norway, Gabby Giffords, etc...) and studied them to learn how we can better identify people who have started to lose their minds? Why has nothing changed to make the public safer with the advancement of gun/ammo technology and with the widespread availability of military style equipment for civilians??

I'll tell you why in 5 words:

Power of the Gun Lobby


Saturday, July 21, 2012

The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is FEAR MONGERING Itself!!



There's been yet another tragedy involving an insane person and guns. This time in Aurora, CO. So many silly arguments as to why we should do nothing about this and just let is happen again.



The blame game and finger pointing is in full swing...and no doubt the gun lobby and the politicians they sponsor will wait a few days out of respect for the dead but then will start with the fear mongering propaganda that their political opponents are "Going to take our guns away" and "Be a good american and buy more guns and ammo before they are taken away from you by a government who wants to control you!!"


Sigh...why are we constantly duped into more consumption and consumerism??? Why can't people see we are playing perfectly into the gun lobby's hands? If they create an environment of fear of losing guns (which is ridiculous considering there are more guns than people in the US), then maybe people will race out and buy more gun and ammo products. In fact, that is exactly what happened. There was a huge effort to dupe people into believing President Obama was going to take our guns away and what happened? Huge increases in guns and ammo sales:

Ammo.net posted the below infographic and posed this question to their readers:

"American firearm sales and concealed handgun permit applications are at all-time highs since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama. President Obama's perceived hostility towards gun owners has been one of the key factors behind the multi-year financial boom the firearms industry continues to enjoy. In fact, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is actively preparing to work to defeat President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, according to Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, who recently said the following at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C.:

"Lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term. We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution...When the sun goes down on election day Barack Obama will have America’s gun owners to thank for his defeat.” -
Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, February 10th, 2012

Ironically, the perceived hostility towards gun owners by President Obama has actually helped the firearms industry tremendously. Since the 2008 election, more Americans than ever before are purchasing firearms & ammunition. This has meant massive increases in sales by firearm & ammunition makers, billions more in federal and state tax collections related to guns & ammo, increased membership in the NRA, and hundreds of thousands of new Americans carrying concealed handguns. Therefore, should the firearms industry support President Obama for a second term or not?"

Seriously...click on this:

The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama

Do you see my point? First of all, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to go after the 2nd Amendment nor has he indicated that he intends to push for changes in gun regulation. In fact, his silence on this issue reflects his inability to navigate Washington politics to achieve common sense regulation as well as his fear of the gun lobby. But I'll save that topic for another day....

So here we are..purchasing more guns and ammo out of irrational fear and who is benefitting from this? Pretty much no one other than gun and ammo manufacturers. Yes, I see the additional tax revenue but it's not now nor will it every be enough to justify the loss of life and tragedy inflicted on our citizens due to gun violence.

Up next...the silly and irrelevant argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and therefore, "we shouldn't regulate guns because lawless people don't care and will do what they want." Yes, lawless people will always exist and will do what they want regardless of the law but that doesn't mean we stop making smart laws and regulations. People do lots of stupid things that can lead to their death and /or the death of others and that hasn't stopped us from smart regulations like speed limits and seat belts. Assault weaons and high capacity clips make violent events even more lethal and so do lax gun regulations. We should keep working on smart gun regulations as well.

A personal favorite argument against gun control... "If someone else had a gun there, they would have stopped it." Okay...so no doubt, it does happen that other people with guns can safely intervene. You here stories bout it all the time. But in this instance, the shooter in Aurora, CO was wearing full swat gear including a kevlar vest, kevlar helmet...even a bullet proof cup to protect his family jewels. He wore a gas mask and threw tear gas into the crowd. He was armed with 4 fully automatic weapons (2 assault rifles and 2 hand guns) and several high capacity clips (one with 100 bullets). Even the most accomplished marksman, would have had trouble taking him down under these circumstances.

The eye witness accounts depict chaos and screaming. No one knew if he was the only shooter or not. The movie theater was dark, smokey, loud and packed with panicked people. Even a member of Navy Seal Team 6 would not have been able to neutralize the threat before the shooter got off a hundred rounds. Let's suppose just an average citizen had their gun on them in theater, this shooter was wearing bullet proof clothing so you would have been much better off rushing him and tackling him than trying to use your own gun to stop him. A strong argument for self defense classes if you ask me!

More armed citizens does not equal less violence. Smart and safe gun owners keep their guns locked up. Even gun owners who choose to conceal and carry, know that you don't point at something unless you intend to shoot it. In this instance and in others (i.e., the Gabby Gifford shooting), it was chaos and for someone else to attempt to target a shooter that is weaving in and out of a crowd of innocent people would only have resulted in more injuries  and / or death by friendly fire. In fact, there was a man with a gun at the Giffords shooting and he chose not to use it. Even instances where people safely intervene or use a gun as self defense will tell you that no one else other than the attacker was in danger of being shot.

More guns do not make us safer. Personally, I don't want a bunch of vigilanties running around with guns and intervening as they see fit. I prefer to leave that up to law enforcement. I'm not saying people should not be able to own guns. I totally get the appeal. I just do not feel that more guns make us safer. The US has more guns than other country and therefore, more gun violence and deaths than any other country. I do believe in smart gun regulations and doing everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who are going to use them to harm us.

Another argument you hear against gun regulation is that it hasn't worked in other countries and it is followed up with examples of Hitler, Stalin and Quaddafi.

All I can say is, "huh? You can't be serious?!?!" You may be fooled by this style of fear mongering but I am not so easily taken in by non-sense like this this image to the right. Using examples like these to justify less regulations on guns is completely ridiculous, ignorant and dangerous.


Let's see...what else do the opposers to gun regulation say:


"Save the Second Amendment!!!", "Don't tread on me!!"


I'm sorry but the 2nd amendment does NOT guarantee the right for the mentally unstable to carry fully automatic weapons with high capacity clips. I don't see that written up there, do you?

Let's be realistic and modern about the 2nd Amendment. It was written during a very different time when we were not the world military power that we are now and when there was a real fear of tyrannical governments. Times have obviously changed. First of all, there is no threat of a tyrannical government and even if our government decided to turn us and acting like the Syrian government is acting right now, no amount of guns will help us. As President Bush so eloquently described our military prowess in the terms of "shock & awe", we would be helpless against bombs, tanks, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Attempting to fight off our "shock and awe" military with guns would be the equivalent of throwing rocks. If we are really concerned about a tyrannical government, we should be arming ourselves with tanks, blackhawk helicopters, IED's and nuclear weapons if we ever have a fight chance.

Second, the framers could not possibly have envisioned the advancement in weapons and ammo technology that would be available to the masses. Our regulations MUST address the times we live in today. I feel we should put the assault weapons bans in place and I believe we should highly regulate high capacity clips.

Fear mongering about the 2nd Amendment being under attack is almost as ridiculous as believing President Obama isn't a US citizen. It is just one of of the many wedge issues lobbying groups (in this case, the gun lobby) and our political leaderships use to divide and conquer us. We should no longer allow ourselves to be fooled by fear mongering about the 2nd Amendment.


That is all...

Guns - Ammo - Liquor - Beer - Wine and... Sudafed



Given the violence in CO and all the lively debates about it, I've been thinking about the lack of gun control. Guns are a consumer product and are less regulated than liquor, wine, toys, toothpaste or even sinus medicine. It is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a house or a car, get a job or obtain health insurance. A retailer is not even allowed to sell you large quantities of sinus medication but they can sell you as much guns and ammo as you want. How has the gun lobby has been so effective at minimizing regulation for such deadly consumer products? More to come on this last question later...

For now, check out the map on the right...only 5 states have bans on assault weapons (white states). 3 states regulate assault weapons (light orange) while 42 states (darker orange), do not ban or regulate assault weapons. A decade or so ago, there was a nationwide ban on assault rifles. What has changed? The chart on the left shows shifting gun views over time using Gallup Poll data. The green bar is the % of people wanting more strict laws. The yellow line shows % of people wanting less strict/keep the same as now.



The image below are the guns the shooter used in the theater in Aurora, CO. Who really needs all this? It is illegal to hunt with assault rifles so why a civillian is allowed to possess a deadly military assault rifle just doesn't make any sense to me. I can fully understand a gun enthusiasts desire to fire a gun like this...but...can't we compromise? At a bare minimum, it should be much more difficult to possess deadly assault rifles and high capacity clips. I can understand the argument that if someone wants to buy it, they should be able to...doesn't mean I agree with it at all. But seriously...it should not be this easy to buy these types of weapons. Let's be reasonable.




Surely we can find a compromise that balances gun enthusiasts wants/desires (not a need or a right) to own military style assault rifles and high capacity clips with the need for public safety. Right? Right?? Anyone??? Bueller...Bueller...

Now for the Truth about State Gun Regulations. I think most people would be shocked if they realized how easy it truly is for anyone to get dangerious military style assault weapons.

Here is a summary of Colorado State Gun Law:

In the publication Gun Laws Matter: A Comparison of State Firearms Laws and Statistics, LCPGV ranked each state based on a review of state laws in 25 firearm-related policy areas. Colorado ranked 27th out of 50 – having enacted a modest amount of gun violence prevention laws. Among other things, Colorado:
  • Regulates gun shows and requires that all firearms transfers at gun shows be processed by a licensed firearms dealer prior to the transfer of any firearm;
  • Conducts its own background checks on firearm purchasers through licensed dealers and denies a firearm sale if the background check cannot be completed within the three-day default period; and
  • Requires that mentally ill individuals who are ineligible to possess firearms be reported to the federal database used for firearm purchaser background checks.
Colorado does not, however:
Local governments in Colorado, with the exception of Denver, generally lack authority to regulate firearms or ammunition.

In 2009, Colorado ranked 21st in the number of gun deaths per capita among the states. 583 people died from firearms injuries in Colorado in that year. Colorado is also a crime gun exporter. Based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in 2009, Colorado exported crime guns at almost twice the rate at which it imported them – in other words, guns that had been originally purchased in Colorado were recovered after being used in crimes in other states at twice the rate at which crime guns originally purchased outside Colorado were then recovered inside Colorado.

Source: http://smartgunlaws.org/colorado-state-law-summary/




Now...what does smart gun regulation look like? Acoording to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Smart Gun Regulations look like this:

Source: Model Gun Laws For a Safer America

Model Laws for a Safer America is designed for use by activists and elected officials nationwide seeking to close dangerous loopholes in our federal regulatory system. This unique publication provides sample language for state and local laws to:
1) require background checks on all gun purchasers
2) license firearm owners
3) register all firearms
4) regulate firearms dealers and ammunition sellers
5) require the reporting of lost or stolen firearms
6) impose a waiting period before the sale of a firearm
7) limit firearm purchases to one per person every 90 days

And this looks like a great start to me too!