On the morning of October 1, 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham of Pearl, Mississippi slit his mother’s throat, grabbed a rifle, loaded his pockets with ammo, and drove his dead mom’s car to Pearl High School. There he opened fire, killing two kids and injuring seven others. Woodham then got back in the car with the intention of heading to nearby Pearl Junior High, where he planned on becoming his own copycat. But he never got there. Woodham crashed his car when he saw another gun trained on him through the windshield. That gun belonged to Pearl High’s vice principal Joel Myrtle, who had got his Colt .45 out of his truck at the first sound of shots fired. Myrtle managed to subdue Woodham until police showed up.
The similarities between the Pearl High School shooting and Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook are strong. Depraved minds are rarely original. But the central difference between the two tragedies is important. Woodham, unlike Adam Lanza, was stopped mid-rampage by a law-abiding citizen with a gun. We can’t know how many innocent young lives the quick-thinking vice principal saved. While this doesn’t constitute an air-tight case for the availability of guns as defense against gun violence, it does remind us that such a case exists. It is a thoughtful case for saving lives, not ending them. Its defenders can adduce mounds of supporting data. And it is a case grounded in constitutional rights.
None of that means the “pro-gun” argument should prevail. But it should be heard and debated, and its adherents should be shown the same respect as gun-control advocates. Both groups, after all, want to see fewer Sandy Hooks.
And yet that’s not where we are. The current “debate” is mooted by its own terms: guns are the problem and fewer guns the solution. The only matters up for discussion are which guns to ban, how to enforce the ban, and are Second Amendment advocates cruel or just dumb. This is where we’ve been heading for a while. In March 2011, 48 hours after the post-earthquake explosion at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel reneged on extending the life of her country’s nuclear reactors. At the time, I wrote:
Hysteria on the largest scale possible has become the default official response to all crises. A lay public furnished with near-instantaneous media coverage can be counted on to demand immediate and absolute measures so that the crisis can be scrubbed from consciousness, however crudely or illogically. And over-monitored leaders will be sure to comply. Today a politician can lose his job if he doesn’t swiftly change historical precedent to fit the frenzied misinterpretation of a still-breaking news story.
That’s where we are. Reactive, finger-snap solutionism. If a single nuclear plant explodes, immediately move to halt civilian nuclear energy. If a hurricane devastates the East Coast, demand climate-change legislation. If a spree-killer goes on a rampage, get rid of guns.
The problem is that weather is, scientifically speaking, a chaotic system. And so too is human interaction. There is no one solution for keeping the chaos at bay. But, believe it or not, conservatives have thoughtful proposals about mitigating chaos or reducing its negative impact on people. The very night that Hurricane Sandy hit, the New York Times published an editorial explaining that such events demonstrate the need for big government. But many conservatives believe that big government was itself partially to blame for the damage done—without federal flood insurance no one would have developed homes so dangerously close to the water in the first place. Scaling back big government is not a matter of short changing those who have it hard but of sparing them the negative effects of poorly executed government intervention. A similar idea informs pro-Second Amendment arguments. If the government takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, only determined law-breakers will be armed in the event of attack.
The fault for not having real debate does not rest exclusively with progressive solutionists. It’s time for conservatives to drop their embattled and antagonistic posture. If they don’t want every crisis to automatically affirm progressive ideas they must acquaint Americans with why their own—sometimes, counterintuitive—ideas actually work for the good of the country.
You're right of course but this approach has no sizzle. It doesn't have that immediate feedback today's dummed down voters demand. It doesn't sound exciting so there is no juvenile reporter willing to offer it on the news in any form. It can't be explained in 45 seconds so it can't be marketed as valid. And most of all it doesn't comport to the valueless critical thinking be dammed education imparted in any of our public schools at any level. I'm with you but I feel alone…
Very well said. I think of the Jews in Europe who had essentially no weapons when the Nazis arose and murdered all visible Jews – including small children. I also recall the paucity of weapons in the hands of Jews in the Warsaw uprising – thanks in part to the world not giving a damn about Jews being murdered. With small arms weapons in every Jewish household in Germany and Europe, the Nazis may still have murdered 6 million Jews. However there would have been a large toll of dead Germans. And the Allies would have had a powerful underground of armed Jews assisting them. Unfortunately, the 2nd amendment has as much relevance in today's world as it did three centuries ago.
Very sad, but tragically true. Yes, guns can, and will be dangerous, in the wrong hands, but, if the wrong hands have them and the righteous do not, then we have sorrow. I think that substantial responsibility should be placed on Lanza's mother if, news reports are accurate, she made guns available to her mentally troubled child.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, has said she would introduce legislation to place a ban on assault weapons when Congress meets in 2013. Her proposal would stop the sale, transfer, import, and manufacture of assault weapons, as well as ammunition magazines, clips, and drums holding more than 10 rounds. n“I am in the process of gathering support for the bill in the Senate and House,” she said in a statement on Monday. nTo teach her son the 2nd amendment adulthood. Nancy Lanza bought Adam a rifle instead of condom on Bar Mitzvah Puberty. Adam killed her and killed all children his mom loved over him. Unless the 2nd amendment amended to read: ‘guns-are-police-thing’ we will see many of Sandy Hook shootout to come.
"While this doesn’t constitute an air-tight case for the availability of guns as defense against gun violence, it does remind us that such a case exists." n nRARELY. Really grasping at straws, aren't you.
It would be more often if guns were closer at hand.
“Itu2019s time for conservatives to drop their embattled and antagonistic posture.” And then do what, exactly?r nWe are indeed embattled; we are indeed antagonistic toward our adversaries. What would Commentary have us do? Make nice? Which would yield exactly what kind of outcome??
Excuse me, but this is an example of what I meant when I said (in a recent email to John Podhoretz) that the Commentary blog disseminates highly-partisan content that does not meet the traditional intellectual standards of Commentary, the magazine. In truth, America is not rushing to judgement about gun violence. There is no “hysteria” I can see, and I am a committed conservative in no rush to confiscate guns from the public. In fact, the argument that more “concealed carry” gun owners would heroically stop these killing sprees HAS been widely published in the mainstream media. (Most recently, just this past month. by Jeffrey Goldberg in “The Atlantic.”) The problem is, more law-abiding citizens are carrying guns, AND the killing sprees continue, seemingly unabated. It’s telling that Greenwald has to go all the way back to 1997 (14 years ago) to find a case study to support his point. I really do wish that this solution did work, but it doesn’t seem to, so exactly what is the next step, Mr. Greenwald?
Abe, Abe, nonsense. I do not know whether Myrtle's gun was registered, but THAT makes a difference. No one thinks we can control ALL guns, but what is so wrong about registering, background checks, passing a few test on safety, psychiatric evaluation, and waiting period? especially for killing-machine military guns. nuntil now, the NRA has been practicing a strict policy of not giving an inch on anything. well, guys, tough. the time has come for all of us to come to the table and control, not eliminate, guns.
Because if Myrtle had had a backgound check and her guns had been registered, her son would not have murdered her and stolen them? You are talking nonsense.
1 more time, amhoretz, u read very poorly. I was referring to Joel Myrtle in the story of Pearl High School that Abe referenced. there is no "Myrtle" in the Newtown story.
Fine. If Mrs. Lanza ad had a backgound check and her guns had been registered, her son would not have murdered her and stolen them? You are still talking nonsense.
Your phrase "killing-machine military guns" just shows your ignorance when it comes to firearms. I was having a discussion with a liberal on the "assault weapon" ban the first time around in 1994. When I kindly tried to educate her on some of her out and out factually wrong statements about guns she finally screamed at me, "I hate guns. I don't want to know anything about guns!" So much for the reality based community.
hey, FuneralGuy do not use a silly story to obfuscate the issue. one does not have to be an expert on guns to know the basic difference between a gun that needs reloading for each bullet, and a gun that can murder 4-5 victims per second without reloading. I have more than enough knowledge to tell the difference. nok, Funeralguy, tell me how much more i need to know about guns before determining the relative deadliness of each category. naccording to pro-gun absolutists like Bachmann, it should be perfectly legal to set up an unregistered rocket launcher in my backyard near JFK airport. n
The guns you are talking about ("murder 4-5 victims per second") are fully automatic and not legal anywhere in the US. The weapons used in this crime were semi-automatic. That means one pull of the trigger discharges one bullet. The Bushmaster rifle, a so-called "assault rifle' does not fire bullets much larger than a .22 It is a .223 caliber semi-auto. What most people fixate on is the look of the gun. Since it looks like a machine gun to them, they think it must be a machine gun.
There is no semi automatic firearm legally available to American citizens that has a 4-5 round per second capability. Obviously your knowledge is still lacking.
funeralguy, don't u know how to concentrate on the essence of the comment, rather than the silly details. exact number of rounds per second is irrelevant. we r comparing a shoot-once-then-reload gun, to a gun that can go many rounds without reload. nMan, u must have been a champ at 7th-grade debate!
I could go chapter and verse on the pointlessness of banning this or banning that but, quite frankly, nobody's mind is going to be changed. I at least have some respect for the anti-gun folks who call for complete banning and confiscation of guns because at least their cards are on the table. My only point was that when you are making policy that will effect the entire country comprehensive knowledge of the subject is important. Details matter.
"What is so wrong about registering" is that registration leads to confiscation. Expect massive non-compliance with any registration regime for that reason. As Kathy Schaidle says, Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than her guns.
I used to think " registration leads to confiscation" was nonsense. Then it happened, in the UK, Australia, and California. I don't want to see it happen here in the USA.
Gun control isn't really about guns, it's about control.
On the few blogs I perused, the pro-gun individuals make frequently derogatory comments against anyone who does not agree with them.They turn out to be the most vociferous and the majority on the web. I see no benefit in allowing semi-automatic weapons.
Funny. I've found that most of the derogatory comments are coming from your side directed at those who don't toe the gun-control-is-the-only-answer line. We look at you as misguided, you look at us as evil.
U misread me. I am not on the left, they have valid points just like the right. But both sides prefer extreme position rather than reasonable positions. One may wonder why we each have 100 Mi brain cells (B.C.) and use for most of us < 5%!!! What a waste! I believe that reasonable people use > 5% of BC.
ok, what IS the answer? more mental health treatment? u guys will not give a red cent to healthcare, but u r willing to set up a billion-dollar mental-health program.
Please. It makes just as much sense for me to say that "u guys" (whoever that is supposed to be) won't lock up murderers and rapists but you will lock up someone who carries a gun to defend herself against murderers and rapists.
God made man; guns make men equal.
No. I have to disagree partially. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. nIt took another few years to get the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is a Natural Right but without it the former is still true.
You're right de jure; I'm right de facto:).
The U.S. has just under 89 guns per 100 residents. Israel has 7.3 guns per 100 residents. The firearms related death rate in the U.S. is about 9.2 per 100,000. In Israel the firearms related death rate is 1.86 per 100,000. The gun-related homicide rates are 3.7 and 0.94 per 100,000 respectively for the U.S. and Israel. The gun-related suicide rates are 5.5 and 0,71 per 100,000 respectively. The gun-related accidental death rates are 0.27 and 0.03 per 100,000 respectively. n nMy conclusion from these statistics is that having a lot of guns around doesn't make us safer. The gun-related murder rate here in the U.S. is almost four times that of Israel. The gun-related accidental death rate in the U.S. is about 10 times that of Israel. n nCompared to the U.S. Israel has rather strict regulations for civilian gun ownership, with particular emphasis on mental and physical tests, as well as having to show a need to own the weapon. In addition, owing to near universal military training Israelis who own guns have been well-trained in the safe handling of those weapons. That's evident from the low rate of accidental gun deaths in Israel compared to the U.S. Generally civilians also are prohibited from owning assault weapons. There are some exceptions in certain dangerous areas. Overall, the strict gun regulations in Israel have made the country safer.
The U.S. has just under 89 guns per 100 residents. Israel has 7.3 guns per 100 residents. The firearms related death rate in the U.S. is about 9.2 per 100,000. In Israel the firearms related death rate is 1.86 per 100,000. The gun-related homicide rates are 3.7 and 0.94 per 100,000 respectively for the U.S. and Israel. The gun-related suicide rates are 5.5 and 0,71 per 100,000 respectively. The gun-related accidental death rates are 0.27 and 0.03 per 100,000 respectively.
a) Don't compare Israeli homicide rates with US national rates, frankly, compare Israeli rates with rates for the white U.S. population, or even better, with the U.S. Jewish population, for demographically superior matches. n nb) Israel doesn't have hunting like in the U.S., which accounts for many of the accidental incidents. For suicides, etc., best comparison would again be with the U.S. Jewish population, given cultural attitudes toward, and inhibitors against, suicide. n nOtherwise, virtually all of the comparisons you cite are meaningless.