Another Mass Shooting In Texas - But Some States Aren't Tolerating This BS Any Longer

Santa Fe HS student Paige Curry declared a sense of inevitability about school shootings. In fact, that only applies to states like hers that fail to act with new gun laws.

And yet another school shooting, the news of which came over wifey's Daily Kos cellphone feed yesterday a.m. barely minutes after she got her coffee. "What the hell is wrong with this damned country?" she yelped.    "Everything!" I replied, "And more than you can know as long as that human pustule blights the White House." (Referencing NY Times' Roger Cohen's  op-ed reference to "moral rot" now taking over our nation.)

She agreed and then went on to describe the god-awful news of the 16th shooting this year at a school during school hours that caused injury or death. Combined, the tally of the previous fifteen incidents is 21 deaths and 46 injuries -  this time at Santa Fe High about an hour outside of Houston. The only relatively positive aspect that could be found is that the shooter didn't use an AR-15 but a shotgun and .38 revolver. Which was bad enough, ending up killing 10 though with an AR-15 the total easily could have been doubled.

The deaths and injuries in Santa Fe happened three months after 17 students and staff were shot dead at a high school in Parkland, Florida, generating an immense amount of activism and attention, but has not so far translated into meaningful political action, well at least at the federal level. As I will show, however, a number of forward looking states have taken matters into their own hands, convinced Trump is a bought and sold whore for the NRA.

Noteworthy here - and relevant to the case I will make - is a  television journalist’s interview with  Santa Fe student, Paige Curry, which went viral on social media.   The reporter asked:

“Was there a part of you that was like, ‘This isn’t real, this would not happen in my school?’” 

Curry gave a rueful semi-laugh, and replied,

 “No, there wasn’t.  It’s been happening everywhere, I’ve always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here too.”

A truly sad declaration disclosing resignation and a pervasive learned helplessness that infects too many in this country.. But must it be so? No, not at all! TX Governor Greg Abbott declared in the wake of the incident that "this is one of the most heinous attacks we're ever seen in the history of Texas schools" then added: "We need to do more than just pray for the victims". Indeed, but what?  Since the mass church shooting in his state, then the Parkland massacre, Abbott hasn't done a damned thing to alter the dynamic so his end question of  paralysis is weird.  Meanwhile, other states have made tangible progress to dispel the "learned helplessness" in the face of NRA obstruction.

For example, Gov. Rick Scott in Florida, after Parkland, pushed the state's GOP dominated legislature and got a robust new gun law that included: implementing a red flag law that enabled law enforcement to remove a gun from a person at risk, raised the minimum age to purchase a gun, added a 3-day waiting period and banned bump stocks.

Meanwhile, Vermont's Republican governor also signed a bill raising the purchase age, banning bump stocks, limiting the size of magazines  and requiring all sales to go through a licensed dealer.   Following similar suit, Maryland - also with a Repub governor- enacted a red flag law, banned bump stocks  and forbade any domestic abusers from owning guns.

The latter is also the law now in deep red Kansas.

Meanwhile, New York also tightened up its laws and Oregon closed its so called "boyfriend" loophole. Neighboring Washington state banned bump stocks and Rhode Island joined Flordia and Maryland with a red flag law.

All of this follows  Connecticut's lead, which has passed sweeping legislation in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting., 

As  CT  Gov. Daniel Malloy made clear on Chris Hayes' 'All In' , the states can do much more when the federal government won't.  His example, also pertains to other states, e.g. Massachusetts, which requires not only passing a state -approved gun safety course first, but also being licensed - as one would if getting a car - as well as fingerprinted.

Why are the states more successful in gaining passage of key gun laws, which seem to falter at the federal level? According to Gov. Malloy:

"Frankly, I don't think the NRA has the level of influence by demand in state capitols , because they are not paying for it.... Look, I don't care how late you come to the table, just get it done in your state.

Let me give a statistic. Last year the state of Texas saw more than 3, 500 dies as a result of gun violence. In my state it was 172.  Taking into account population difference, 12.6 per 100,000 lost their lives due to gun violence in Texas compared to 4.6 in my state. You can make your state safer.

You can be part of changing the culture that death is okay as part of some idealized notion of what the constitution says."

What were the "best practices" that Connecticut did to reduce the level of gun violence? Gov. Malloy named the following:

- Implemented background check and a 3-day waiting period

-  Banned assault weapons and bump stocks

- Banned large capacity magazines.

Malloy notes:

"In the last four years, as a result of what we did, Connecticut has had the largest drop in violent  crime of any of thee fifty states. And thirty percent better than the next nearest state. And look, it's not just about violent crime. Children are killing themselves because they found a parent's gun. How much more likely is it that someone in your home will be killed, or kill himself because of a gun, or the gun will be stolen as part of a crime.... Now at least, we also have formed a consortium of states - including Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts to do our own gun research and publish it."

Good points! Too often glossed over by the NRA's vocal minions. And as Malloy noted at the end, which ought to provoke a head snap to attention for Greg Abbott:

"I understand that Governor Abbott is embarrassed that he had a mass shooting at a church and now a mass shooting at a school, and 3,500 people a year die of gun violence in Texas. But hey listen! Join us! Do something about it and make your citizens safer by passing sensible gun laws."

Malloy's take is that states either take action like his state and Florida, or they "cower" in front of the huff and puff of he NRA.

 If Greg Abbott wants to do more than say prayers in the wake of more shootings in his state maybe he ought to listen to Gov. Malloy!

Of course, if Abbott does find the courage to make common cause with Malloy, he will have to expect blowback from gun nuts, such as we're now witnessing in Boulder, e.g.

After that progressive burg now has a rule prohibits the sale and possession of assault weapons and outlawed high-capacity magazines and bump stocks. Owners of the large magazines and bump stocks have until July 15 to dispose of or sell them.

But in the wake of passage,  the hardheads, goofballs and nuts, who don't grasp there is no 2nd amendment protection for assault weapons (according to the 2008 SC case District of Columbia vs. Heller) cf.:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/02/sorry-you-have-no-constitutional-right.html

have kicked up a ruckus with a protest. This has been led by radical libertarian gun nut and talk show blowhard Jon Caldara. He is now suing the city to have his way, but my bet is he is wasting his time and money. He also needs to back away from his fake news sites and re-read the Heller decision again.

See also:
Texas Lt. Governor Blames Doors for the Santa Fe Shooting

Cowardly "Bonespurs" Hides, While Courageous Kids Marched for Their Lives - An Assessment Of Saturday's Events

"WAAGH! I can't handle facing a million kids when they know I bent over for the NRA"



An "officially" estimated throng of 800,000 kids  (I estimated closer to a million) marched in Washington, D.C. Saturday as our fearless,  would -be leader Donnie Dotard, aka  "Captain Bonespurs",  hightailed it out of town to Mar-A-Lago. There we presume he could hide and perhaps ponder Stormy Daniels dishing on him in a 60 Minutes segment. .So as the students gathered, Trump was whisked by motorcade to his West Palm Beach golf club where he later tweeted support for “the victims of the horrible attack in France yesterday” (sic).  But the imp never once mentioned the rallies on Twitter.

Of course, this was a deliberate, trademark (and transparent)  Trump dodge : an expedient excuse to avoid giving any acknowledgement or respect to the student marchers in D.C. -   given he'd long since bent over for the NRA. This after a meeting in the White House when he was all bravado about "not being afraid of the NRA".  As for the tweet to "support the victims in France" let's get real. This degenerate filth cares no more about them than he cared about the dead Syrian kids from a toxic gas attack last year. He merely used it to posture-  releasing a benign cruise missile attack on a Syrian base - to impress his guest, China's President Xi at Mar-a-Lago. But this is what  he knows best how to do, just as he's used the French attack as an excuse to avoid mentioning the 'March For Our Lives.'

The NRA also predictably stayed silent  (except for a pair of burps by resident hacks on NRA-TV, see below) on the student presence and passionate speeches, prompting MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews to refer to it as their typical M.O.  "They wait until all the activity has died down and then show up a few weeks later when all is quiet."   He asked a  Parkland student nearby how one might "flush them out" in real time, but the student noted the only solution is to vote out their lackeys and puppets.

 Outside the FBI headquarters in Washington, about 30  misguided gun-rights supporters staged a 'counter-demonstration" standing quietly with signs such as ‘"Armed victims live longer” and ‘Stop violating civil rights’.  Both of which are a crock  Armed victims would be just as dead going up against an active shooter with an AR-15  unless they also had ARs, and preferably SWAT training.  Civil rights aren't being violated either. No one has any intention of taking anyone's rightfully allowed, and owned guns away, only getting rid of military style weapons which aren't protected by the 2nd amendment anyway, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/02/sorry-you-have-no-constitutional-right.html


In one of the first speeches, Marjory Stoneman Douglas senior Delaney Tarr told the crowd of the students’ demands, including background checks and a ban on assault weapons.

“When you give us an inch, that bump stocks ban, we will take a mile. We are not here for breadcrumbs, we are here to lead.”

Parkland student Jordan Khayyami, 15, said: “I think that legislatures should be aware that the next generation of voters is right in front of them so if they don’t want to promote change then we will vote for change.”

And give the student march organizers due credit for setting up voter registration booths, to prepare as many 18-year olds and others eligible to vote this year as possible.

The scenes of thousands of students on the streets was overwhelming to many of the victims of gun violence who attended . Mark Barden, whose seven-year-old son Daniel was one of the 20 children murdered at Sandy Hook in 2012, told a reporter from the UK Gaurdian:

“I did not expect this. I’m still astounded,. To me, it looks like our entire nation is finally on board, on the right side of this issue. It’s so inspiring and encouraging and overwhelming, and beautiful to me.”

Barden has spent five years pushing for stricter gun control laws, first with the support of Barack Obama’s White House, then continuing when  gun control again dropped off the national agenda.

At the same time in New York, Paul McCartney stood in solidarity with marchers in Central Park and referred to fellow Beatle John Lennon’s fatal shooting outside his apartment building in 1980.  He told CNN:

 “One of my best friends was killed by gun violence right around here, so it’s important to me not just to march today but to take action tomorrow and to have these people to have their voices heard,"

Meanwhile, the pundits at FOX News were complaining that one of the Parkland parents,  Andrew  "I'm really pissed!" Pollack, had not been invited to speak to the throng on Saturday. Pollack, the father of  one of the victims (Meadow),  had broken off with the student activist contingent with his own ideas (voiced at a WH meet with Trump a month ago) about school security. In the CBS documentary '39 Days'  on the evolution of the  #Never Again movement, Pollack said  that while he wished the students "the best" he believed they were "wasting their  time" with gun control. This is incredibly defeatist given the movement has already played a major role in getting the first significant gun legislation passed in Florida in 20 years, enticing Oregon and Rhode Island to tighten gun restrictions, getting giant retailers like Dick's Sporting Goods to stop selling assault type rifles and long time corporate partners ending their relationships with the NRA.

The movement obviously hasn't yet achieved its primary goal - a ban on all military- style weapons- but give them time. They are playing the long game which Pollack ought to appreciate.

What then is Andrew Pollack's solution? He prefers outfitting schools like security fortresses or airports,  with special electrified gates, metal detectors, and so on  - which is plain nuts.

As one of the most passionate student speakers, Edna Chavez, 17, from Manual Arts high school in Los Angeles, declared:

"Security systems and electric barricades won't work! Metal detectors won't work! These will just criminalize students!"

She observed it will be mainly the "black and brown skinned students" singled out. Thus, it was a good idea not to  have Pollack speak, which would basically dilute and divide the message. I also believe he wouldn't want to speak because he grasped it would be like a wrong note sounding in a symphony. When he comes around, as I believe he eventually will, then he can put in his two cents and join Delaney Tarr, David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, Emma  Gonzalez et al in a righteous movement that has a hell of a lot more chance succeeding than turning all our public schools into gated, high security "Super Max" prisons. (Bear in mind when you lock out bad guys you also lock in good kids.)

Then there is the other clueless NRA tool making the talk show rounds on behalf of the gunrunners and 2nd amendment phonies. That would be Kyle Kashuv, e.g.

Who actually tweeted the following ding on his fellow Parkland  students:

No one's feelings are hurt by a group of people who Don't have a basic understanding of US case law and are fighting to get existing laws passed.

Which is total balderdash.

In fact it's Kashuv who lacks a basic understanding of U.S. case law pertaining to the 2nd amendment given he is blissfully unaware there is NO  "existing law" that currently bans military grade weapons like the AR-15 which is one of the provisions his classmates want passed.

Nor is he aware of the D..C. vs. Heller  Supreme Court decision that clearly does not include ownership of  such weapons as a  2nd amendment right, see e.g. the previous link.

As conservative Joe Scarborough put it regarding those unaware of the Heller ruling:

Go back and read Heller, 2008, what Scalia and the Supreme Court said. You're right, you can have handguns in your home, and shotguns to protect your family. But the court has allowed states  - like Maryland (2017)  to ban assault style weapons.  They let this and other laws stand   - without challenge - as constitutional ."

Adding:

If you want to make the argument that the Supreme Court should protect your rights to have military style weapons, that's legitimate.  But if you say it is your God-given constitutional right to have an AR-15 that is not what the second amendment says. And it's not what Justice Scalia says or the Supreme Court says.

Of course, Janice has a more succinct take: "He's not articulate! He just knows how to parrot what his parents told him about guns and the NRA. Big deal!"   Ouch!

Clearly, Kashuv's classmates are vastly more in tune with the actual 2nd amendment and its limits than he is. (Which is also why I suggest here the kids also demand: a) stricter gun licensing laws such as Massachusetts, which require not only passing a state -approved gun safety course first, but also being licensed - as one would if getting a car - as well as fingerprinted, and b) abolition of all state "concealed carry" laws -  which new research - reported in the latest TIME with Parkland kids on the cover-  see 13- 15 percent increased homicides within 10 years of being enacted.)

 As for Kashuv's latest prominence, hey, it was inevitable!  He realized quickly that his contrarian and conservative stance is a terrific way to grab center stage on gun issues - separating himself relative to the Parkland activists. This gets him the limelight on sundry cable shows, and even a special one- on -one with Trump in the Oval Office. Oh yeah, and with Melania too. ("Gee, she was just so maternal!") After all,  the mostly clueless media is clearly eager for "balance" and here's a willing tool...errr...kid, to provide it. What's not to like? Plus he's become as big a "hero" to the righties as Blaine Gaskill.

 Hell, the kid's  singular PR "pro-gun" profile especially  works if  one day he might be looking to replace Dana Loesch as the main voice for the biggest gun lobby in the world. Just sayin'.

Loesch herself reprised her role as the heartless harpy  (as before in the CNN town hall)  when she insisted - on NRA -TV   - that the marching students were willing pawns for a "PR stunt". Well, if anyone knows PR stunts it is certainly "the beet juice lady", and maybe she could teach some of her tactics to Kashuv as her willing understudy.

Then there was the NRA's token black man, also appearing on NRA-TV,  who goes under the pseudonym, "Colion Noir" (real name: Collins Iyare Idehen Jr.) He thought he was brilliant by lashing the Parkland kids as hypocrites, e.g.:

"They hate machines that cause death except, hold on, you ain't never gonna take their cars away."

A totally imbecilic accusation that mixes apples and oranges given that cars are machines designed expressly for transport that may (in the case of accidents) incidentally result in death. Whereas military grade rifles like the AR-15 are specifically designed for mass death -- which is why they were once considered as replacements for the M-16 in Vietnam. (The M-16, as shown in the Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam War, often jammed.)

Our "brilliant" TV star Collins also failed to note that - according to the Harvard School of Public Health - it's easier to get an AR-15 than to get a license to drive a car.

"Noir" further babbled over the NRA's  airwaves:

"To all the kids from Parkland getting ready to use your first amendment rights to attack everyone else's second amendment rights at your march..."

Forgetting that the kids from Parkland were not attacking anyone's "second amendment rights". They were proposing reasonable curbs using universal background checks - which 90 percent of Americans support, limiting high capacity magazines, and banning military -grade rifles like the AR-15 which are NOT protected under the 2nd amendment, again by way of the D.C. vs. Heller SC ruling. 

He also went on to yap:

"I wish a hero like Blaine Gaskill had been at Marjory Douglas High School last month because your classmates would still be alive. And no one would know your names because the media would have utterly ignored your story."

Which is total rubbish that I already skewered in  a prior post:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/03/sorry-nra-guntards-md-school-shooting.html

In fact, the most likely outcome - had Gaskill tried the same tactic at Stoneman Douglas - is that even more kids would have been killed, most likely as collateral damage from misfires out of Gaskill's gun. There's also a high probability Gaskill himself would have ended up a statistic.

As for Andrew Pollack, I don't believe he's actually a right wing gun zealot,(though he's appeared with Kyle Kashuv on a number of cable shows) just a desperate  father seeking solutions.  I just hope he eventually grasps that converting each school into a mini-Supermax is not a solution. It never will be, any more than arming teachers. See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/kali-holloway/77917/is-the-armed-teacher-debate-americas-lowest-stupidest-media-moment


Even as scenes of the student march played out, The Denver Post Saturday edition featured two articles of note including one that cited these AP poll results (p. 10 A):

- 7 in 10 Americans want a nationwide ban on bump stocks

- 6 in 10 Americans demand a nationwide ban on Ar-15 style rifles

The same piece quoted a 50 year old Miramar FL gun owner, John Karnosh, who expressed dismay so little change has come about since Columbine, adding (ibid.):

"I see what these kids are doing. If anyone can drive a movement for change, these kids will do it."

One page later, there appeared an article on CDC findings pertaining to gun deaths, in which we learned:

- 26,000 deaths of children (under the age of 18) killed by guns from 1999- 2016

- Among the world's wealthy nations the U.S. accounts for 91 percent of all firearm deaths of children under age 15

- Factor in as well, 1, 678 children under 5 years of age killed between 1999- 2016

- The preceding include 184 infants, under one year old,  223 1-year olds, and 294 two year olds.

As Maryland student Matt Post put in an interview on 'AM Joy' yesterday morning:

"Is your love of these guns really worth all the carnage they've caused?"

 There is something seriously wrong with any nation bearing these stats. It leads me to quote a former soldier (Army sergeant)  who had a letter published in the local Indie paper after the Parkland massacre. Paraphrasing his words:

"Okay, let's say the military-  style weapons are not the cause of the mass shootings. But we have to at least admit they are the means.  So let's deal with controlling the means right now and we will deal with the cause later."

In other words, cease the endless back and forth about  the 2nd amendment  - when it emphatically excludes owning military style rifles as a special right.  So, we ban these weapons like the UK did after the Dunblane (Scotland)  massacre, and Australia did after their Port Arthur massacre. (Note: it is true these weapons are responsible for only 5 percent of all homicides, but given each mass murder event is the de facto equivalent of a terror attack - and indeed instills terror - it is not overreach to ban these rifles.)

It's time this nation take similar steps now. The previous stats cited are a blight not only on our history but on our people and their understanding of the Second Amendment and the nature of rights.  Which entail responsibilities as well as the exercise of limited rights.

I suspect it also means the gunnies cease "wearing their guns on their sleeves" to use Denver Post editor Chuck Plunkett's phrase from his column yesterday.  What Plunkett was arguing for is altering one's identity in the use of guns - especially long rifles - to what it was a generation ago, i.e.

"If you went hunting you were praised for how few rounds you used to bring down a wild turkey, not how many."

Indeed. And if you used more you'd be encouraged to take up a different pastime.  But as he also notes, in today's warped cultural environment everything is based on excess  and worse for 2nd amendment absolutists this excess becomes a matter of identity, e.g.

"Gun ownership has become a religion, it's in our faces everywhere, on hats, T-shirts, bumper stickers, flags and social media profiles."

This is what the student movement's leaders must grasp: they are facing not only recalcitrant politicians - who btw are more terrified of the voting power of NRA members than the money they receive or don't- but also those afflicted with the gun identity syndrome.

The students have to figure out how to break that tribal identity connection to guns, especially the military assault variety. One recent letter writer to The Colorado Springs Independent  proposed the following quirky solution predicated on diluting the hyper-macho B.S. associated with gun ownership, especially of assault weapons:

https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/reader-a-proposal-to-stem-gun-violence-without-taking-away-anyones-second-amendment-rights/Content?oid=10816601


Somehow, I don't believe coloring all these rifles pink will quite work. Anyway these kids are energized and organizing a call for Town Halls on April 7, as well as another mass walkout on April 20th and an ongoing voter registration campaign.  

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gary-leupp/78329/the-children-s-crusade-against-early-death-by-school-shootings

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/henry-giroux/78344/education-as-a-weapon-of-struggle-rethinking-the-parkland-uprising-in-the-age-of-mass-violence

Today's Student Walkouts Merit Praise Not Punishment

"I'm tired of being scared every time I go to school! We need real laws to protect us from those crazy automatic rifles!" - Student in Chicago, interviewed on MSNBC

The kids have taken to the streets by the hundreds of thousands and are voicing their first amendment rights that the gunnies seem to obsess over whenever anyone challenges their precious AR-15 "rights".  The National School Walkout started at 10 a.m. ET and will continue across the country at 10 a.m. in each time zone. The protest was sparked by last month's school massacre in Parkland, Florida, and fueled by years of anger about what many say are inadequate gun laws.

The students have beheld how lawmakers - nearly all - are in the maw of the NRA and they want to let those congress critters know there will be hell to pay at the voting booth if they don't become changelings.

Boulder High junior Alec Eyl will join thousands of other students across the country today at 10:00 a.m. MDT-  to send a message that gun violence in schools will no longer be tolerated.

Eyl said. “We will have to be taken seriously!  We will no longer be ignored, and when we become the next generation of voters, we will make our voices heard about guns in this country!"

As many as 1,965 schools and organizations across the country are scheduled to participate in Wednesday’s #Enough National School Walkout to End Gun Violence organized by Women’s March Youth, the youth activist wing of the Women’s March group.

The walkout was called to remember the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 dead. The students are asked to walk out of their schools at 10 a.m. and stay outside for 17 minutes, one minute to remember each life lost in the Florida shooting.

Several Colorado schools are scheduled to participate and are doing so with the full knowledge of school officials.

But other hardhead schools and principals, especially in Texas and the deep South, plan to ding any demonstrating students with detentions and absences if they dare to participate. Talk about a way to show 1st amendment rights don't apply to students - oh, and that fascism reigns in Trumpian Amerikka.

My message to these redneck throwbacks: grow up and grow a pair, instead of being snowflakes! What the hell are you so afraid of? Free speech, or that the kids in your state will have some effect in getting your damned Bushmaster .223s under wraps? 

Or the least they could do, instead of giving detentions and absences, is what a number of school principals here in Colorado are doing: Reschedule the demonstrations after school hours so there is no disruption of actual classes (there may be some disruption of after school clubs, activities.)

From what I behold on the tube (MSNBC) thus far this a.m. the Parkland shooting could indeed be a “tipping point” when it comes to limiting gun violence in America. This is also according to  a University of Colorado Denver education expert, Carlos Porfirio Hipolito-Delgado. Quoted two days ago in the Denver Post, he said:

“What I am hearing in my classes is that students are frustrated and they don’t feel as safe as they used to."

Today’s  march and another scheduled for March 24th, are thanks largely to the media-savvy students  at Stoneman Douglas who've organized to not only challenged lawmakers in FLA but nationwide.  There is no doubt, not one, that their media confidence  and competence can shine a light on school violence better than past generations,

As Hipolito-Delgado said. “We are seeing these young people in front of the cameras and they are handling themselves well and getting their point across smoothly.”

Meanwhile, the snowflake gun mongers are crying in their brewskies at the prospect these kids will have a huge effect- if not sooner then later- after they secure their voting rights. 

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/shepherd-bliss/78171/thousands-of-students-protest-gun-violence

Excerpt:

“Eloquent young voices, equipped with symbolism and social media savvy, riding a resolve as yet untouched by cynicism,” is how the New York Times described the rallies.

In Lower Manhattan, Gov. Andrew Cuomo joined a die-in at Zucotti Park, the former home of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

“Hey-hey, ho-ho, the N.R.A. has to go,” students chanted as they marched to the D. C. Capital steps. They were met by members of Congress, the most popular of whom seemed to be Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Stay tuned for at least two more nationwide protests on March 24 and April 20, the anniversary of the Columbine murders, as students continue to gather steam and define their movement."

"Guns don't kill people"? Countering The Rationalizations and Memes Employed By The NRA

"This weapon, the AR-15, was actually the weapon the military was trying to use - instead of the M 16- in Vietnam, because it was more lethal." - Joe Scarborough yesterday morning

Even as one hundred activist students - survivors of the Valentine's Day massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High -  march to the Florida state capitol today, they have to know they will be confronting hard- headed lawmakers. Especially on the Reepo side, i.e. those who sold out their brains long ago to the NRA for a few campaign bucks.  The kids, part of the newly activated #NeverAgain movement, with allies across the nation, will have to be able to counter the specious arguments that will be hurled back at them.

This begs the question of why, apart from campaign largesse, it is so difficult to change minds. Well, one reason is the penchant of the NRA to trot out  glib rationalizations and facile arguments,  with which it seeds the susceptible  brains of so many.

How effective are these canards and rationalizations? A poll reported this morning on CBS shows that the nation is nearly evenly divided on an assault weapons ban - among the few things that would actually work to limit mass shootings - ask Australia!   The poll showed only 50 percent support such a ban and 46 percent oppose. WHY do so many oppose it? I submit because they are victims of one or more NRA mind viruses that have infected their brains and spread by the minions of the NRA.

For example: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Which is one of the most popular because it catches so many would-be opponents off guard. They are then left to flap gums, i.e. "B-b-but y-you can't say that!!"  As opposed to offering a powerful retort,  for example:

"But if you had taken that AR-15 out of that kid's hands and replaced it with just a kitchen knife would he have still killed so many?"  In other words, the weapon used also factors in, just as the use of an accelerant by an arsonist to burn down an apartment bldg. That accelerant - like the AR-15 or any other assault weapon -dramatically increases the body count. This isn't rocket science and you don't need a Mensa level IQ to get it.

This tack effectively puts  them on the defensive. Of course, then the usual reply - again thanks to the NRA - is: "So what?  You now want to ban all kitchen knives too?"

NOOOOOO... But you fail to process that there is a logical difference between a prosaic, everyday implement that can sometimes be used as a weapon, and a military style rifle that is specifically designed to kill. In this case, a rifle that was once earmarked for possible use in Vietnam to make killing easier than the older model M16.  In other words, Roscoe, how many mass killings have been done by knives? It is easy to mock the notion of "knife laws" but when you hold their feet (and brains) to the fire on a logical basis they are the ones usually spluttering.  

Or maybe not. CBS interviewer John Blackstone tried to do that with the couple ( James and Kimberly Snead)  that took  in  Nikolas Cruz, even confronting them about allowing him to have a case of "five or six guns"  including the AR-15 assault rifle. The guy - a total dope - was nonchalant,  telling Blackstone when asked about this, "It was his right".  His right?! A nineteen year old twerp whose brain is still forming? So these Sneads  also appear to be brain- jacked idiots who perhaps had imbibed too much NRA hog swill.   Confirmation? When Blackstone asked James Snead  if he felt differently about it now after the massacre, he replied, "No, not at all." In other words,  this guntard would let another kid into his home to have his own gun case too. It is morons like this that confirm again the need for parental (or guardianship) licensing tests, and  blacken this country's name and make us all look like damned fools.

It was two days ago that I came across another favorite NRA trope that I've seen in various guises. It appeared on my Facebook home page, and it clearly showed why banning assault weapons is often made to appear ridiculous. The canard was compliments of a nephew who is part of my "Friends" group. It went like this:

"A DUI driver gets rightly blamed and prosecuted for killing 3 people in a crash he caused. A guy shoots up 17 kids with an assault rifle -  and the rifle gets the blame.  Typical liberal logic."


Most of us have to admit this "reasoning"  is mind blowing in its simplicity and precisely for that reason is dangerous, because it can lull those without critical thinking skills to accept it.  This is what I call an example of sophistry often employed by those who'd seek to defend the purchase and ownership of a weapon which - as Joe Scarborough notes at the top - was actually considered for use in Vietnam because of its lethality. In other words, its staunch defenders are full tilt embracing the right to own and operate a weapon that is specifically dedicated to slaughter the enemy in a war theater.

Now, let's take step back and process merely what the old fashioned M 16 could do as reflected in this image after a whole village was wiped out by Lt. William Calley's platoon in the Mai Lai massacre:
















Dozens of men, women and children were slain in that rogue exercise engineered by the war criminal Calley and it is surely difficult to process how a more lethal scenario could emerge. But - if the AR- 15 had been used instead it would have snuffed out  the few surviving villagers.. Yet that weapon - at least ownership of it - is what the assault weapons' folks defend.  WHY?

Let's go back to the specious argument posted on Facebook and see why it is specious.  Consider the case of the DUI - such as occurred in Denver barely a month ago-  when three members of a family were wiped out of existence by that inebriated driver. He was surely to blame as his blood alcohol level was later found to be 0.3. There is no issue on who was to blame, and the car was merely the instrument for the killing. However, the extent of the death was self limiting by the capacity of the car.

In the case of an AR-15 (or other assault rifle) there is no self limiting factor - and a gunman (like Nikolas Cruz) could move at will - say floor to floor, room to room- slaughtering as many as his trigger finger speed and aim permit.  Now, this is crucial  - the ability to do that is a function primarily of the weapon,  not just the mobility of the gunman. Again, leave him with just his "fists" - as my AR-15 owner pal put two days ago, i.e. "more people are killed with fists than guns" - and I promise you 17 do not die.

Hence, the AR-15  example is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the DUI deaths.  For sure, the gunman is also to blame - but his choice of instrument must also be factored in, to the extent of contributing to the body count. In other words, it's the combination of shooter and weapon that's most important. Or to use the words of journalist Hava Leipzig Holzhauer, writing in the Broward Sun-Sentinel:

"This combination is a threat to our way of life in America."

As I posted in a response comment, take the AR-15 out of Cruz's hands and substitute a knife -  whatever one you  choose- and 17 don't lose their lives. You can take that to the bank. What has been done is to replace one of the most lethal weapons with a much less lethal one. In the first case, the weapon,  a cousin to the M16, is expressly designed to kill and do so with maximal efficiency.  Moreover, it is expressly designed to kill people, not hunt prey. As blogger David Lindorff put it:

"An AR-15 is not a hunting weapon. In fact there’s a reason it’s called an “assault rifle.” As a hunter, unless you’re an atrocious shot and are hunting random flocks of small birds, you certainly don’t need to be able to fire powerful ammunition of two bullets per second — the rate at which experts say an ordinary person could be able to pull the trigger."

By contrast, the knife  -- no matter how sharp or large- must usually be wielded by an assailant in an up close and personal manner. It isn't like taking aim from 20 or more feet away and dispatching victims with the touch of a trigger.  To kill seventeen people  even in the same room - the assailant would have to work demonically, stabbing from one to the other, and there is no assurance any given slash would be a fatal one  say like an  AR-15 bullet fired into a chest.  Even if it took only 3 seconds per stab, this  is much longer than firing 2 rounds per second. And you can't assume the people will just stand there like dummies and let you do them in, oh no. They will react and more than likely several will gang up to take the assailant down

This is the first point that the assault rifle lovers must be forced to admit, that it is far more difficult to kill with a knife than an assault weapon. Now, the FLA AR-15 owner in his response cited a stat where he said: "you're more than twice as likely to be killed from being kicked or punched than being shot".

Which merely goes to show how statistics can be used to disguise the nature of a threat if not carefully considered.   What was my retort? Well, I said I would gladly face any flying fists or feet rather than an AR-15 (or AK 47) any day. If he believed he'd sway me to accepting that owning an AR-15 was ok because I'd more likely get offed by a latter day Bruce Lee with a karate kick, he was mistaken.

His argument actually derived from then Texas AG  Greg Abbott's 2013 Facebook post. But that post did not include homicides the FBI attributed to handguns (6,220), firearms whose type was not stated (1,587) and "other guns" (97). Those numbers mean handguns were used in 72 percent of all firearm murders in 2011 and slightly under half of all murders using any kind of weapon that year.

These sort of stats have also been used by assault rifle defenders to argue that the risk of being shot  by an assault rifle in a mass shooting is so freakishly small it is not worth fretting about.

But the exact same logic can be applied to terror attacks by Islamic extremists.

It was  columnist Gideon Rachman of The Financial Times  who first pointed out that the number of Americans killed by terrorists since 1960 is "about the same as the number killed over the same period in deer accidents". For example, cars careening into a deer and being driven into a ditch.  The probability turned out to be roughly 1 in 18,000.

But look at what we are dealing with, despite the rarity of terror attacks!  TSA searches of bags etc.  at all the airports, alerts, blockages of roads and mobilized tactical and other police forces after each terror attack. So why this huge reaction difference if the odds are so minuscule?  Because we treat the threat of a terror attack - say on a plane or in NYC on New Year's Eve -   as a code red security threat that must be dealt with accordingly.  So my question is, "Why not treat mass shootings ALSO as terror attacks?"

If we adopt the arguments of the assault rifle lovers  i.e. that mass shootings are just a "distortion" of overall gun deaths, then why do most of them also support the anti-terror strategies?  I mean if the odds of being killed in a terror attack are 1 in 18,000 and the odds of being murdered in a mass shooting by a homegrown nut wielding an AR-15  are 1 in 11,000  why not adopt the same threat response for both?

There is only one logical reason for the difference in response: the rank and file of the AR-15 defenders and NRA gun lobby fear the Islamic extremists who carry out terror attacks more than the white boys who do mass shootings.  This is why I stated in a tongue- in -cheek manner that if most or all of these mass shootings were done by Islamic extremists (or black gang members)  you'd see action on gun control faster than a  tachyon's flight..

Look, the gun insanity will not stop until our population of assault weapon owners are forced to confront these contradictions and provide coherent explanations. Also,  why they continue to support a loophole in the gun laws that enables any extremist to buy an assault weapon,

Added to the gun debate there is added confusion now that Russian bots are evidently entering as well. As reported in the NY Times:

One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week, Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the gun control debate.

The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting

Those automated Twitter accounts have been closely tracked by researchers. Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian influence campaign.

The researchers zeroed in on Twitter accounts posting information that was in step with material coming from well-known Russian propaganda outlets. To spot an automated bot, they looked for certain signs, like an extremely high volume of posts or content that conspicuously matched hundreds of other accounts.

All this shows me we have  a lot of work to do in order to combat and counter the NRA sophistry. We now also need to be aware many of the assault rifle defenders may well be Russian bots  seeking to stir up even bigger shit storms.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/cesar-chelala/77791/a-student-s-message-to-politicians-about-the-florida-massacre

And:


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/77748/us-mass-killers-crucially-abetted-by-nuts-who-won-t-ban-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-clips