It’s time that we stop using language that disguises the atrocity of devices whose only purpose is to fill cemeteries with corpses. What people often refer to as “assault” weapons would be more accurately described as “homicide” guns. They are used for killing people, period. They have no sporting function whatsoever. And those who assert that access to these weapons is somehow a paramount right of Americanism are delusional. Our founders never anticipated anything with this sort of destructive force being placed into the hands of civilians.
The two most commonly argued positions in support of homicide gun ownership are easy to rebut. That’s because they make little sense.
First of all, homicide gun advocates believe that if someone is intent on harming others, he will find a way to carry out his monstrous mission whether guns are legal or not. That is a wild and unsupportable assumption. Perhaps some prospective mass murderers might be determined and resourceful enough to carry out their plans no matter what legal obstacles they encounter. But more likely they will be impeded and perhaps thwarted entirely.
Most people would not know where to begin looking for black market arms. And in the pursuit of such contraband they could raise suspicions that result in their capture and arrest before they could ever harm anyone. Here is an example of just such a case wherein the perpetrator was discovered, monitored, and apprehended, precisely because he was seeking unlawful weapons. So it’s a lie to say that this person would have been able to carry out his plan despite the law. Given the proper legal tools, more of these miscreants can be taken off the streets before blood is running in them.
Those criminals who fail to acquire the artillery they desire may still be dangerous. The lack of homicide guns may not completely deter someone from committing a crime. But a rampaging maniac with a knife or a common handgun would be much easier to subdue and would cause far less harm.
The second lie is one that is now being regurgitated by homicide gun advocates incessantly. They assert that if someone in the theater in Aurora were armed, he would have been able to end the massacre. That’s another wild and unsupported assumption. If a moviegoer were to have stood up and started firing in a dark theater filled with tear gas, he would probably have done more harm than good. His bullets might very well have found innocent victims. He would have drawn the fire of the perpetrator which would likely have killed him and all those seated adjacent to him. And he would have had zero chance of bringing down the gunman who was covered, head to toe, in body armor. A citizen with a handgun would be no match for a shielded attacker with multiple semi-automatic weapons.
We have an obligation to make our society as safe as possible without imposing on our liberties. Rational legislation that takes military grade weapons off the streets does not violate the Constitution. Anyone who argues that the “right to bear arms” includes machine guns, must also believe that it includes grenades, missile launchers, tanks, or even nuclear arms. Where do they draw the line? How about we not permit civilians to be better armed than the police we pay to protect us?
A famous advocate of these deadly weapons had something to say about this debate not too long ago in a message to his comrades:
“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?” Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn (aka Azzam the American).
If our terrorist enemies recognize the flaws in in our national security, maybe we should be doing something about it. Perhaps if we stopping calling the efforts to get homicide guns off the streets “gun control” and started calling it “massacre prevention” we could get somewhere.
If you watched the brilliant Ezra Klein sub-hosting Rachel tonight, you heard him make the case that those blaming libs for “exploiting the issue by making it political” are frankly full of crap. As he explained, it was a political act by definition. To which I would add conservatives trying to preemptively prevent a conversation about the political implications have been all over the air waves proclaiming that the incident should have no impact on gun control laws, or lack thereof. I suppose, according to them, that’s not political.
Great work as always, Mark. See you on MMFA.
daphne,
Exactly. Use this horrific gun-fueled terrorist assualt as a political battering ram all the while bemoaning that Liberals are going to use it as a political battering ram.
The language needs to be changed in the narrative of these tragedies, that is for sure. They are saying we can’t even talk about their ‘rights’ to own these weapopns of mass destruction in the immedeate aftermath of a horrific tragedy like this. When the hell can we talk about it then? Why does anyone need a killing machine like this? It is what it is and we need to frame the narrative in that way. What about our rights to be safe from maniacs like this? Conservatives use the language to get their way on all kinds of nonsense, an excellent example is how they have made their voting suppression laws about so called ‘voter fraud’ which is virtuallly nonexistant and therefore a big lie. We should be able to at least call them out on their demands for their so-called right to these killing machines. I would also add that the NRA gun lobby is more interested in the profits generated by the sale fo these horrific weapons and their ammunition then the smoke screen of gun rights. That is an aspect that needs to be addressed in all of this as well.
Based on the comments below – I think you are absolutely right – why can’t this be discussed openly and freely – especially after this type of incident. I prefer to know clearly what is out there and how they want to impact my freedoms as a law abiding citizen – no matter which way you think on this issue. Get it out there in the open!
Why do I need any reason to buy an assault rifle other than I WANT ONE. Really – who is anyone to tell me in this supposedly free society why I should or shouldn’t buy one of these fun rifles. Are you concerned about my well being that I may injure myself – if so, thank you for your concern.
Fixed that quote, and yes the concept of your logic applies to those things too.
I would love to own any of those things and I should be permitted to own those things as a law abidign citizen with no psychological concerns. Is it your desire to disarm the citizens of this country and leave all firepower to the military and police? Are you suggesting we, the average citizen, can’t handle those things or are dangerous just because we have those things? yes, I’m a bit extreme on this, but you are nuts to think we should all just go along merily hoping oppression never happens once we’re all disarmed. You have a lot of faith in government and very little in your fellow americans.
I absolutely agree you 100%!!!!
”The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”
~Edward Abbey
”No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.”
~James Burgh
I think it ought to be perfectly okay for you to own these – in a regulated militia. There is enough space in the US for these to be stored safely and securely, or used in a proper environment, and that place is not in your bedroom.
Well thankfully I don’t need your permission to arm myself as I see fit – and are you suggesting regulating what happens in the bedroom?
I notice a lot of people here like to note what other people need or don’t need – We live in a free country and although i know liberals don’t feel comfortable with excessive freedom for the masses because of the choices they may make and someone – God forbid, may suffer – telling people what they should or shouldn’t have because you think it’s a need or not isn’t going to get you too far. If you truly believe the government should be dictating to it’s citizens what they need or don’t need and limit us to those things, I suggest you move to a communist country where that occurs, then you can experience your greatest desires on control while not limiting our freedom and/or rights.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you sound like a child who wants to eat ice cream for dinner instead of their regular meal. “I WANT ONE.” You sound sooooooo ridiculous, you sound like you’re saying “You say I can’t have an assault weapon YOU HATE MY LIBERTAH!!!!” Are you really that paranoid that you think not having at least comparable armaments as the police and the army makes you vulnerable to attack? Asking for reasonable restriction of firearms is not a veiled attempt at a “totalitarian police state” or taking away your right to vote. Asking for reasonable restrictions of firearms should open a discussion about how to compromise on this issue, but the issue is already so politicized by people like you that every time the question is brought up, conservatives start shitting themselves with fury.
The one thing I’m sure of is this debate occuring now will without a doubt put more guns in private citizens hands and that is a good thing.
Are you liberals appointment as father of every person in the country? do you now think you know better than evreryone else as to what is good for them? Typical statist lunatic. We all must be such a disappointment to you – dumbass (Cartman type reference for you). If I want to eat ice cream for dinner, guess what, I can do it and not even NYC mayor bloomberg can stop me.
In closing this is what you sound like. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152150/class-debate
You just get pissed off and go home, so no one can debate anymore.
I watched your clip and nope, it doesn’t change anything. I dont’ care what you think of me or what I believe. But do you honestly believe you will be safer with all your fellow citizens disarmed? seriously??? I realize the idea of the US ever becoming something like a police state is beyond belief – and maybe in your mind it is beyond belief. But as we all continue to allow our freedom and rights to be legislated away through whatever method is most convenient that day – the patriot act, the defense authorization act or the Authorization for Use of Military Force – maybe you should worry about it more than you do. You may be comfortable giving the US government and this president more power and reducing otu rights to make us “safer”, but I don’t.
Who (besides you) said anything about “all your fellow citizens disarmed?”
There is a reason that people on your side of this debate keep spewing that nonsense. It’s because you’re not capable of having a rational discussion based on facts. So you inject something scary that no one is proposing. But all that does is point out how vacant your position is.
Well Mark, you’re too smart to actually say those words exactly, but practically everything you say points to that exactly. Someone needs to say the things I do – you will give away all your rights for the “greater good of society” – stop denying it. You’ve always been good at saying nice sounding things that seem so practical and reasonable – you are not in any way reasonable – it’s a lie every time you try to sound reasonable. How much more do we need to give up to satisfy you and your liberal hoard – honestly? Yeah I sound crazy, but preserving liberty is what matters to me – not your perfect society. Even with my extreme views on this, I still make choices daily that don’t hurt anyone else or tread on anyone’s freedom. I care every bit about your freedom as I do my own. You have much less to fear from me that I do from you.
Yeah, you do sound crazy.
I almost deleted this comment, but I changed my mind so that everyone else could see what an asshole you are.
That’s ok, I’ll still go on defending your rights even if you don’t think I need to. We have always had very different views – here are some quotes from this article that I say support my view:
Mark Quote:
“What people often refer to as “assault” weapons would be more accurately described as “homicide” guns” – suggesting these should not be permitted to be owned by private, law abiding citizens.
Another Mark Quote:
“First of all, homicide gun advocates believe that if someone is intent on harming others, he will find a way to carry out his monstrous mission whether guns are legal or not. That is a wild and unsupportable assumption. Perhaps some prospective mass murderers might be determined and resourceful enough to carry out their plans no matter what legal obstacles they encounter. But more likely they will be impeded and perhaps thwarted entirely.”
Suggesting if we just couldn’t own or buy these things we would be better off.
The best Mark quote:
“How about we not permit civilians to be better armed than the police we pay to protect us?” This one is especially obscene in my view and is absolute proof you would lay down all of our rights for your perfect society. That type of view is one of the greatest dangers to liberty and freedom that exists.
Not sure how anyone can’t read between the lines here. I’m an owner of a semi-auto assault weapon – no big secret since I had to register it to be compliant with current law – and I have no interest in committing a crime or hurting anyone with it. So sorry if you feel we are a bit defensive – but I have no interest giving up any more of my freedoms – or your. If it makes me an asshole – I can and will live with that.
Sorry about the “liberal hoard” comment – that was not very nice.
@ steve
I think the thing that drives me nuts most of all is that the phrase “reasonable restriction” is steamrolled by conservatives because all they see is “restriction,” not just “reasonable.” It’s impossible for a discussion to occur about how the current gun laws still allow for something like the Aurora shooting to take place over ten years after Columbine and a mere five after Virginia Tech and only a year and a half since Rep. Giffords was shot.
I was with my girlfriend the other night talking to her mother who has her conceal and carry, but doesn’t make a huge show of it. She supports gun rights and is a supporter of the NRA, but she still is reasonable to accept that Aurora was a travesty and it shouldn’t happen again, but probably will. Everyone knows that making things more restrictive isn’t going to keep ALL shootings from happening, but doing nothing about what happened in Aurora would be insulting to the victims and family members. We were able to agree that it is a problem that James Holmes apparently bought all of his weaponry (minus the traps for his apartment) legally, and some on the internet. I think it would be perfectly reasonable that if someone wanted to buy an automatic weapon, they should not be able to do so online without having to do some kind of criminal background check, for all purchases, which is something most NRA members even agree with. I don’t know why the conversation has to devolve into namecalling, but it almost always seems to. I for one would like to discuss the issues at hand instead of what we think of the other person. However, I believe that the video I posted was accurate of how you–and others I have seen–argue this issue. I apologize for calling you a child, but I am also guilty of having emotions, and my emotions at the time filled me with the urge to call you out.
Well, I appreciate the apology, but don’t sweat it – I’ve been called a lot worse here and it takes a lot more than a cartoon to hurt my feelings – but thank you anyway.
It’s all in defining “reasonable restriction” – I’m sure you would have great agreement that mentally unstable people should not have access to a firearm in a similar way that convicted criminals don’t, but I’m afraid I don’t see that as the limit of “reasonable restriction” based on the article or some of the comments here. So until we can agree on the definition of reasonable with respect to gun laws, we’re just not going to get anywhere.
Like I noted to Mark, I don’t see that people who generally post here have any interest in being reasonable given the comments as to what we “need” or “don’t need” If people can get past the idea of telling other, law abiding citizens what they should be permitted to own or buy with their own money, then you have a chance to get agreement – I don’t see that happening with this group of statists.
“The swords of the militia and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American.” – Tench Coxe
“Our founders never anticipated anything with this sort of destructive force being placed into the hands of civilians.”
Your ignorance of history and of the Framer’s intent is evident. In fact, that is exactly what they intended. It would take only a few days’ research to read some of the key writings on the subject from the Framers themselves and their contemporary commentators to see that the understanding was that the “militia” constituted private citizens using military-style arms (i.e., weapons equal to those that would be used by a standing military force). It also is clear that being an active member of a militia was not a prerequisite of the right to keep and bear such arms.
As for the argument that the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment logically must include such things as nuclear warheads and B1 bombers, this also is not true. Again, educate yourself – there is plenty of scholarly work published on the origin of the right as it evolved from English law and as it was understood in the U.S. at the time of the founding of our country. The “arms” covered by the Second Amendment include, at the least, the types of weapons commonly used and useful to an organized force for the common defense – specifically, at a minimum, long guns (rifled and smooth-bored), sidearms, small mortars and edged weapons (sabers and cutlasses). In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly found as much in the much-misread and misreported case of U.S. v. Miller.
In short, it is clear that the Framers in fact fully intended that “the people” would have the right to be as well-armed with the same types of “arms” that infantry forces would have – because, after all, a primary purpose (but not the sole purpose) of the right was to be able to defend your life, liberty and property from a tyrannical government and its standing army.
Typical contradictory arguments. You say that the Framers did not intend to include nuclear weapons or B2 bombers. But you also say that they intended to allow for defending yourself against a tyrannical government.
Well, how do you defend yourself against a tyrannical government that has bombers and Blackhawks and missile launchers and grenades, etc., unless you are comparably armed? The answer: You can’t.
Your argument suggests that civilians should have their own tanks and helicopter gunships and Agent Orange and everything that the government has. That’s insane. But you also say that certain weapons are not included. So where’s the line? Nuclear? Bunker Busters? Anti-aircraft missiles?
You really have no concept of what the Framers believed with regard to modern weaponry because they didn’t (and couldn’t) express themselves on it. They couldn’t even have imagined it.