Have we become comfortably numb

regarding the continued incidents of mass killings and gun violence in the USA?

As some may know, another slaughter occurred at a community college in Oregon this morning. 9 deaths and some 10 or more injured in another senseless act of violence.

Seems like, as the President said today, that this is the new norm and people have become numb to these acts of absolute horror.

At what point will this Country join the other advanced nations in recognizing that easy access to guns is counter to the core values of any civilized society?

At what point will our electorate have the balls to stand up to the NRA, including their supporters and our elected officials, and recognize the obvious fact that our current political status quo is no longer sustainable?

Have we, as a nation, become so oblivious to these senseless killings, that we view these incident as acceptable.

Gordon

PS: My usual request. Please keep the conversation civil and respectable.

I was going to post about this until I saw your post Gordon.

Gordon Gray said:

Have we, as a nation, become so oblivious to these senseless killings, that we accept these incidents as acceptable and consistent with American values and beliefs?

Click to expand...

As an outsider looking in, it unequivocally appears the USA is delusional and oblivious.

How much longer are you (as a supposedly refined and progressive nation) going to stand by and watch this sort of thing happen, week after week - month after month?

If you don't want to restrict guns then fine - but you desperately need to propose another solution because.........Really, I give up. So sad.

Take my word - the rest of the world simply cannot believe it when we hear about this sort of thing happening in the USA. Afghanistan maybe; South Africa maybe; Ghana maybe; but the USA?

Guns just by themselves do not kill. Gun trigger needs to be pulled. However guns do not serve any useful purpose unlike wheat harvesters or coffee machines. Designed only to injure or take lives.

If you think the situation in USA is bad you should take a look at Pakistan.

I believe all kinds of small assault weapons should be accessible by only police and armed forces personnel.

In this specific horrific mass killing blame should go to the root cause of the shooting. Gun used was merely a instrument. in the hypothetical case where gun access is 0% for the civilian population surely substitute ways of harming innocent others may be devised.

To conclude we need to look at the root cause or what made the gunman kill. After root causes are determined we need to prevent or eradicate such harm causal factors from our society.

Hope I have not offended any member at MLO by the above analysis.

M15 said:

Guns just by themselves do not kill.

Click to expand...

I don't care for this overused / passe line, sorry.

That's like saying:

"Anthrax doesn't kill - you have to release it from the vial in order to kill people"

or

"Plutonium-239 doesn't kill - you have to release it into the atmosphere".

Regardless - civilised people, and people with even a rudimentary reasoning skills wouldn't want to allow vials of Anthrax into the hands of all and sundry - and for some reason just trust them that just one of them won't release it on a crowded subway in a moment of insanity.

The same applies to guns. Yes, people kill, and people release the trigger - but basic logical reasoning suggests you also need take steps to ensure that this apparatus does not get into the hands of those capable of doing those actions.

The same applies to guns. Yes, people kill, and people release the trigger - but basic logical reasoning suggests you also need take steps to ensure that this apparatus does not get into the hands of those capable of doing those actions.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you amey01. However do you agree that some like the police and armed forces personnel must have access to small arms for law and order purpose.

M15 said:

However do you agree that some like the police and armed forces personnel must have access to small arms for law and order purpose.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course.

And many citizens need access to firearms too. But it needs to be regulated - stringent checks, firearms suited to the purpose, and mandated storage requirements. Not just open slather free-for-all.

I can talk about the Australian model because I am familiar with it. But the model has some credibility because it has worked extraordinarily well. The laws were introduced after our last mass shooting in 1996, and we haven't had another mass shooting since.

That's not to say we won't have another mass shooting - we no doubt will - but we're going on 20 years without one now. It would seem unlikely that the US could go 20 days without a mass shooting!

Even if you could reduce the incidence by half, that's a lot of lives saved and a lot of victims' family trauma spared.

There was a satire onion article once on "No mass shootings reported in the US for a month" - the same week there occurred a shooting, a day or two after the article was published.

Australia had some gun laws/checks imposed which drastically reduced the gun crime. EU has low gun crime. Not sure why US cannot follow the same principle instead of pretending that the second amendment will help them defend themselves against the government. Really?

I also think some of these cop trigger fingers cases are a direct result of the gun laws. In the UK, you do not have cops paranoid that the suspect is going to pull out a gun - so they don't have their own fingers on their guns either

It's all about awareness, mainly parents and friends of these sick folks, the signs are there, we hear it in hindsight all the time. People need to step up and inform authorites of a time bomb ticking, social media was warned in this latest case...do something people!!

Bonzo, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement "Australia had some gun laws/checks imposed which drastically reduced the gun crime. EU has low gun crime. Not sure why US cannot follow the same principle instead of pretending that the second amendment will help them defend themselves against the government. Really?" The USA's 2nd amendment is about the 'Right to Bear Arms', not against the government but, to protect your family. I'm thankful we have that here.

And wasn't one of the most horrific mass murders by a single gunman on a small island in Europe, 70+ killed?

amey01 said:

I don't care for this overused / passe line, sorry.

That's like saying:

"Anthrax doesn't kill - you have to release it from the vial in order to kill people"

or

"Plutonium-239 doesn't kill - you have to release it into the atmosphere".

Regardless - civilised people, and people with even a rudimentary reasoning skills wouldn't want to allow vials of Anthrax into the hands of all and sundry - and for some reason just trust them that just one of them won't release it on a crowded subway in a moment of insanity.

The same applies to guns. Yes, people kill, and people release the trigger - but basic logical reasoning suggests you also need take steps to ensure that this apparatus does not get into the hands of those capable of doing those actions.

Click to expand...

Australia has an overall murder rate that is much lower than the United States, but I read an article not long ago about how the Northwest Territory of Australia has a very high murder rate. Why does that part of Australia have a murder rate that is even higher than that of the US? Was it not possible to collect the guns in that area?

The situation I see is that we actually have some laws on the books, but they are rarely enforced because politicians are afraid of being labeled "anti-gun" and the NRA is a strong force.

So as much as I think we need some comprehensive reform, passing laws that won't be enforced won't help anything.

We need a fundamental change in our society and we need the gun lobby to be become less powerful.

Bill Gates has recently stood up to the NRA in his home state of WA.

The vast majority of people in the US want there to be background checks for people buying guns. And while you will always have a black market where some criminals can get guns, we make it far too convenient for anyone to run down to the store and pick up a hand gun anytime they feel like it.

Personally I think they should be illegal to own. The vast majority of gun owners are not part of a militia to help defend their state which is the spirit that amendment was written. There would be no impact initially and it would take years before any noticeable difference was made, but it is still worth doing for the future.

RCHeliGuy said:

The situation I see is that we actually have some laws on the books, but they are rarely enforced because politicians are afraid of being labeled "anti-gun" and the NRA is a strong force.

So as much as I think we need some comprehensive reform, passing laws that won't be enforced won't help anything.

We need a fundamental change in our society and we need the gun lobby to be become less powerful.

Bill Gates has recently stood up to the NRA in his home state of WA.

The vast majority of people in the US want there to be background checks for people buying guns. And while you will always have a black market where some criminals can get guns, we make it far too convenient for anyone to run down to the store and pick up a hand gun anytime they feel like it.

Personally I think they should be illegal to own. The vast majority of gun owners are not part of a militia to help defend their state which is the spirit that amendment was written. There would be no impact initially and it would take years before any noticeable difference was made, but it is still worth doing for the future.

Click to expand...

Completely agree guns are ONLY for Military and Law enforcement NRA should be abolished forget about the right to bear arms its grown out of hand

When I moved to the Atlanta area in 1995 I chose this city Kennesaw because of this law .

We have a very safe city with crime rates way below the norm for cities of similar size else where in the country.

Crooks realize it is in their best interest to pick cities with easier targets than the residents of Kennesaw Ga.

It is a deterrent to crime when the people who intend to do harm realize our citizens are armed and will not be victims.

Just my 2 cents .


Kennesaw, Georgia 1982 law requires all households have a gun

7:16 PM, Feb 26, 2013 | 14 comments






Kevin Held
FILED UNDER
US World News





Andrea McCarren, WUSA9

KENNESAW, Ga. (WUSA9) - Here's an interesting perspective on the gun control debate. WUSA9 found a town where every household is required, by law, to own a gun and the ammunition to use it.

It's a community 25 miles northwest of Atlanta that put itself on the map in a most unusual way.

"We don't have shootouts. It's not a Wild West," said Lt. Craig Graydon of the Kennesaw Police Department.

Sunrise over Kennesaw, Georgia reveals a sleepy town of 30,000 and a landscape dotted with flags, American and Confederate. Gun ownership is a way of life here.

"I can kill somebody with this. I can really do some damage and hurt somebody," said Karen Sherrill, a lifelong Kennesaw resident. "If I hear somebody trying to break in, this will get loaded. If they want to come into my house, they're gonna get shot."

She's a big supporter of the town's law that requires every household to own a gun.

"Why you gonna break into somebody's house if you know they got guns in there and they could kill ya?" she asked.

"I was born with 'em, raised with 'em, just like any other tool," explained Dent Myers, a feisty 82 year-old shop owner with a pair of pistols holstered to his hips. He too is a staunch defender of the right to own firearms.

"I've got a right to eat oatmeal cookies if I want to, if you don't like them. I can eat chocolate. If you don't like chocolate, so what? Don't eat it. If you don't want a weapon, don't buy one. But don't tell me that I can't," he said.

Our random survey of Kennesaw residents found unanimous support for the law.

"I think everybody should be allowed to have a gun if they want one, as long as they're not crazy or anything," said Benjamin Shoaf, a Kennesaw resident.

Kennesaw's 1982 gun mandate was a direct response to a gun -ban- enacted a year earlier in Morton Grove, Illinois. That was later deemed unconstitutional, but Kennesaw's law is still on the books.

"It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun," said Lt. Graydon. "It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens' second amendment rights to own firearms."

After the law went into effect in 1982, city leaders say they witnessed a 29 percent drop in crime. Over the last 30 years, the crime rate has remained low with just four gun-related homicides.

"Our crime rate is generally less than half the national average," added Lt. Graydon.

Over the years, Kennesaw has grown. And today, amidst the sprawling subdivisions and strip malls, gun control is still a sensitive issue.

"I've heard quite a few people talking about that and it would be a very ugly sight," said Kennesaw Mayor Mark Mathews. "There's a lot of people that are very, very passionate about their right to own firearms, any kind of a firearm."

Including an assault weapon? "Yes."

As the sun sets on Kennesaw, its residents are keeping an eye on the 2nd amendment and how Washington interprets it.

"I think if they change it, they're, you know, killing the Constitution. It's been that way forever," said Sherrill.

"No men anymore, there's no men. We have no leaders, no men. So we're just a wishy washy nation now and nobody's afraid of us anymore," insisted Myers.

Homeowners in Kennesaw who don't buy a gun are not punished. In fact, there are several exemptions, including religious objections, if someone is a convicted felon, has a mental illness or simply can't afford a weapon.

WUSA9

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents

Published: 04/19/2007 at 1:52 PM





As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.


The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.


By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled “Gun Town USA,” Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as “the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world.” Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: “Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer.”

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation’s schools and college campuses, is a so-called “gun-free zone,” which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

It's not as easy as just banning weapons or making it more difficult to access.

I'll give you an example:

I worked the ER in chicago. Getting a gun there is like getting a gun from your grandma... it takes forever, lots of hoops to jump through and the city itself banned it a few years ago. So.... explain to me why we would see multiple gun shootings in the trauma bay. I could go on a night shift and see perhaps 6-10 shootings in a span of 12 hours.

While over here in Dallas, I'm not seeing nearly as much penetrating trauma.... like the ratio is 10:1. Dallas has very relaxed gun regulations and are very pro NRA.

I honestly don't think the problems lies in the fact that regular people have access to guns... the majority of crime committed is by people who have access to guns regardless of the ease of which the general populous of that area has to said guns.

Basically, the bad guys will get the guns regardless if you or I can get guns.

To say the problem lies in access of guns is wrong IMO. Yes, you might get less of these "mass killings" where some psycho picked up a gun from home... but this is just a small tidbit of the murder rate around here. This just gets more attention because it can be sensationalized....

... no one likes talking about the drug deals gone bad in the southside of chicago or the drive by shootings where I had to intubate the 8 year old kid sitting on the porch who was shot in the face.

repman said:

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents

Published: 04/19/2007 at 1:52 PM





As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.


The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.


By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled “Gun Town USA,” Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as “the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world.” Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: “Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer.”

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation’s schools and college campuses, is a so-called “gun-free zone,” which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

Click to expand...

Yep, I can totally see this and I have seen this first hand.

Banning guns does not decrease crime rate from what I've seen.

And I will not believe you unless you've walked through my shoes and seen what 21 gun shot wounds can do to someone.

So we need more guns?

I think there's approximately 300,000,000 or so already in our country.

stuwee said:

It's all about awareness, mainly parents and friends of these sick folks, the signs are there, we hear it in hindsight all the time. People need to step up and inform authorites of a time bomb ticking, social media was warned in this latest case...do something people!!

Bonzo, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement "Australia had some gun laws/checks imposed which drastically reduced the gun crime. EU has low gun crime. Not sure why US cannot follow the same principle instead of pretending that the second amendment will help them defend themselves against the government. Really?" The USA's 2nd amendment is about the 'Right to Bear Arms', not against the government but, to protect your family. I'm thankful we have that here.

And wasn't one of the most horrific mass murders by a single gunman on a small island in Europe, 70+ killed?

Click to expand...

Hi, the second amendment came into force to protect against the govt

Gordon Gray said:

So we need more guns?

I think there's approximately 300,000,000 or so already in our country.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the right answer is.

All I know is that it's not as simple as banning them.

I guess the shooter had 13 guns, all bought legally.

Doesn't this give one pause regarding our country's obsession and current policies regarding firearms?

PS: Why would anybody need 13 guns? Can someone please answer that question?

I just don't get it.

Joey_V said:

I don't know what the right answer is.

All I know is that it's not as simple as banning them.

Click to expand...

In every other civilised country in the world, banning has worked.

So unless the USA can propose another (equally effective) measure, you guys have to do something.

Or just do nothing and the rest of the world can sit in awe as we watch news reports of mass shooting after mass shooting - month after month.