RSN June Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "They are half right when they say 'Guns don't kill people.' I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.' Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem."

Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty)
Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty)



It's the Guns - But Not Really the Guns

By Michael Moore, Open Mike Blog

25 July 12

 

ince Cain went nuts and whacked Abel, there have always been those humans who, for one reason or another, go temporarily or permanently insane and commit unspeakable acts of violence. There was the Roman Emperor Tiberius, who during the first century A.D. enjoyed throwing victims off a cliff on the Mediterranean island of Capri. Gilles de Rais, a French knight and ally of Joan of Arc during the middle ages, went cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs one day and ended up murdering hundreds of children. Just a few decades later Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula, was killing people in Transylvania in numberless horrifying ways.

In modern times, nearly every nation has had a psychopath or two commit a mass murder, regardless of how strict their gun laws are - the crazed white supremacist in Norway one year ago Sunday, the schoolyard butcher in Dunblane, Scotland, the École Polytechnique killer in Montreal, the mass murderer in Erfurt, Germany … the list seems endless.

And now the Aurora shooter last Friday. There have always been insane people, and there always will be.

But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have TWO Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns - and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000.

That means the United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?

Both conservatives and liberals in America operate with firmly held beliefs as to "the why" of this problem. And the reason neither can find their way out of the box toward a real solution is because, in fact, they're both half right.

The right believes that the Founding Fathers, through some sort of divine decree, have guaranteed them the absolute right to own as many guns as they desire. And they will ceaselessly remind you that a gun cannot fire itself - that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Of course, they know they're being intellectually dishonest (if I can use that word) when they say that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc.

But they are half right when they say "Guns don't kill people." I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."

Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem.

They'll say it's the violent movies and video games that are responsible. Last time I checked, the movies and video games in Japan are more violent than ours - and yet usually fewer than 20 people a year are killed there with guns - and in 2006 the number was two!

Others will say it's the number of broken homes that lead to all this killing. I hate to break this to you, but there are almost as many single-parent homes in the U.K. as there are here - and yet, in Great Britain, there are usually fewer than 40 gun murders a year.

People like me will say this is all the result of the U.S. having a history and a culture of men with guns, "cowboys and Indians," "shoot first and ask questions later." And while it is true that the mass genocide of the Native Americans set a pretty ugly model to found a country on, I think it's safe to say we're not the only ones with a violent past or a penchant for genocide. Hello, Germany! That's right I'm talking about you and your history, from the Huns to the Nazis, just loving a good slaughter (as did the Japanese, and the British who ruled the world for hundreds of years - and they didn't achieve that through planting daisies). And yet in Germany, a nation of 80 million people, there are only around 200 gun murders a year.

So those countries (and many others) are just like us - except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.

My liberal compatriots will tell you if we just had less guns, there would be less gun deaths. And, mathematically, that would be true. If you have less arsenic in the water supply, it will kill less people. Less of anything bad - calories, smoking, reality TV - will kill far fewer people. And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.

But this, too, has a problem. There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) - and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada's culture is very similar to ours - the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don't grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.

So - why us?

I posed this question a decade ago in my film 'Bowling for Columbine,' and this week, I have had little to say because I feel I said what I had to say ten years ago - and it doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good other than to now look like it was actually a crystal ball posing as a movie.

This is what I said then, and it is what I will say again today:

1. We Americans are incredibly good killers. We believe in killing as a way of accomplishing our goals. Three-quarters of our states execute criminals, even though the states with the lower murder rates are generally the states with no death penalty.

Our killing is not just historical (the slaughter of Indians and slaves and each other in a "civil" war). It is our current way of resolving whatever it is we're afraid of. It's invasion as foreign policy. Sure there's Iraq and Afghanistan - but we've been invaders since we "conquered the wild west" and now we're hooked so bad we don't even know where to invade (bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan, he was in Pakistan) or what to invade for (Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11). We send our lower classes off to do the killing, and the rest of us who don't have a loved one over there don't spend a single minute of any given day thinking about the carnage. And now we send in remote pilotless planes to kill, planes that are being controlled by faceless men in a lush, air conditioned studio in suburban Las Vegas. It is madness.

2. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes? Maybe we should fix our race problem and our poverty problem (again, #1 in the industrialized world) and then maybe there would be fewer frustrated, frightened, angry people reaching for the gun in the drawer. Maybe we would take better care of each other (here's a good example of what I mean).

Those are my thoughts about Aurora and the violent country I am a citizen of. Like I said, I spelled it all out here if you'd like to watch it or share it for free with others. All we're lacking here, my friends, is the courage and the resolve. I'm in if you are.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+10 # hobbesian 2012-07-25 07:51
Or else wait until we have all been killed by our neighbours for one reason or another; then it's moot. (Won't be long at this rate, but then I'm not good at Math.)
 
 
+15 # portiz 2012-07-25 09:16
I think there are two issues here. On the one hand the rampant violence in US sets a bad example, e.g., 'copycat' crimes, imitating violent movies, etc. That is, psychopaths see "others as worthless", people are merely targets to be shot.

On the other hand, is the more problematic factor. That is, the rampant random violence leads people to see *themselves* as worthless and potential victims of the next senseless act. That is, we see "ourselves as worthless".

Combine these two devaluations of human life, add easy access to all kinds of high-powered automatic weapons, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
 
 
+6 # walthe310 2012-07-25 08:00
http://wp.me/p1H7Ki-2Ka
Who pays for gun violence?
 
 
+40 # politicaleconomist 2012-07-25 08:04
Great post, Michael.
I would add another point.
One you made in "Bowling".
We were founded as a racist society and still are one. We still to a large extent are ready to demonize some people based on looks (the other).
Makes killing easier. Even for those who are demonize to think of their fellow humans as one of the "others.
 
 
+2 # ritaague 2012-07-28 06:22
Yes indeed, politicaleconom ist, St. Michael the Irish devil (little joke between us) is an incredible prophet (truthteller). A great post, per usual.

And yes, racism (as evil and ugly as it is) still runs rampant, holding hands with 'it's all about me and mine' - self esteem, self centered m.o. (a.k.a. 1%'s enslave 'em all m.o.).

If we were truly a "..one nation under God..." we would accept the reality that illness, inluding but certainly not limited to mental illness, is always with us, that we are our 'brother's keeper' - and 'keeping' 'em we are failing at miserably, with endless war (so profitable for the 1%) vs. HEALTHCARE FOR ALL.

And, the combo of non-diagnosis, non-treatment and/or supervision of those with mental illness and EBD (emotional, behavioral disorders), coupled with the aforementioned' s tendencies toward self medication via alcohol, etc. and ease of acquiring firearms and ammo and caring only about 'me, me, me' is tragedy upon tragedy upon tragedy happening constantly and coming bigger than ever now and in the future, i.e. Aurora.

Sad and then some, how little courage and determination on the part of the vast majority of national pols., to 'just say no' to the N.R.A. and their 'no gun control whatsoever'. Can't lose votes/lobbyist support ($$$), now can they?

Ray of hope - the national mayor's group who have, for some time, been trying to address this huge nightmare.
 
 
-104 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-25 08:07
Quote: "The right believes that the Founding Fathers, through some sort of divine decree, have guaranteed them the absolute right to own as many guns as they desire."

Um... the SUPREME COURT said it just a couple of years ago.

Quote: "... because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc."

Disingenuous, Mike. Read that Supreme Court decision. That was not the reason, AT ALL. It is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a "militia" right, and it exists for purposes that are quite different than what you state here... which was also clearly spelled out in that decision.

It has always been an individual right, by design. Denying that is to deny your own history. Even recent history. Since this is a subject you like to expound upon, I pretty much have to assume you actually read that decision, which means you are being -- and I am being very generous here -- disingenuous. You know what you are saying is untrue.

The alternative is that you did NOT read the decision, in which case you are guilty of willful ignorance, about one of your own favorite subjects.

Mike, you do some wonderful documentaries. But on this particular subject, you have lost tossed aside any credibility you may have had.
 
 
-57 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 09:30
Mike has forgotten his history...one of the main ploys by knights n sheriffs n kings n dukes n earls n princes was that the unlanded hoipaloi could not have weapons...from that historical memory and the results of its theme of control and domination evolved the need and resolution of the 2nd amendment.

Ya don't remember history, then what happens?
 
 
-34 # John Locke 2012-07-25 11:12
LonnyEachus and paulrevere: You can't preach to people who have a closed mind and who present false facts to support their claims...all the evidence we produce just makes them more resolute to argue that they are right! and they are not!!!
 
 
-25 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 13:34
yup...history as experience and general agreement to the social constructs of the time is undeniable. Those in charge have always been in fear of the pitchfork potential of the great unwashed...thos e here who don't see that according to that one tenth of one percet, that they need a scrubbing, are prematurely and ignorantly dipping into that red thumbery.
 
 
+13 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-07-25 20:39
Indeed, the greedy and selfish of old feared the unwashed and unlanded and whatever weapons they might have. The 99% back then, in England, forced the Magna Carta on the Lords at the point of a sword. But now while you bleat about your precious, magical, "equalizing" guns the current Lords of the 1% are either taking what you have or making you slaves to keep what you have at the stroke of their proverbial pen without fear of your many guns because you are gladly helping the new Lords by voting for their Republican handmaidens who in turn promise to let you keep your guns. Maybe you will be able to see this once you are old and impoverished and too weak to raise your gun or when this reality becomes "ancient history"!
 
 
-5 # paulrevere 2012-07-26 08:16
Um...'scuzey please? Your take makes sense until you did the ad hominem stuff...

I know MANY, MANY left of center folks who have and use rifles, shotguns and even hand guns.

Typical skirts high liberal doing a broad brush over emotional knee-jerk.
 
 
+3 # Virginia 2012-07-27 16:06
When I first read the article I didn't know what to comment - it took me a couple of days because while I think the availability of assault weapons is out of control we can't allow the gov't to make us altogether defenseless... And then a reader on the www.deadlyclear.com blog posted a video and an interesting fact appeared: One of the largest banking scandals in the world is likely linked to the Aurora murders - right out of a movie! See the latest post featuring Eliot Spitzer's Viewpoint and read on to the end.

"Most important to note about James Holmes (Colorado shooter), however, this report says, is that his father, Robert Holmes, was said to have been scheduled to testify within the next few weeks before a US Senate panel on the largest bank fraud scandal in world history that is currently unfolding and threatens to destabilize and destroy the Western banking system. Robert Holmes, whose “blueblood” family links go back to the Mayflower, is known throughout the global banking community as being the creator of one of the most sophisticated computer algorithms ever developed and is credited with developing predictive models for financial services; credit and fraud risk models, first and third party application fraud models and internet/online banking fraud models." 

I think we have to outlaw mind control development first.
 
 
+2 # 1984 2012-07-26 08:36
All you are saying is that the purpose of the second amendment, rather than thinking it would be great for citizens to be able to fire machine guns, went further back in history, to prevent the powerful from slaughtering the weak, e.g.to form a malicia should the powerful come back and try to oppress us again.
 
 
+33 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-07-25 09:32
WRONG. See the Second Congress, 1792, if you want to see exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by the second amendment.
 
 
-31 # ramblinjim 2012-07-25 10:57
Agreed, Moore, though I'm a big fan of him on almost every issue, did not read the decision. It's always been our right to own guns, and still is.
 
 
+36 # carpepax 2012-07-25 11:13
And just because the Supreme(my ass) Court says it's OK, doesn't mean it's not stupid and destructive. Oh, is this the same Supreme Court many of you conservatards say you will ignore because of their ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act? Oh yeah, THAT Supreme Court.
 
 
+54 # Hagwind 2012-07-25 11:14
It's very possible that MM understands the decision perfectly well -- but he also knows that when it comes to interpretation of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions aren't necessarily the last word. If they were, slavery might still be legal (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and separate-but-eq ual would still be the law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson).

Constitutional scholars have been arguing over those commas in the Second Amendment for a very long time. MM is trying to move beyond that to the deeper question of why murder is so much more common in the US than in any other comparable country. He's asking us to take a look in the mirror, something we as a people aren't good at doing.
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2012-07-26 20:56
Well said!
 
 
+31 # engelbach 2012-07-25 11:45
The decision was 5-4, with the usual division between the conservative Justices and the rest of the Court.

Given the predelictions of the conservative majority, in my opinion and that of countless others the constitutionali ty of this decision is still up n the air.

It is obvious that the Second Amendment was written to apply to circumstances that existed in 1789, which have since changed in the extreme.

The poor wording of the militia clause has been seized upon by gun advocates as a justification for assuming prescient powers by the writers of the Bill of Rights.

That's plainly ridiculous. There is no "well-regulated " militia today; and no unorganized force of individual gun owners is capable of resisting the might of a modern miltary establishment in case of invasion or the assumption by the government of tyrannical powers.

Michael Moore is not only correct, but he spells things out in a clearer and more convincing way than most people who favor stricter gun laws.
 
 
-18 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 15:54
If you choose to interpret according to the literal language, well, that is one angle...in spirit, the founders experience must be taken into consideration.

They KNEW by first hand and historical experience that groups of people were ALWAYS being manipulated by the will of the overlords.

They KNEW that force by the overlords eventually came into play.

WETHEPEOPLE are now in that position...

Just keep knee-jerkin' your way into deeper and darker hells of slavery and domination there red thumbers...
 
 
+23 # tabonsell 2012-07-25 13:35
Your statement and the court's five right-wingers' decision rest entirely on not being able to read properly.

The Second Amendment said "the right of the people..." Had James Madison, who headed the panel that proposed the Bill of Rights, and the First Congress, that adopted the proposal for ratification, wanted an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT they would have written "no person's right..." That would be an individual right.

The "original intent" of the Second was to keep the population armed so that the militia could be raised. In 1792 Congress required all able-bodied men to own a firearm. The law excluded blacks, women, children and others unsuitable for militia service, which proves it is not an individual right or those would have that right also. And individual right would be one which everyone has. Even the recent SCOTUS decision said their "individual" right is not ironclad, there could be exceptions made; which means the five righties were arguing against themselves.

The real "original intent" of a militia is in Article I, Section 8, that says the militia's duty when in service to the nation is to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions." So ask yourself why those judges who claim to know and follow "original intent" can't actually follow it.

It's clear the Five can't think properly either.
 
 
+11 # Maxwell 2012-07-25 13:47
LonnyEachus,

You're correct in asserting that a recent Supreme Court decision declared gun ownership an individual right, but I disagree with your assertion that "It has always been an individual right, by design." An unbiased reading of the Second Amendment doesn't lead the reader to that conclusion. The Second Amendment reads, in its entirety:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If your read just "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", you're not reading the entire text.

I wonder where the right wing's indignation is on this SC decision. Isn't it the right wing that always complains about Activist Judges who Legislate From The Bench? There was no law specifically allowing private gun ownership in the US, but the SC has now established that right by their decision.

Oh well, at least it wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. The SC can always review and reverse bad decisions, which it has actually done from time to time.
 
 
+7 # Dion Giles 2012-07-25 20:49
“Um... the SUPREME COURT said it just a couple of years ago.”
=========================================

That would be the same corrupt Supreme Court, would it, that installed George W. Bush in 2001, and citizens united in 2010?

The second amendment was adopted in response to demands from “people” who needed the guns to suppress slave revolts. Now, the latest figures show their spirit lingers on: 8775 gun homicides p.a. in USA, 58 in UK. Victims of gun homicide in the USA are still predominantly black, just as the slave owners intended in 1792.

The mental gyrations – in the face of such overwhelming evidence (think 8775:58) − of those who need the right to own guns to feel adequate are something to see – even to the extent of implying that US Supreme Court judgements are based on law or on morality.
 
 
+6 # coach777b 2012-07-26 04:26
"It has always been an individual right" WRONG! Every citizen was part of the militia and they were expected to maintain arms. The threat of Indians, bandits or the return of the British was constant.
That militia has been replaced over time by police forces, National Guard and the military. So the individual owning firearms is not a right, written in stone, but a privilege, granted by the State. As for the accumulation of assault weapons and cases of ammunition there are steps that can and should be used to curtail that. For example, if the 60,000 rounds of ammunition had to be picked up by the buyer at his local police station and signed for, the buyer might have had second thoughts. As a VietNam veteran, I understand the power of these weapons and that there should be no place for them in civilian hands.
 
 
-1 # robniel 2012-08-03 07:09
I guess you are a member of "a well-regulated militia" (2nd Amendment) or agree with a faulty Supreme Court decision.
 
 
+12 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-25 08:12
Quote: "So - why us?"

Because of our ridiculous drug prohibition laws.

The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are attributable (directly or indirectly) to drug-related crime. And NOTHING you can do in regard to trying to regulate guns will help that, because guns are not the cause, they are a symptom.
 
 
+7 # ramblinjim 2012-07-25 10:58
Legalize the drugs and that will put an end to most gun violence.
 
 
+13 # ReyHinckley 2012-07-25 08:17
Thank you for saying it again.
Also thanks forgiving ex seminarians a model.
 
 
+42 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 08:19
Thanks Mike for the fairminded take here.

Resolve the poverty problem and a big chunk of the strife goes away.

I am surprised there is no mention of psychotropics. I am surprised there is no mention of political advantage to those who perpetuate poverty and general fear...of everything.

I believe that America in general has an adolescent mentality born of not having the deep social meanings of life and the commons inherent in thousand plus year old cultures.

We are an arrogant and naive people immersed in hueueueuege, sophisticated and varied forms of psychological manipulation by the cadres in charge of the money, media and military.

Our youthful dynamism for invention, the wonders of science and technology and the 'free markets' to exploit all things therein is no less than giving loaded weapons to inexperienced kids...Animal Farm at its best.

Get a grip America, hubris is no answer.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2012-07-25 09:10
[quote name="paulrevere"]
I believe that America in general has an adolescent mentality born of not having the deep social meanings of life and the commons inherent in thousand plus year old cultures.
If deep social meanings of life and the commons are inherent in thousand year old cultures then please explain to me why the middle east with it's thousand plus year old cultures behaves so barbarically towards its women?
 
 
+2 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 10:18
You can pick and choose the foibles and short falls of any human endeavor. The culture and values are not in question as much as how the culture projects itself onto that of others.

I cannot defend your chosen criticism. I can only say that with experience comes some degree of wisdom and that wisdom is gleaned by the pain side of life rather than the side that breathes free enough to grab some time at the beach.

The US, WETHEPEOPLE are presently at a very dynamic point of decision. An internal force we have allowed to lull our better judgement and higher nature into somnambulance must be exposed for what it is.

Defend that laxity and sloth in our culture at your own peril and at the peril of our future as a nation is how I see it.
 
 
+3 # John Locke 2012-07-25 11:16
bmiluski Each culture has their beliefs just as the Roman Catholic and Mormon religions believe women to be second class citizens! The Middle east don't even give women second class status!
 
 
-8 # ramblinjim 2012-07-25 11:00
people immersed in hueueueuege?? What the hell? And psychotropic drugs? Like Haldole, librium? who takes those anymore.
 
 
+1 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 13:39
fazzoo...70 million prescriptions for psychotropics like Zoloft, librium, Aderal, Ambian, Celexa, Lunesta, Paxil...glad to see you don't watch much of the tv machine.
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2012-07-25 17:10
Quoting ramblinjim:
people immersed in hueueueuege?? What the hell? And psychotropic drugs? Like Haldole, librium? who takes those anymore.

Eh???? What thge Hell language is that?
 
 
0 # dragonflywings 2012-07-26 14:05
heheh
it's patient or bitter-ex-patie nt language.
first of all, guys, learn to spell.

is aDDerall- get it? two Ds cuz it's for ADD?... clever, eh? and ambieEn, get it? french for am good... am bien, accent agu on the e... and yea, lots of us take those.

and thank you for the person who says that women in the middle east are NOT seocond class citizens.

'cause we're not. thank you.
 
 
+17 # William Bjornson 2012-07-25 08:20
[1]"Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."

Hmmm. And should America be any different from the rest of the world? Perusing Wikipedia, we find that much of the rest of the world does even better than us at intentionally killing people presumably using knives, clubs, ropes, poison, hot grease , et cetera. [wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate]

Something that no one seems to mention is that the people who seem most prone to using guns to intentionally kill people are the police. I think we have seen enough unjustified 'justified' police murders to suggest that disarming them might reduce significantly the number of gun deaths in the U.S.
 
 
+17 # Glen 2012-07-25 10:44
Yes, William, the police kill at random, just as we are seeing in Anaheim California. In many cities folks are as afraid of the cops as they are the criminals.

Also the Anaheim incident is being twisted in favor of the cops rather than giving a history of past killings (8 this year) by local police and the fact that citizens are organizing to put an end to it. The rioting of late could have been avoided if the cops had not over-reacted to folks in the neighborhood being in the street to see what had happened and to criticize still another killing of an unarmed man. Dogs were even brought in, that attacked a fellow holding a baby. This was all covered on Democracy Now yesterday.

Those details are always left out or manipulated in favor of the police. No excuse to shoot a man in the back and again in the head when he is down.
 
 
+9 # John Locke 2012-07-25 11:18
William Bjornson How often we hear the police broke into the wrong home and killed an innocent person...more common then we care to admit...
 
 
+11 # William Bjornson 2012-07-25 08:22
[2]It is also quite possible that if the U.S. had a competent national mental healthcare system we might see a difference as well. And, if we eliminate the Southern states from the tally, the per capita U.S. murder rate for the remainder declines significantly. If we then further select out those born in the South and in other cultures, the rate will probably begin to look like that of Western Europe, the lowest cited in the chart above. Is it possible that the most murderously warlike people are the least likely to commit individual murders in favor of mass murders?

As Mr. Moore points out, the world is full of psychopaths (1:100 according to Dr. Robert Hare). But, if Mr. Holmes had gone spla with a samurai type sword, he might have killed and wounded at least as many people. ¿Quién sabe?
 
 
-3 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 10:22
Good thinking...tks!
 
 
+3 # Glen 2012-07-25 10:32
Yes, William, there are many alternative weapons, but guns are loud and used frequently as a showmanship activity. Holmes is just such a killer. Had he been merely out to kill he could have taken out a number of people before they had a clue something was happening.

I will take issue with your assertion that eliminating Southern states would decrease the tally. Take a look at U.S. cities with highest gun killing rates. Aurora, by the way is in Colorado. Check out Chicago and Washington D.C. No territory is exempt from killings.
 
 
-3 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 13:46
according to police he kicked in and entered the emergency exit door...how do you kick in a door that opens out?

According to some witnesses, the gas was also set off down front on the left side...the shooter was on the right.

According to the young man sitting right near the right entry, a guy infront of him got a cell call, got up while talking on the phone, opened the emergency door a bit, and signaled to someone who momentarily entered in full battle gear.

False Flag assault to fan the fires of gun confiscation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FjbnyHn7Y&feature=player_embedded

catch the testimony before it is deleted...I viewed it about an hour ago.
 
 
+7 # Jameswhadley 2012-07-25 16:54
Absolutely correct about the exit door. But wait......
Already the killer is nationally famous, has columnists writing about him, and people developing theories about what REALLY transpired. And he will turn out to be part of US history, maybe a footnote, but remember - before he "kicked open that door" he was nobody.
Consider also that this may be the message here. Don't contribute to a downward spiral by making more out of a pitiable act by a sad, lonely individual than it ever could or should be. Fame, however achieved, at whatever cost, is a very American goal. And a very, very destructive one.
This sad little man who killed innocents is best left ignored. Find the social ills that might have led him to do this. But for God's sake, leave the details of the crime to the forensic specialists.
 
 
+19 # arachneabroad 2012-07-25 08:35
Thank you Michael. As always, articulate AND you remind us: those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat...or in our case (USofA) destined to support the unsupportable.B e well friend.
 
 
+16 # fredboy 2012-07-25 08:48
The groundswell of gun purchases and concealed weapons permits following last week's Colorado massacre are expected: the entire nation has been gripped in fear and insecurity since 9/11. Most I know haven't trusted the government, at any level, to protect them since that time.

Add to this the nation's gun free-for-all. Got a pulse--you can buy a gun. And cases of high-volume clips. And cases of ammo.

Now add the death games. Night and day, alone or in groups, millions of kids are addicted to them. Deadening them to death and mayhem, eliminating any empathy they may have had, and sharpening those hand-eye skills for an eventual seat at the drone consoles. Yeehaw!

Yes, America is beyond dangerous now. So let's add a gallon of high-octane caffeine drinks a day to the mix, and see what happens next...
 
 
+5 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 10:29
...and you could surely add the insane increase in SWAT actions, some 4000 per week according to a 2004 Eastern Kentucky University study, and the ridiculous advent of surveillance cameras, rumors of uncontrolled wiretapping, willy nilly MADD driven road stops, false flag driven police and military activity, burning water out of spigots, the press for less and less government and more and more intrusion into individual lives...

The 'high octane caffeine' is the orchestrated via the media emphases on all of the above and then some.
 
 
+8 # reiverpacific 2012-07-25 08:48
As I've said many times before on RSN and other writings, this is a "Death Culture" and the American Indians and Hawaiians I know use this very term; I'm just borrowing it from them.
And again, to those who feel the need to have an arsenal in their homes to "protect their families" from the government, furrun' invaders, drug gangs, or whatever rationale they pull out of the NRA's tired old fear-and-loathi ng-based phrase library (My favorite is "I'll give up my gun when they take it from my cold, dead hand!"), I give you from recent history, the hugely-armed Branch Davidians and families, the FBI firebombing thereof and Janet Reno's ordering of that explosive and fiery debacle in Waco, Tejas.
Not that I expect much to change, so ingrained is the self-armed mentality in the semi-consciousn ess of the US unquestioning populace.
 
 
-1 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 10:35
Your ref to Waco and the implied heavy hand of the US Gestapo does not serve your dovish critique.

Who is it that volunteers to join LAW ENFORCEMENT, but the very people who desire to dominate via force?

Personally, the way that 3 querries and your under arrest has taken over police actions MUST be brought to light and pressed back into SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE rather than PROTECT THE PEOPLE.

The viscious cycle has to begin to be brought back into rational reason by WETHEPEOPLE...h ow ever that is done.

We first have to dump the fear burden that is drummed into our populace by the 'if it bleeds itleads' media.
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2012-07-25 17:30
Quoting paulrevere:
Your ref to Waco and the implied heavy hand of the US Gestapo does not serve your dovish critique.
Who is it that volunteers to join LAW ENFORCEMENT, but the very people who desire to dominate via force?
Personally, the way that 3 querries and your under arrest has taken over police actions MUST be brought to light and pressed back into SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE rather than PROTECT THE PEOPLE.
The viscious cycle has to begin to be brought back into rational reason by WETHEPEOPLE...how ever that is done.
We first have to dump the fear burden that is drummed into our populace by the 'if it bleeds itleads' media.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
"Dovish"? -Guilty as charged in the universal sense and proud of it, in spite of bein' an ol' bare-fist bar-scrapper and ex-rugby playin', amiable curmudgeon who can take a few knocks, can't abide guns, have some beautiful ceremonial Krises, a Ghurka throwin' knife and a few other bladed ceremonial artifacts, all presented to me on my travels by truly brave warriors who likewise hate "Coward's weapons" but will fight to the death for what they hold dear or sacred.
And there is nothing "implied" about my example of the Waco debacle, as it surely was. In fact, I concur with what I can make out of y'r judgement on that and still think the example is appropriate as stated.
Your reading and interpretation skills must be as bad as y'r spelling and grammar.
 
 
-1 # paulrevere 2012-07-26 08:26
Heh...I'm certain we're on the same wavelength regarding 'the forces that be'.

I'll give you no quarter on my reading and interpretation skills...my spelling and grammar are often for colloquial emphasis, if you, in your stellar linguistic perfections, did not note that.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2012-07-26 17:44
Quoting paulrevere:
Heh...I'm certain we're on the same wavelength regarding 'the forces that be'.

I'll give you no quarter on my reading and interpretation skills...my spelling and grammar are often for colloquial emphasis, if you, in your stellar linguistic perfections, did not note that.

Oh well, I like to muck about wi' the ol' lingo a bit too. Must ha' missed the last one or it was wayyyy over my head (whooshshsh!).
Anyhoo, 'nuff said and we seem to concur on the essentials as ya noted.
 
 
-28 # Johnny 2012-07-25 08:52
Of course, Michael is bein intellectually dishonest(if I can use that word) when he says that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure the states could call up their militias from amongst the farmers and merchants should It become necessary to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. Jefferson knew that "The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots." Now, obviously, the second amendment is as meaningless -- to the officers and courts that enforce the laws -- as the rest of the constitution.
 
 
+5 # jwb110 2012-07-25 09:56
Quoting Johnny:
Of course, Michael is bein intellectually dishonest(if I can use that word) when he says that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure the states could call up their militias from amongst the farmers and merchants should It become necessary to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. Jefferson knew that "The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots." Now, obviously, the second amendment is as meaningless -- to the officers and courts that enforce the laws -- as the rest of the constitution.

The Founding Fathers also didn't want a standing drafted or especially a professional army that could be a threat to the country. A standing militia, that would be disolved once any conflict ended, was their answer to the safety of the Republic. These guns were meant to protect us potential tyranny and we got that anyway. Perhaps. the bullets are being fired in the wrong direction. I should think that the Washington DC supporters of the NRA and the gun lobby would rethink the process if they were in the crosshairs of a limitless supply of guns.
 
 
+10 # Tigre1 2012-07-25 10:28
#Johnny, Johnny...wouldn 't it be more honest to quote Jefferson? didn't he say, "watered with the blood of TYRANTS"?

Personally, if I knew someone were planning to kill a lot of innocents I would do my best to steer him instead to an elevator in a Wall Street building...or 'K' Street, or a big bank board meeting...a tobacco company board,
or? you get the idea. Be a great leader and savior of Americans, don't waste a good mad on innocents.

And maybe you ought to read old TJ some yourself and not rely on memory of talking points from your TP meets...I went to a few to folk with the jokes, and I know what you're up to better, maybe, than you do...remember! TYRANTS, not patriots! we want patriots alive.
 
 
+1 # Glen 2012-07-25 10:35
Thomas Jefferson, in his often quoted statements, was also most often referring to France, not the new U.S.
 
 
+4 # engelbach 2012-07-25 11:49
No way individuals with guns today could defeat the military might of the government should the latter turn tyrannical.
 
 
+10 # DoodooDumper 2012-07-25 11:59
Quoting Johnny:
Of course, Michael is bein intellectually dishonest...


No, what is intellectually dishonest is to base an argument for gun rights on the 2nd Amendment. Its short and simple. Permit me to quote:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The ONLY stated condition for gun rights is with a "well regulated Militia". No militia, no gun rights under the 2nd Amendment. And this is so because of the historical understanding that the framers believed a well regulated militia was preferable to a standing army. Well, we now have a standing army. The 2nd Amendment is MOOT. Get over it.
 
 
+6 # David Heizer 2012-07-25 15:14
It's worth noting that Scalia had to disregard the entire first half of the 2nd Amendment as an irrelevant "preamble" to make his case. (And then spend 200+ pages meticulously parsing the remaining 14 words only to fail to persuade 4 of the 9.)
 
 
-3 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 16:09
well, one could call upon the obvious experience of the framers also.

They knew that individuals would eventually have to stand up to tyranny for tyranny had always taken place by the governors or controllers in their lifetimes and in their recognition of history...

as demonstrated by these words from the Declaration of Intependance... "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long establishedshou ld not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpationsk, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..."

'it is their right, it is their duty to THROW OFF such government',

can only be interpreted as a potential need for force, BY WETHEPEOPLE.

I contend that your interpretation there DoodooDumper is just what you are dumping.
 
 
+3 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-07-26 05:40
Doodoo Dumper: You are exactly right! The framers provided for a permanent standing Navy because it takes too long to build ships on a moment's notice, but the Constitution calls for a national army for only two years at a time for two reasons. First, the experience of the Revolutionary War showed them that standing armies are very expensive even in peace time and they did not want to be forced to pay the taxes needed to sustain a national army. Also because they saw no credible invasion threat in this hemisphere and they had no plans to go around the world staking claims to other people's land and resources, we HAD plenty of our own! Secondly, the framers feared that a president who wanted to be king might use a standing army to achieve that goal, particularly a volunteer, professional army such as we have now. The framers were farsighted and correct on both counts as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney almost proved. This is also why the framers provided that a national army could not be used internally as a police force. That was also to be the job of the "well armed militia"! It is a shame the Second Ammendment is so poorly worded as to be vague to us now, but it was clear to those who wrote and ratified it! As for the Supreme Court decision of a year or so ago that decreed that any lunatic could have as many of any kind of gun they want, that is their twisted, deluded fantasy made by four Neo Fascists and a couple of cowards that pleases gun makers and retailers!!!
 
 
-2 # paulrevere 2012-07-26 08:31
the 0 has KILLED IN COLD BLOOD WITHOUT TRIAL TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS...gett ing damned close to dictatorship and kingdom-hood ya ask me.
 
 
+45 # seeuingoa 2012-07-25 08:54
The difference between democratic Europe
and America is:

No guns,
No death penalty,
No money in politics,
and universal health care.

Wow! what a difference that makes.
 
 
+8 # julianj 2012-07-25 09:45
I agree with you about 3 out of 4, but as a european, theres's lots of money in politics and that's why we're (Europe I mean)in the mess we are in.
 
 
+5 # seeuingoa 2012-07-25 11:52
Quoting julianj:
I agree with you about 3 out of 4, but as a european, theres's lots of money in politics and that's why we're (Europe I mean)in the mess we are in.


Comparatively of course !
You don´t need 500 million dollars
to become president/prime minister in
France or England!
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2012-07-26 17:53
Quoting julianj:
I agree with you about 3 out of 4, but as a european, theres's lots of money in politics and that's why we're (Europe I mean)in the mess we are in.

There is money in politics everywhere but it's limited by statute in most European countries -although Mr. Rip-off Murdoch wiggled around it many times through back doors in the UK and Berlisconi in Italy was openly throwing it around not to mention owning the bulk of the media. Both have been outed finally.
Also, the election seasons are short and to the point with more engaged voters and equal media access to all competitive parties who keep their deposits (by show of sufficient support in registration).
Would that it were so here, so let's make it 4 out of 4 to "seeuingoa". I could actually add a few more factoids but that's enough to be toddlin' along with.
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2012-07-25 10:40
@seeuingoa

"No money in politics" ?
Did you know that the UK, Italy and Spain, (just to mention a few lurid recent examples) are all in Europe ?
 
 
-8 # John Locke 2012-07-25 11:25
seeuingoa You are as usual incorrect, Citizens of almost every country have guns!and many also have a death penalty!
A dictatorship doesn't require money for elections those that allow them just make sure the outcome is as they plan. Their money comes from US!
 
 
+3 # seeuingoa 2012-07-25 12:21
Quoting John Locke:
seeuingoa You are as usual incorrect, Citizens of almost every country have guns!and many also have a death penalty!
A dictatorship doesn't require money for elections those that allow them just make sure the outcome is as they plan. Their money comes from US!



Come on John, my friend in battle!

Comparatively please !!
We don´t talk about huntingrifles or
a nutcase in Norway, nor do we talk about
death penalty in specific war situations.

Come on my friend, let´s battle together
against the crazyness of this world.
 
 
0 # John Locke 2012-07-28 07:59
seeuingoa: Yes!
 
 
0 # John Locke 2012-07-28 08:08
seeuingoa: THe point i wish to make is that in every country there are and always will be guns, most countries allow somw form of gun ownership, and unfortunately the US is not the only country that still has the death penalty...58 countries still have a death penalty...

The Death Penalty Worldwide — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html/#ixzz21vxlOhIo

more then 138 countries have abandoned this eye for an eye punishment
 
 
+11 # LeeBlack 2012-07-25 09:02
I have more questions than ideas of what should be done. Australia has the same history we have of individualism and taking a country away from the natives. What is their modern view of gun rights?
Why are the ones who advocate gun rights against a ban of assault weapons and large magazines? Other than collectors I don't know why any non-military individual would legitimately need such arms.
If we could decrease the amount of people killed and injured by the unbalanced isn't that a worthy goal? True, they can still strap on a bomb and walk into a crowd but since Americans tend to use guns instead of bombs we could decrease the damage.
 
 
+4 # Vardoz 2012-07-25 09:03
It's the money and corrupt reps who will do anything for bribes. They are destroying our nation!
 
 
+5 # Lulie 2012-07-25 09:18
The love of guns seems to be so visceral that Americans lose all reason on the subject. And when our environment implodes -- which it is starting to do even quicker than we thought -- the massive number of guns will no doubt play a big part in the fight over what's left.
 
 
+5 # James Marcus 2012-07-25 09:25
US State Sponsored Murder, currently courtesy of Obama, The Empathizer, (barf), goes on daily. DAILY!
No?
Ask the innocent women and Children of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, (& other places, For Sure) all about it......
Done in 'Our name', on our dollar, by our children
WAKE UP!
 
 
+2 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 10:37
VERY undeniable...
 
 
+2 # engelbach 2012-07-25 11:50
Too true.
 
 
+8 # Tigre1 2012-07-25 09:50
You know, Lonny, you fluffernutter, the word "militia" DOES appear in the second
Amendment...I can't read the dead Founders' minds any better than a SCOTUS I disagree with a lot, nor YOU, but I do notice that our Constitution, BEFORE it mentions the Amendments VERY clearly defines the word"militia".. .have you looked? Which which comes first in the 2nd amendment, the word "militia" or "right to bear arms"? wake up. Don't be a rabid sheeple dog.

And lest you think I don't like guns, I began shooting when I was four, and wasn't until after a stint in the Green Berets that I knew I wouldn't hunt again...here's the DEAL, wake up and pay attention: I personally don't like power in the hands of people who can't handle it. I don't like it in politicians, in drivers, and I used to refuse to teach real fighting to people who couldn't make sense about it in testing preliminary conversations. I regret it if you feel differently.I'm an American and you have the right to your opinions, and I only wish they were yours and not the advertising mantras of the NRA and the industry.

As for Michael...I bet you don't approve of the path my weapons education took, but I assure you will always be safe if I'm close enough.
 
 
-27 # RightForAReason 2012-07-25 09:51
I suppose the mass murder in Norway last year was caused by the Easter Bunny. The mass graves in Iraq were by the Great Pumpkin. Stalin, Hitler were great humanitarians and misunderstood, their mass graves were due to natural causes. Cambodia, Laos, Burma, several African nations all rack up bodies like cord wood. America isn't perfect, but we don't kill in job lots like those places.

People kill, guns are just one of many efficient tools we use. Moore, you are wrong as usual.
 
 
+4 # paulrevere 2012-07-25 10:41
Iraq = over one million since OUR invasion.

Afghanistan = tens of thousands so far.

Viet Nam = millions at our hand.

Africa = thousands at our SECRET hand.

What new dimension have you discovered to live in there RightForAReason ?
 
 
+4 # Ellisdtripp 2012-07-25 10:57
I am not a "gun nut," I am a citizen who owns several firearms. I am not a hunter. America will never ban guns, that's a fact. SCOTUS has said there can be restrictions on firearms. Some that I favor is no civilian ownership of semiauto and full auto weapons of any sort for any reason. If a round has to be manually chambered for each shot, the magazine capacities limited and handguns limited to the capacity of a revolver, the nutjobs who go on these mass killing sprees will not be able to get as many rounds off before the weapon runs out of ammo and they can be taken down. The foaming-at-the- mouth type NRA members would go apeshit over this kind of proposal citing self defense etc. If you can't protect yourself with a shotgun or revolver, you have no business owning them. An assault rifle offers very little advantage in the typical close quarters situation involved in a self-defense situation. I own and have carried a 5-shot concealable revolver for over thirty years. There was one occasion where I used it to thwart an attack on my person. This was in an urban situation. I now live in a rural area where police response is typically 20 minutes, so firearms are a practical solution for situations that cannot wait for the police to arrive for resolution.
 
 
+8 # lamancha 2012-07-25 10:59
Let's see - the NRA still promotes "cop-killer bullets" and nearly every weapon imaginable (bazookas, grenades and artillery weapons are not exempted) for public consumption, on the basis that to deny anyone a mass weapon of his or her choosing is to emasculate provisions of the 2nd Amendment. I, personally, received this explanation from them in writing. Have they not duped the public and Congress into believing that we citizens have the same right to weapons ownership as "a well regulated militia"- the overriding SUBJECT of that amendment? Do we not recognize the sickness and malice of this pernicious lobby, which in my opinion, cares less about mass assassinations plus a 9000 murder rate annually and at the very least - they show utter contempt & disdain for our nationwide police forces? The NRA should be placed on trial for treason, incitement and at the least, stripped of its entity or authority. Remember, they started out as a non-descript hunters lobby. Look at the insatiable, never-ending quest for massive stockpiles of weapons into our society, they've become
 
 
+1 # Saladin 2012-07-25 11:27
OK, why not just ban ALL guns except for Police and Military !! Just like Mike says.

Oh, wait a minute, didn't they do that in Mexico, over 30 years ago ? Yep,they did.

How is that workin' out ?

Not so good I guess. Between 40-50 thousand body count in the last year.

Next worthwhile idea please.

How would the US enforce a Total Ban in a better way?

Murder has been a horrible crime for recorded history, everywhere! We have not eradicated that crime very well.

By definition, Criminals don't obey the laws, no mater how well intentioned. And not just in Mexico.

The murder rates are the highest in DC,NYC, and Chicago. Which incidently have outright prohibitions on ALL firearms. Again for decades each (NYC since the 30s ).

One would think those are failed experiments.Or can someone explain something I'm missing ?

Again, how about we WE seek another solution. A toltal bans, with decades of trial just don't work.

Can any of the minds here come up with a new approach, or just keep going in circles ?

Just Sayin'
 
 
+2 # Dion Giles 2012-07-25 21:09
"Can any of the minds here come up with a new approach, or just keep going in circles ?"
=========================================
Here's an OLD approach: How about asking the British (you know, outside in that big wide world) for advice on how to get America's 8775 gun homicides p.a. down somewhere closer to their 58?
 
 
0 # Firefox11 2012-08-12 05:32
Quoting Dion Giles:
"Can any of the minds here come up with a new approach, or just keep going in circles ?"
=========================================
Here's an OLD approach: How about asking the British (you know, outside in that big wide world) for advice on how to get America's 8775 gun homicides p.a. down somewhere closer to their 58?

Good idea; however, that would require American to actually admit it does not know everything.
 
 
0 # Firefox11 2012-08-12 05:33
Quoting Saladin:
OK, why not just ban ALL guns except for Police and Military !! Just like Mike says.

Oh, wait a minute, didn't they do that in Mexico, over 30 years ago ? Yep,they did.

How is that workin' out ?

Not so good I guess. Between 40-50 thousand body count in the last year.

Next worthwhile idea please.

How would the US enforce a Total Ban in a better way?

Murder has been a horrible crime for recorded history, everywhere! We have not eradicated that crime very well.

By definition, Criminals don't obey the laws, no mater how well intentioned. And not just in Mexico.

The murder rates are the highest in DC,NYC, and Chicago. Which incidently have outright prohibitions on ALL firearms. Again for decades each (NYC since the 30s ).

One would think those are failed experiments.Or can someone explain something I'm missing ?

Again, how about we WE seek another solution. A toltal bans, with decades of trial just don't work.

Can any of the minds here come up with a new approach, or just keep going in circles ?

Just Sayin'

Okay, so what's your new approach, just asking.
 
 
+1 # hd70642 2012-07-25 12:11
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jul2012/pers-j23.shtml
Although I do not belive gun control is a panacea Mr Moore did bring up some cultual and economic issues that american society more than just sweeps under the rug but bull dozes under the carpet .AS long as Americans are selfish self centered self rightous short sided and look the other way the real problems are never going to be adressed other than return to sender !!!
 
 
0 # mdhome 2012-07-26 21:17
AS long as Americans are selfish self centered self rightous short sided

WHAT IS SHORT SIDED?
 
 
+1 # cypress72 2012-07-25 12:12
Black teen gang members are killing themselves (and others) in record numbers in Chicago, the President's home town and he's hardly said a thing about it. I wonder why ??
 
 
0 # charsjcca 2012-07-26 05:34
Chicago is Al Capone's home town. It has a history well earned.
 
 
+1 # tapelt 2012-07-25 12:16
Michael is making a hidden assumption here that making something illegal will make it go away. This does not work with guns any more than it does with drugs. Prohabition never works, we learned this in the 1930's. Yet we keep turning to it instead of finding and eliminating root causes.
 
 
0 # Firefox11 2012-08-12 05:30
Quoting tapelt:
Michael is making a hidden assumption here that making something illegal will make it go away. This does not work with guns any more than it does with drugs. Prohabition never works, we learned this in the 1930's. Yet we keep turning to it instead of finding and eliminating root causes.

Where does MM say he wants guns to be illegal; seems to me he is pointing out some problems that exist with regard to gun ownership, esp assault weapons, and the ease of obtaining them and unlimited amounts of ammo. He is asking questions and prompting us as Americans to start coming up with solutions. Isn't that supposed to be the American way? After all, dissent is American, correct?
 
 
+6 # thoreauvianflake@yahoo.com 2012-07-25 12:32
How about our lack of concern for other living things having to do with our total disregard for humans? We destroy ecosystems wantonly because of profit and/or ignorance.We herbicide our lawns because we hate weeds,pesticide as much as we can because bugs scare us.... The destruction we do on a daily basis is sad.We piss and poop and dump toxins galore in our waterways and soil because we're just plain ol' ignorant.The native americans warned us a century and a half ago where we were headed because of our recklessness back then.The violence we see is just the tip of the iceberg,but it is not going to be what doomes us.The destruction of the ecosystems,the water the lifeblood,is what is going to doom us all.If we were just taught to respect all living things,we'd be in better shape.Can you imagine a tree-hugger going postal? Poor future generations.The y are going to hate us for being so dumb.Some of them are anyway.The rest will be programmed to destroy,not create.There will be ignoramus' then too.
 
 
+1 # Deambosio 2012-07-25 12:34
the actual jefferson quote is "...Patriots and Tyrants" and at its root is that gov't should fear its people, otherwise it will run astray of its mission....soun ds eerily familiar.
 
 
+2 # Deambosio 2012-07-25 12:44
People are afraid of each other...which leads to distancing...wh ich leads to misunderstandin g...which leads to violence. Fear and anger exists...how it expresses itself depends on the weapons of choice...The press has culpability in this area because it reflects and opines on the news of the day. For example, Muslims are demonized by the press. As an outgrowth of that all of our anger targets Muslims at home and abroad. We as a nation destroy entire cultures and revel in it...we have forgotten the golden rule...and its consequences. Its just so uncool.
 
 
+3 # Michael_K 2012-07-25 13:03
Michael, you say: "That means the United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?"

C'mon Michael... You've traveled, you know this isn't true! Culturally, Americans are vastly inferior, from the point of view of their priorities (and you yourself have proved it about healthcare, among other things).
 
 
+5 # AReber 2012-07-25 13:25
It's amazing. Mr. Moore writes a simple, straightforward column reiterating the key point -- the one he made with "Columbine."

It's FEAR. American's are filled with fear, of the strange, the new, the idea that challenges their beliefs ....
 
 
+2 # David Starr 2012-07-25 13:59
In an attempt to paraphrase the 2nd amendment: For a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If it was a case of a gunnut protecting his 2nd amendment rights to have a fetish for shooting guns, flaunting or showing them off in public, then the phrasing of the amendment would not be as it is above. There are two parts to the sentence. The first part logically flows into the second, i.e., the right to bear arms is for a well-regulated militia. If a gunnut's right to bear arms is based on some fetish, then the first part of the amendment would be separate from the second. I thus find it difficult to take the likes, e.g., of the NRA seriously. Perhaps gun violence has been in vogue in the U.S. not only because of fear, but just as much of a feeling of superiority based on old illusions of granduer, i.e, an "American exceptualism." And the infantile view that there's only "good guys" and "bad guys" and thus an exceptual show of "outrage" to kill all the "bad guys," whether foreign or domestic.
 
 
+3 # Mrcead 2012-07-25 16:15
A very good article and I agree with everything you've written. Point for point.

However, you'll have a far easier time getting America to convert to the metric system than to rethink the entire position on guns, unfortunately.
 
 
+2 # granny6 2012-07-25 17:15
And who promotes all of this fear? The ones who are making money on guns and ammo. They are also the ones who keep politicians well paid. Why are we paying millions to keep a military? Let all of happy guns owners have at it IF we are ever attacked. The next time they need protection, call the NRA. Lawrence O'Donnell said it best. Having a gun is not a freedom if you use it to take away someone else freedom. If The shooter in Aurora Had to stop and reload after using 10 shots, It would have give people a chance to over take him or get out but, with 100 shots they were fish in a barrel.
Think of that the next time you go where there is a crowd. Are you willing to give up your right to freedom so someone else can have their gun of choice?
 
 
-1 # Livemike 2012-08-02 18:04
Actually it's the gun controllers who are promoting fear the most and that's always been the case. Time after time such events are treated as though they are typical, when they're not even typical of people on meds (and yes, yet again the shooter was on meds). If the shooter had had to reload it would have made no difference. For god's sake it didn't make a difference when the guy jammed! You are giving up no rights because I have a gun.

As for why you pay for a military, I have no idea. It hasn't prevented your country being invaded EVER! Militias have.
 
 
0 # tadn54 2012-07-25 17:47
ONLY COWARDS USE GUNS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE


Blast away at those pesky deer, grizzlies, poisonous ducks and deadly pheasants all you want. (Hunting is just plain stupid).
 
 
+4 # jlthome 2012-07-25 17:56
I apologize if another has responded with this same comment.....hea lth care, recognition of issues which balloon out of control, is so lacking in our society. People turn their heads and don't want to get involved even if something "odd" is detected in a friend. Young people grow up with such high expectations and have lived in a world instant gratification. When things go wrong in their lives, the world crashes. I don't know.....one can politicize this forever, but all people see these days is rancor, fighting, bickering, war....toddlers playing soldier and "killing" the bad guy. it sucks.
 
 
+4 # Mrcead 2012-07-25 20:12
People also hate each other for existing and you can trace it to childhood.

In school, at lunch, a child does not finish his fruit cup. another child asks for it. The first child would rather throw it in the trash than to let another child benefit from it, and does just that - throws it away. You'd hope that child would grow out of that but he learned that behaviour from somewhere. If you don't care about your neighbour, you won't care about your neighbour.
 
 
+2 # healthnc 2012-07-26 03:32
What about the large % of people in the USA on antidepressant drugs - especially the SSRI class (ie: Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil), that have so closely been linked to violent crimes(like Columbine, etc., etc.)? When are the medical records of Holme's going to be released? And for that matter, the medical records of Jared Lee Loughner?! When are we going to stop covering up Big Pharma's lies and horrific contribution to all these senseless killings?
 
 
+1 # charsjcca 2012-07-26 05:31
Robert Putnam wrote a book, "Bowling Alone" that speaks of alienation and isolation. American culture nurtures these social forces. It could be that it is what we believe that is the killer-like the drones. Who else plays out life with drones? There is no personal responsibility there. I passed from the well-known life positions of civil rights and human right to arrive at personal responsibility. It is a good way to evolve. American culture gets you this: An all-volunteer military with young people playing video games with drones from some remote site in some rural state in America. All damage is collateral, nor human carnage. America!
 
 
+5 # EDP 2012-07-26 05:57
Why do we have more berserkers than other countries? Our religion is pretty Old Testament, for starters - lots of smiting and killing there. But more to the point, we do not value each other. Our children grow up with too much stuff and not enough emotional education, nothing to do that's important, no reason to feel good about who they are. When you have a hole in your heart, bad things happen, and sometimes that means guns are unloaded in public places. When you are loved and know how to love, killing people isn't what you fantasize about. When you are valued and value other people, you want to make things better in the world. These are simple lessons we have never learned, and our society is unraveling because of that neglect. Greed and lying are manifestations that neglect as well. If we were truly a country of religious people we'd be helping the less fortunate instead of blaming them for being poor. All of THIS is why we're number 1 at murdering our own.
 
 
0 # chirostv 2012-07-26 09:10
Bad news to the anti-gun group. You have effectively tied the hands of law enforcement by allowing illegal immigrants to remain here in violation of law and have allowed thugs and punks to roam free to exercise their constitutional rights to say whatever they please whenever they desire to say it with consequences be damned. I own 2 handguns that are registered and permitted and as long as I am alive they will be on my side as long as I am not violating the law. I know that does not make Mr. Moore happy and yet he has armed security with himw where ever he goes. Why would he support having armed security around him if guns are such a problem?
 
 
0 # Firefox11 2012-08-12 05:20
Quoting chirostv:
Bad news to the anti-gun group. You have effectively tied the hands of law enforcement by allowing illegal immigrants to remain here in violation of law and have allowed thugs and punks to roam free to exercise their constitutional rights to say whatever they please whenever they desire to say it with consequences be damned. I own 2 handguns that are registered and permitted and as long as I am alive they will be on my side as long as I am not violating the law. I know that does not make Mr. Moore happy and yet he has armed security with himw where ever he goes. Why would he support having armed security around him if guns are such a problem?

I think that you are misinterpreting what Mr. Moore is saying. He has been a member of the NRA. He is simply bringing up the problems that attend the preponderance of guns and ammo in the USA. It is not a black and white issue, pardon the pun. It's complicated, and we as Americans need to discuss the ramilifications of 300 million weapons, many which are unregistered.
 
 
+1 # mdhome 2012-07-26 21:05
Do you suppose the real reason for so many murders is"
So those countries (and many others) are just like us - except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.
 
 
0 # Firefox11 2012-08-12 05:16
Quoting mdhome:
Do you suppose the real reason for so many murders is"
So those countries (and many others) are just like us - except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.

Yes, and that religious fervor also leads this country to over-react and not analyze problems when they occur. Decisions tend to be fear based, not rational.
 
 
0 # Antler 2012-07-26 21:30
I would never interfere with Michael Moore's right to defend himself and his loved ones in any way he saw fit. Never in a million years. And. never in a million years will he ever have any influence over me defending me and mine.

It's really not any more complicated than that.
 
 
+1 # acorus 2012-07-27 00:07
sure the right to bear arms...but is 3000 rounds, a glock, an ak-15, and 30 grenades even remotely necessary to protect yrself? assault weapons are for assaulting people, not elk or rabbits....our liberty is guaranteeing this insanity? sorry, but carry a berreta, fine,if you have done things which warrant enemies, but otherwize the nra are a bunch of hoodlums
 
 
0 # Mrcead 2012-07-28 02:54
Ask any pro gunner how many stateside "baddies" has he or someone he knows stopped with his weapon.

That paints the true picture.

Now ask how many stories he's heard of how a gun saved the day, he'll ramble on if you let him.

But the numbers won't add up. The hysteria does not match up to the data.
 
 
0 # imaginethat 2012-07-28 10:52
Michael! Thank you for your constant comments. Keep up that glad spirit. SICKO was the way to get this country into dealing with our health care/non-care.
Cheerio, my big man!
 
 
0 # Firefox11 2012-08-12 05:13
As a long-time fan of Michael Moore, I watched Bowling for Columbine when it was released, and as far as I am concerned, the answer to the question "Why is the US such a violent country?" is multifold: a poor educational system which lacks a proper Civics course, lack of robust free press, dominance of Christian right wing in the public arena, a cowed citizenry which does not adequately question its government and hold it accountable.
 
 
0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-08-16 20:50
Libertarian candidate Jim Gray has moved a little on gun control,

http://www.youngphillypolitics.com/finally_common_ground_gun_control_libertarian_vp
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN