Lamorinda Patch couldn't let an enthusiastic review for an action movie stand in the wake of a new roster of dead and wounded thudding into the national psyche, this time from Aurora, Colorado.
We refrain from offering oft-repeated platitudes of regret and condolence as the words are starting to sound hollow and pale in the face of such another mass killing. We join the country in mourning the loss of people doing nothing more than sitting in a theatre, watching a movie.
Having had more than a little exposure to incidents of this type, and being mindful students of how human beings react in circumstances such as this, we listen to the parade of excited witnesses and wince at the questions of some reporters attempting to reconstruct a nightmare.
At this point we are left to wonder with everyone else why a young and obviously troubled young man would arm himself with multiple weapons and walk into a movie theater -- firing into the crowd until his ammunition gave out.
And how, like others we have seen in places like Columbine, Tucson, and Virginia Tech -- they are able to kill so many people they don't know so coldly.
This story is breaking far off our "Patch," but we join the people of Aurora, CO in mourning -- and attempting to understand -- this latest wound to the national psyche.
Should be whole lot easier to pass that small arms treaty now... hmmmm....
I'm sure my post will draw FIRE from Lamorinda Patch gunslingers like Chris N, CJ, et al who argue, ad nauseum and without reservation, for their 2nd amendment rights to own any/all guns/ammo to defend their hometeads from those who'd violate them. Yada yada yada. In our frontier days, gun ownership was necessary, but in our modern and more (sub)urban society, IMO, gun ownership is NOT necessary. Beyond that, IMO, lax rules regarding gun/ammo purchasing do more harm than good. And, FWIW, I've lived in multiple urban areas, on both coasts, and never felt ANY need to carry a weapon for "self-defense." I've lived in multiple countries in Europe - cue non-sensical sexist slam from "CJ" - and all of those countries have much stricter rules (and much lower gun crime/death stats) than do we - and yet I never felt "less free" or "less safe." The NRA has bought and paid for every GOP rep to the House or presidency and scared Democrats from engagement on the issue. So sad. I imagine that there are more on the "right" - or certainly in the center - who would like to see more limits placed on access to guns/ammo in the US (e.g., like for crazies). I wish they would "act up."
These mass murders are always beyond comprehension. Most shooting fatalities are with hand guns (many as suicides). Mass killings with long guns are so rare statistically, that the knee jerk rush to layer on more restrictions is irrational. The rifle he used is already illegal in California, as are the high capacity magazines he used in his pistol. If we want to take action to save lives, maybe we transfer some funds from the "war on drugs" into better mental health programs.
The violently insane will occasionally do insanely violent things. There are 7 billion people on Earth, so you expect some extreme deviations from the norm.... Thankfully, in the U.S., the homicide rate is pretty flat, after STEEP declines in the 20th century. This despite 4-5 million new guns produced per year and the rise (from zero) of video games into a ~$10B/year business. It is hard to make sense of senseless killings, but there is no need to panic.
I'm also unconvinced that better mental health care, while a worthy goal in and of itself, would do much to stop these shootings. Not only are not all of the perpetrators "insane", in many cases their behavior just up until they snapped belied no hint of mental illness severe enough to warrant confinement, or even treatement.
Sifting through the various treaties, sub treaties, and link headers is heavy sledding, but on close inspection, one sees that within the 'small arms treaty’ segment, there lies a larger initiative: universal curtailment of individual gun rights via UN agreement. The ‘small arms treaty’, the ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty, and the ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ can easily be bundled into one effort intended to end US sovereignty regarding private citizens' ownership of weapons. Through this bundled 'loophole,' the UN thereby gains the right to nullify our Constitutional Second Amendment. Obama and Hillary Clinton have already vowed to sign such this UN treaty. To press their case, both have been working behind closed doors, knowing full-well that the American public would show staunch resistance if their plans to sign away this liberty were known to the voter headed to the polls this coming November. I was in favor of strict gun control for years. Not any more. I changed my mind when I arrived home one night, found four Oakland men in the process of robbing my beautiful Berkeley home. [They were caught].
I am not a gun person and obviously there needs to be reason surrounding sound gun policies etc... but the UN does not like Americans, guns, private property and they are coming after all three - and that kind of power may work out pretty nicely for controling the people. I know exactly what this conference is about...all of it...and it includes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/ There are many who have 'woken up' to what is TRULY happening - It is a personal decision to stay in the dark... I will still vote, even though a Spanish company is now counting many American votes...: http://www.scytl.com/en/about-us-s-16.html 'Government big enought to give us everything we want...is big enough to take it all away...' Thomas Jefferson UN out of US. With respect and sadness for the Colorado families.
Thank you XBerkeleyite - I sort of wish I had just let you answer and stayed out of it because your educated post and personal experience says it all.
I would like to point out to you that Obama and Hillary are not on the Supreme Court, and they do not have extra-constitutional powers. Dubya had superman powers, maybe, but Obama and Hillary Clinton, definitely no. We have something in common. I, too, am not a "gun nut". I came to believe that machine guns and guns with large magazines had no legitimate purpose in civilian hands when many innocents were massacred at 101 California SF in 1993. Now, there have been many, many other massacres since then, but that was the only example I needed. My opinion is only confirmed every time another needless massacre occurs at McDonalds, the stock broker, the theater, the high school. If you look up the definition of "nuts", it will refer to those who repeat the same behavior over and over expecting a different result. If you think that equal access to machine guns by you and four burglars from Oakland makes you safer, I have to question your judgment.
and also see what Obama and W have done with Executive Orders - like NDAA - which is morphing into NDAA 2013 - There is a reason we have The Constitution - and the 2nd Amendment - most importantly to protect us from our own Government, far and away beyond (while horrible) a rogue gunman. As history shows, weapons are stripped from citizens before Totalitarianism.
JD- How is Eileen's drivel not in violation of posting rules?
Agenda 21 One Bay Area (with no fire services) is the UN's plan. We are letting our country slip away from us by buying into the propoganda. There is a plan and it is to take guns, let our houses burn, sustainable death us and yes the UN World Bank is running the show.
Small Arms Treaty to be signed by Obama in 2 weeks...it's obvious - but may be too painful to look at - really look at - The UN/World Bank destroying America....funny how Christine Lagarde was in Chicago Law Firm with Obama...coincidences in treaty timing and coincidences in employer are too many coincidences. Imagine looking back in 10 years - The Conference is about International Regulation - including America - The UN and global elites are taking power over America - wake up.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court says you're wrong about that. You should realize that you weaken your entire argument, and legitimate concerns, when you try to support them by using falsehoods as a scare tactic.