A Note To "You" (the gun owner)

The gun culture in America must change.

On one day, in one American town 13 times as many people (27) were murdered by gun than were murdered by gun (2) in one entire year (2006) in Japan, a nation of 127,000,000 people. And yet we dither. The warning from the Right is that “they are coming for your guns.” This is partially true (we’re coming for some of them) except that “they” is actually “we,” and “you,” whether you know it or not, are actually part of that we because that we includes family, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens, which is not nearly as nebulous an entity as your favorite bogeyman “the government.” We the people are coming. And you, as a person who may have no respect for government, need to respect that.

We are told that we must come to you now politely and with respect to gain your support or at least your lack of resistance to the new set of laws and regulations that, hopefully, will soon apply to the guns you covet and worship. I for one am in no such mood. Accountability is a big word in your dialectic, and in your unyielding attitude toward gun ownership in America, and in your support of the NRA I am holding you accountable for enabling the gun-available environment that led to the mass slaughter of children in Connecticut, to name but one incident. You will resist this characterization because you are a sportsman or a hobbyist or a perceived self-defender who is merely exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. You are innocent. But you are not. What you’re guilty of is indifference, in the face of brutal statistics (31,000 gun deaths per year in America), to the mayhem inflicted on your communities, near and afar, by your stubborn affection for guns.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That is correct. That is why severe limitations on gun ownership and access to guns must be in effect in the United States. The reality of our imperfect and increasingly violence-tolerating culture (if you visited another world and witnessed children entertaining themselves with virtual games of shooting and death, would you view them as peace-loving or something else?), is something you can no longer ignore. That reality, not your connection to times past or to the glowing mythology of guns in America, demands an adaptation and a response to the killing power of modern guns.

This much I know. If I had a tradition, activity or even a need that involved guns, and I saw what guns at large had done to my country, I would gladly limit or compromise my access to guns for the greater good. Not to do so would be disgracefully un-American and insupportable, but most of all selfish. As good, responsible and deserving as you think you are, our society is peopled by many who are hostile, irresponsible, uncontrollable, ill-trained, and imbalanced. Efforts to control or monitor those members of society have and will always fall unacceptably short. That leaves guns as the controllable variable in the American equation of death by guns.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Fred February 17, 2013 at 05:36 PM
@ Doan Steel There; their; they're. Learn the difference -- people might take you seriously. Do I correctly presume that you were marching in Hartford?
Fred February 17, 2013 at 05:52 PM
No one is proposing restrictions against guns of unusual size, power or speed, or guns involved in lethal accidents on a regular basis. The current proposals include only a ban on so-called "assault weapons" which are mecanically identical to other, non-prohibited firearms -- there is absolutely no difference in caliber, power or speed. They are distinguished only by cosmetic, external features. Whether such a ban would survive a challenge in the Courts post District of Columbia v. Heller is a close call. hopefully, we'll never find out -- instead, the majority who are decent, freedom-loving and rational will prevail upon their elected representatives not to enact such a misguided law in the first place.
Mike Atkins February 17, 2013 at 06:01 PM
@ Fred, we all understand you're angry and scared. Enough with the pumping our your shest like some tough guy. So tough I might point out you post annonymously. Seems like that false bravado is all a chirade?
Fred February 17, 2013 at 06:47 PM
Ha! I'm angry and scared? You appear to come to this discussion with any number of misconceptions, apparently as a result of your irrational fear filtered through your shocking ignorance regarding firearms -- a mean combination. I am not angry or scared -- the opposite is true: I'm a happy and optimistic individual -- I love my freedom and my guns, whereas you anti- gun zealots come to this discussion with an irrational fear and loathing of firearms and deep-seated fear of individual freedom. I seek only to protect the vulnerable, and to preserve our Consitution and the civil liberties we enjoy. What is it about freedom that you and the idiot who posted this find so frightening?
Fred February 17, 2013 at 06:54 PM
BTW, it's "charade." There's really great technology out there called "spellcheck." Or, do you insist upon using 1980s computer technology, as you insist that others be restricted to 19th century firearms technology?
Robert Defulgentiis February 17, 2013 at 07:33 PM
FRED - "No one is proposing restrictions against guns of unusual size, power or speed, or guns involved in lethal accidents on a regular basis" See, I'm much less hung up on exact definitions - whatever the weapon and magazine used to fire 30 bullets in 27 seconds in Aurora and 33 bullets in 15 seconds in Tucson.......that type of killing power has NO place in civil hands. None.
Mike Atkins February 17, 2013 at 08:06 PM
Fred,so brave when nobody knows your real name. You don't understand the Constitution or for that matter our society. So cling to your guns, because we are coming for them. Just hide in your little anonymous bunker behind your trailer. Under employeed, under educated, and angry at the government because it is everyone's fault but your own. Just exactly the kind of people that shouldn't own guns. You're ruining it for everyone else.
Fred February 17, 2013 at 08:34 PM
"Exact definitions" are critical in this discussion,,and especially when enacting new laws. you are misinformed. no semi-automatic weapon discharges 30 rounds in 27 seconds or 33 rounds in 15 seconds, even when used by an experienced marksman. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a semi-automatic firearm could possibly fire that quickly, so what? Of course they would be appropriate in civilian hands. first, they are in now common circulation among the population of the USA, and therefore protected by the Second Amendment, under District of Columbia v. Heller. Second, what you anti-firearm zealots fail to apprehend is the frequency that an experienced marksman misses a stationary target with a handgun in the calm of a shooting range. for a terrified woman, living alone or with a baby, a hi-cap magazine brings security that faced with a threat, she can do the necessary successfully and survive. Perhaps you should tear yourself away from you Ku Klux Klan buddies and spend an afternoon at the shooting range-- you might learn something.
Fred February 17, 2013 at 08:42 PM
@Mike Atkins You appear to have a very high opinion of yourself, which is wholly unwarranted. What do you know about my education attainment or income? I have no doubt that both are far superior to yours.
Fred February 17, 2013 at 08:46 PM
@ Mike Atkins I have forgotten more about our Consitution than you'll ever know, loser.
Fred February 17, 2013 at 09:28 PM
They're mistaken. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect -- were they timing the shots with a stopwatch? I own a Glock (the make used in many of these shootings) and innumerable other semi-automatics, and they can't possibly be fired that quickly. Check the manufacturers specifications.
Robert Defulgentiis February 17, 2013 at 10:25 PM
FRED - "They're mistaken. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect -- were they timing the shots with a stopwatch?" Who is mistaken? More: "At least 30 gunshots were heard in court Tuesday as prosecutors played a 27-second recording of a 911 call made during the theater shooting....The audio came from what detective Randy Hansen testified was the very first 911 call from inside Theater 9 during the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises.” http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/aurora-movie-theater-shooting-prosecutors-play-911-calls-from-inside-theater-9-in-court-tuesd-4
Fred February 17, 2013 at 10:42 PM
That doesn't sound very reliable either. "At least 30 shots." Why qualify the number with "at least." DIdn't/couldn't the reporter count? sorry, but a semi-automatic just can't fire that quickly. The reality is that the reporter is probably as ignorant as you are. A witness to an auto accident could say that a Toyota being operated in downtown Madison was traveling at 250 mph -- and honestly believe it -- that wouldn't change the fact that it couldn't be true.
Robert Defulgentiis February 17, 2013 at 11:59 PM
FRED - "but a semi-automatic just can't fire that quickly. The reality is that the reporter is probably as ignorant as you are. " It was Detective Hansen who analyzed and reached conclusions about the Aurora gun shot tape, not a reporter. Fred - "innumerable other semi-automatics, and they can't possibly be fired that quickly" Live and learn Fred -go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AmzW732NY Now imagine with a 100 clip mag as the Aurora shooter had...............
Mike Atkins February 18, 2013 at 12:41 AM
poor Fred, have to start calling me names. No way you'd pass a gun backround check with that anger problem. seems that you've forgotten alot about the 2nd ammendment, too?
Fred February 18, 2013 at 12:47 AM
The article doesn't say that Det. Hansen heard or counted "at least 30 shots" on the tape. That is the reporter's erroneous conclusion, a local Denver reporter, who as I mentioned, is probably as ignorant as you. 30 shots in 27 seconds can't be done.
Fred February 18, 2013 at 02:05 AM
Sorry to disappoint you, loser, I long ago passed a background check, long ago was issued a CT concealed carry permit (since renewed many times), and reside happily in Madison with my arsenal. Of course, in light of your impressive education and substantial income, I could never afford your neighborhood.
Lance February 18, 2013 at 03:03 AM
We the people are suppose to control this government, not the other way around, That is why we are endowed with the right to bear arms. It is an insurance policy against simpletons like Robert and Mike who don't quite understand the repercussions of their modest proposals.
Robert Defulgentiis February 18, 2013 at 03:39 AM
FRED - "The article doesn't say that Det. Hansen heard or counted "at least 30 shots" on the tape" For the last time Fred - and I assume you visited the video/url I supplied to you showing extremely rapid fire of a number of semi-auto assault weapons like the Ar-15 used in Aurora - here is another source for "30 shots in 27 seconds" (notice IT QUOTES DETECTIVE HANSEN): "The courtroom heard the first phone call to come from inside the theater during the actual shooting. HANSEN TOLD PROSECUTORS HE COUNTED at least 30 SHOTS FIRED during the 27 SECOND phone call." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08/questions-remain-on-colorado-shooter-state-mind-during-massacre-hearing/ Give it up.
Fred February 18, 2013 at 03:59 AM
I can't access your link at the moment. Assuming that Det. Hansen said he counted 30 shots on the 27 second audio tape (your previos link did not say he did), det. Hansen's cross-examination at trial will be interesting, because a semi-automatic firearm can't be fired that quickly.
Mike Atkins February 18, 2013 at 04:42 AM
Interesting that the gun control debate has become the gun enthusiasts (wackos) puffing out their chests and threatening and bloviating anyone that is in favor of better control. Wonder how tough they would be without their guns? As far as I am concerned they're fals bravado and posturing is to make up for their smallness in other areas. (wink, wink)
Robert Defulgentiis February 18, 2013 at 05:25 AM
Fred - did you view this tape of extraordinarily fast AR-15 firing? Live and learn Fred -go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AmzW732NY
Fred February 18, 2013 at 01:18 PM
How witty, loser. The, only problem is that No gun rights advocate here has sought to project a "tough" demeanor. There has been no bravado. Nobody has been threatened, even despite your constant provocation. We have brought only facts and reason to the discussion-- your side has brought mostly emotion. I guess you only are able to win a debate where you control both sides.
Mike Atkins February 18, 2013 at 02:36 PM
Fred sounds like you're a bit lacking in the ahem, ahem. You know what hey say, the bigger the gun the smaller the man. Thank you for proving my point. ;)
Fred February 18, 2013 at 05:02 PM
@Robert Defulgentiis “The official rate of fire specs for the Colt M16 (fully automatic military version of the AR-15) are: Cyclic: 800 rounds per minute Sustained: 12-15 Semiautomatic: 45 Since the AR-15 has no full auto or burst settings, it cannot fire as fast as an M16. In particular, the cyclic rate of fire simply doesn’t apply. That measures how fast the mechanism reloads and fires again when the trigger is held down. With an AR-15, the weapon does not fire another round until the trigger is released and pulled again. The sustained rate, which I mention in the article, takes into account tasks the user must do to continue shooting, including changing magazines, aiming, and letting it cool off." (cont.)
Fred February 18, 2013 at 05:05 PM
@Robert Defulgentiis (cont.) "The semi-automatic rate measures how quickly the rifle can be fired with a minimal level of precision in targeting, but does not account for issues such as cooling or magazine changes. In a sense it’s how quickly the user can pull the trigger and return to some kind of aim after recovering from the recoil (which is not that severe on an AR-15). But it doesn’t account for the problems that can occur if you shoot too fast for too long, such as jamming or overheating. What makes it semi-automatic is how it redirects some of the gases from a shot’s gunpowder to move certain parts of the gun so that another cartridge goes into the chamber. The gases are hot and contain impurities. This heats up the gun and can cause bad consequences like cooking off. The impurities can foul the gun and cause it to jam. We don’t know the full details yet (and may never know) but some reports indicate the Aurora shooter’s AR-15 jammed. Whether that was due to a mechanical problem with the drum, overheating, or fouling. There are different opinions about this but the AR-15 has been criticized as prone to jamming.” http://wredlich.com/ny/2012/07/gun-control-aurora-and-the-ar-15-factoids-and-foolishness/ Regarding rates of fire for fully automatic weapons (which are actual “military style weapons,” unlike so-called “assauly rifles,” and have been illegal for civilians to own since the 1930s; http://www.military-sf.com/ROF.htm
Susan February 18, 2013 at 05:32 PM
More clueless, baseless, untrue emotional words from the uninformed left. Using dead children to exploit an agenda is sickening. You should be ashamed of yourself. By refusing to examine the real causes of school violence you are helping make everyones children unsafe. Gun laws have been proven over many years to be completely ineffective.Columbine occurred during the last assault weapons ban. Guns are here to stay so you better get use to them and focus your mispent time on the real problems: mental health and school security issues along with changing morals in todays world.
Susan February 18, 2013 at 05:35 PM
Mike Atkins your many, many extreme words and amount of posting here have shown you are clearly a disturbed fantatic.
Susan February 18, 2013 at 05:41 PM
Robert you are not leaning left you have falling over left lol. 16,000 of that 31,000 gun death figure are suicides so your being dishonest again like most of your posts. Gun deaths have steadily fallen since the assault weapon ban/brady bill has expired. Infact less than .01 percent of all gun death are committed with an ar-15. Thats .01 percent.Many more people are killed with hammers and knives. Thousands more.
Stuart Hotchkiss June 06, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Who is this looney asshole that keeps writing these irritating articles? It seems pretty clear they are just written to piss us gun owners off! A note to Fred: you are welcome here in New Hampshire. We are proud gun owners, guns are part of our everyday lives! Part of getting dressed in the morning is deciding which gun we will wear today, not the color of our underwear.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something