Hey, there! Log in / Register
Mothers have had enough gun violence
By adamg on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 11:02pm
The Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action held a march and protest rally at the State House today, on the third anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre. Greg Cook posts photos.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Is this going to be an annual event?
Because unless these well meaning people are willing to go up against the NRA and vote for change, this will be one.
The gun manufacturers of the United States have taken over the NRA. The NRA has co-opted congress in writing laws that pertain to guns. Until this changes, these people will be back next year and the year after.
All too often, however,
for the past several decades, the NRA and the Gun Lobby, which are both extremely powerful, has affectively bullied various lawmakers here in the United States out of passing stronger, more affective gun laws that could save many more people's lives. Unfortunately, however, lawmakers have never had the guts or the gumption to stand up the the NRA and the Gun Lobby, which is also a huge problem.
Instead of protesting
Go home and raise your children correctly. Make sure they get screened for mental illness and special needs, and follow the treatment through. Remove them from abusive situations that could break them (even bullying at school.) Teach them social skills so they don't ever feel murder is the answer.
jennifer_lawrence_ok.gif
While I'm waiting for your fictional utopia where every parent is some kind of idealist superparent and America as a whole actually knows how to deal with the mentally ill or those with special needs, advocating for controlling instruments of death seems like a good thing to do in the meantime.
Instruments of death
Like bricks? Beer bottles? Pencils?
yeah right - how many people
yeah right - how many people can you kill within seconds with those items? I would gladly take my chances against a psycho with a brick, a beer bottle or a pencil rather than someone with an AR. Those weapons are specifically meant to kill the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time. Lumping those other items, and in addition other objects with differing purposes like knives and cars, makes no sense at all. Why do gun supporters constantly use this ineffective argument?
How about
A psycho with basic knowledge of chemistry?
Wow paternalistic douche
Wow paternalistic douche tells moms to stay out of the political process, and that the problem is the way they raise their kids.
Indeed
Also, anyone who wants to "collect" deadly firearms ought to be presumed mentally ill. Maybe an exception for historic weapons -- or maybe not.
Yes comrade!
Our glorious utopia will one day be free of "deadly" firearms, and the heroic federal government will continue tell us everything we need to do to be safe!
Sarcasm aside, have you even ever handled/fired a gun in a safe manner, or are you just another "the government will know what to do!" citizen?
Yes
US Army, Vietnam, 1968. Kiss my ass, keyboard commando.
No
US Coast Guard, 2001-present. Persian Gulf 2004-05; Soutcom more times than I can count chasing drug runners. 8 people saved from certain death in search and rescue. Are we done handing out resumes, tough guy.
But...
I believe your'e the one who demanded his resume, in a rather transparent attempt to silence him in the belief that yours is bigger than his. You can't very well complain that you got what you asked for..
whose is bigger, dick?
It's true, he asked for it.
You don't need military training to interpret homicide by firearm statistics, and talk about effective remedies.
Oh great.
I was going to get you a wider brush for Christmas, but now I see you already have one. Looks like you'll be getting a gift card instead.
Instrument of death...
That's hilarious. You obviously have never handled a fire arm and have bought into the fear mongering of our nanny state hook, line, and sinker.
Oh guns have
some other use I'm not aware of? 350 million firearms in this US and 32000 gun deaths a year is not a problem?
32,000
Out of that 32,000, how many are due to street criminals shooting other street criminals, where gun laws make no difference whatsoever?
Well, let's look at the data
According to this report, the vast majority of gun-related deaths are suicides, not homicides.
Another interesting fact: at this point, the rate of gun-related deaths is approaching the rate of motor vehicle-related deaths (p 7). Considering how much more prevalent motor vehicles are than guns, this gives me, at least, serious pause.
Source: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-1...
Suicides
Once you're set on offing yourself, silly things like not having a gun to blow your brains out won't stop you. I don't know about you, but I'd rather hear about someone shooting themselves in the privacy of their own home on the news than see that splattering all over a subway train. Or have them land on my car when they jump off an overpass. Or find them choked on their own vomit in a public restroom after they've OD'd on pills - you get the idea. There's tons of ways to off yourself, guns are actually the most humane way when it comes to innocent bystanders. Also, suicide rate in the US is much lower than several nations where guns are banned outright, so there goes your OHMYGOD GUNS CAUSE SUICIDE!!!!! argument.
Having the
immediacy and lethality of a gun available makes suicide more likely than by other means.
While gun-suicide rates are higher in rural states, which have proportionally more gun owners, the gun-suicide link plays out in urban areas, too. “In the early 1990s, the dramatic rise in young black male suicides was in lock step with the homicide epidemic of those years,” says HSPH’s Deborah Azrael, associate director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. “Young black male suicide rates approached those of young white males—though black suicide rates had always been much lower than white suicide rates. It was entirely attributable to an increase in suicide by firearms.” Put simply, the fatal link applies across the board. “It’s true of men, it’s true of women, it’s true of kids. It’s true of blacks, it’s true of whites,” says Azrael. “Cut it however you want: In places where exposure to guns is higher, more people die of suicide.”
From http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidde...
Japan
Has no guns. Neither does South Korea. Or Finland, for that matter. All three have, on average, have much higher standard of living than this here place. Shouldn't their suicide rates be much lower?
really
You've obviously never been to.japan or s korea. I've been to both dozens of times and lived in japan
They DO not have a remotely higher standard of living than the US. More importantly these kinds of cross country comparisons are almost impossible. Not sure if you are the same anon as below but the anons are not acquitting themselves well in this discussion.
Set aside the suicides then
We still end up with a Paris Massacre level of murder EVERY WEEK plus a second Paris Massacre EVERY WEEK of accidental shooting deaths.
If that isn't terrorism, I don't know what is.
This is false
Most suicides are opportunistic. Only a small percentage are " set to off" themselves. Often the suicidal urge passes within 72 hours.
Suicides don't work quite like that
It's not as if suicidal people think about killing themselves in a logical way eventually coming to a decision.
http://www.businessinsider.com/many-suicides-are-based-on-an-impulsive-d...
Also it is known that men chose more lethal methods of suicide with guns or by hanging themselves. It would be nearly impossible to prevent hanging through restrictions but there are a couple of studies that show that
http://www.bcmj.org/articles/silent-epidemic-male-suicide
So while it is understood that guns do not cause suicide they are particularly a concern when it comes to men and their lethal nature.
yes let's
There are about 270 million guns in america and about 253 million cars. Roughly the same until you consider that virtually every american spends hundreds of hours annually in a car and probably almist none shooting a gun. Maybe all tjose gun owners just need more practice.
As for suicides especially fir anon below, do even 5 minutes of research and you'll find that the mere presence of a gun in the house will dramaticallt increase the odds you will kill yourself. Suicide is often an impulsive act. Simply taking guns out of the house would immediately save thousands of lives. That's an indisputable fact.
Sure
Take away all cars so no one swerves into oncoming traffic. Brick up all subway stations so no one jumps under a train. Demolish all highway overpasses so no one jumps into traffic. Ditto for all bridges. Raze all structures with windows higher than 20 feet all the ground. Take away all sharp objects, meds and household chemicals. Turn off the electricity. Presence of any of the above will dramatically increase the odds that you kill yourself. Heck, just lock everyone up in padded rooms, will ya?
What difference
does it make? Still is an unnecessary death by gun that is preventable in this country. We can do better.
The Geography of Gun Death
http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths/
This is broken down into homicides, suicides, and accidents.
Seeing a whole lot of red in rural areas, particularly across the rural areas of the south, central and west - so I guess your claims of "street crime" are a tad romanticized.
Well, sort of
You said "instruments of death", but it seems like you were referring to human deaths. I live in a rural area surrounded by firearms owners who use their firearms for hunting and for target shooting. They'd no more carry a firearm into a Dunkin' Donuts than fly to the moon.
they would
You just wouldn't know. Which is exactly how it's supposed to be with legal concealed carry.
No, no they really wouldn't
I think I know my neighbors better than you do. They are hunters and target shooters -- that is why they own firearms, and those are the situations where they are trained to use them. When they're not engaged in hunting or going to the range, their firearms stay home. They'd burst out laughing at the idea of hauling a firearm around everywhere because something might happen and then they'd be the stereotypical "good guy with a gun". Seriously, do you really believe that someone who is skilled at shooting deer in the woods is going to have any ability to be the "good guy with a gun" in the concealed-carry fantasy? They don't have the skill set and they know it.
I have
Was a highly ranked competitive marksman in HS. Guns suck. Period. In the past year one of my best friend's nephews was shot and killed in crossfire between a couple of gangbangers. another friend's boyfriend was in a vehicle with other hunters and one gun w the safety "on" blew a hole in the truck. And i was also a few feet from a gun that went off becIuse the owner didn't realize there was one round left in the magazine.
I've personally had it and would have joined this had i known about it. Guns are treated like toys even by "responsible" owners.
The second amendment referred to sharp objects and muzzle loaders. You can have all of those you want. Washington jefferson adams and the rest were brilliant men and wouldn't have stood for the senseless death of almost 35k americans a year.
(A number trending to be greater than americans killed in car accidents)
You want to shoot at a regulated range or take your gun far away and shoot defenseless animals or maybe your friend? Be my guest. but there is no reason to have a gun in your home.
I never curse on Uhub - so not sure this will get through but anyone using the "self defense" argument is stupid or just completely full of shit!
Yes
And the fourth refers to Brits dragging you out of bed in the middle of the night - both need to be changed to reflect the modern realities.
This is me ...
Agreeing with Stevil.
Mark your calendar for future reference.
Me too!
Again, a momentous occasion.
I grew up around guns, have enjoyed target shooting, and own one, even. I also have a nice scar on my arm courtesy of "responsible" but somewhat inebriated relatives and guns.
We need to draw a line between guns and weapons of mass destruction, and remove the latter from our reach.
Oh, and this isn't just about the US but also about where all those guns are really going: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-paris-terror-attack-linked-...
You really want to fight ISIS?
Want to know where some of those weapons being sold to "collectors" without documentation are ending up?
US gun deals are supplying black markets.
And the 2015 Missed The Flipping Point Award Goes To...
...some anonymous UHub commenter, by a mile! Congratulations! Please visit your local Boston Herald columnist in order to pick up your prize.
Because it doesn't matter how well-adjusted your child is, they will still be badly injured or killed if they are shot by another child. All the good parenting in the world will only affect your kid, not their badly-adjusted classmate who found an assault rifle.
[inb4 some gun person makes an incredibly pedantic comment about what an assault rifle is and how my fuzziness on the topic invalidates my opinion]
That sounds like
a magical solution. Sadly, plenty of people are in the wrong place at the wrong time -- whether it's on the street, at a movie theater, at a party, at church, in a home, at a friend's home, etc... We need to limit unfettered access to guns which are easier to get than other regulated items that are far less dangerous.
Yes, because raising a child
Yes, because raising a child right and spending a couple hours exercising your first amendment rights can't possibly co-exist! Get with the program, moms! And that program is staying quiet and not concerning ourselves with speaking up about matters of life and death for our children. Ok, back to the kitchen. What am I even doing online?!?
Guess what?
Moms are capable of doing both at the same time plus more. But, thanks for the advice.
How about this?
You go home and raise YOUR kid to be bullet proof.
Many of these dead kids were well-raised kids and headed for a better future before some jackass with a gun decided to spray bullets around.
Should us rational gun owners come by and test you and your kid for proper bullet-proof rearing?
Your suggestions are way easier said than done, anon.
It's one thing to try to raise one's kids correctly, and making sure that get help that's needed if a child has emotional/behavior/mental/phys problems. Not all parents are able to removed a child from school if it's an abusive situation where they're constantly being bullied, physically and psychologically. Perhaps such parents should also encourage their children to enroll in self-defense courses, as well as teaching them social skills, in order to protect and defend his/herself in the event of physical bullying.
Alas, poor Daniel wasn't raised "correctly"
They should have sent him to school in a kevlar body suit, just in case some special gun-toting person wanted to work out his feelings: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-newtown-shooting-mourning-...
See something, say something
See a gun-toting, drug-dealing thug? Call the cops, don't wait till he murders someone, tell the cops you ain't seen nothin' and dust off those banners from last year, and the year before that, and the year before...
Report the "gun-toting, drug-dealing thugs"
Report the "gun-toting, drug-dealing thugs", and you'll miss every shooter who doesn't answer that description (for example, the Sandy Hook shooter). But I understand it's more gratifying to chase imaginary cartoon villains than to attack the real problem.
Sorry "moms"...
But it's called the second amendment, and the supreme court has been clear on this issue. Tighten up gun purchasing laws, sure. Screen for mental illness. But don't ever presume that you can strip legally owned firearms away from mentally stable, law abiding citizens just because you live your lives like scared rabbitts and expect the government to coddle you and keep you "safe", even at the expense of our constitutionally protected rights.
No one in
Moms Demand Action is not demanding that people be stripped of their guns. What we are asking is that we have comprehensive national laws requiring background checks and waiting periods, even for private sales and at gun shows. Domestic abusers should not be able to have guns. These are not unreasonable requests to keep us all safe.
Yes they are unreasonable
Yes they are unreasonable requests because they try to thwart the 2nd Amendment. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment try to amend it. There is a process for that you know.
Even the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute
Even in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled there are people who can be banned from gun ownership and that not all state regulations are illegal. Why, just last week, the court declined to hear a case involving a lawsuit against some town's ban on assault weapons.
So, no, the Second Amendment doesn't need to be amended for reasonable gun restrictions.
The 2nd Amendment as an
The 2nd Amendment as an individual right absolutely does not allow for the strict gun laws that liberals demand. Would you make the case such strict laws could be applied to speech? Of course you wouldn't. Do not exempt us from the 2nd Amendment just because you personally do not like that right.
If you want that amendment changed there is a process for that.
There was no defined individual right to own a gun ...
Until the Supreme Court redefined the Second Amendment in the Heller decision in 2008.
And as I mentioned above, no right in the US is absolute. Your rights under the First Amendment are not absolute, your rights under the Fourth Amendment are not absolute and your rights under the Second Amendment are not absolute.
The SCOTUS corrected a
The SCOTUS corrected a mistake. The 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights so they apply to the states. Are you seriously suggesting that just that one right is exempt?
Difference of opinion, I guess
Some would say the Supreme Court made a mistake.
But again, even the Heller decision does not grant all Americans an absolute right to own any gun they feel like, and left in place gun-control laws that were less restrictive than Washington DC's (such as the ones in Massachusetts).
Scalia wrote the decision.
Scalia wrote the decision. Heller is based on a false history of the US but what are you going to do? Historically 'bear arms' meant in defense of country, not target practice or hunting. It makes sense the authors of the Bill of Rights would concern themselves with gun ownership relevant to Federal authorities such as national defense. And in the Massachusetts Constitution, Adams qualifies the right of gun ownership for one purpose, the common defense none others.
Regardless, Heller is a narrowly defined decision. The court decided D.C. couldn't not prohibit residents from owning a handgun and keeping in their home.
Abortion
If you are correct there was also no "Right to Privacy" or right to have an abortion until Roe. According to the Warren court enthusiasts these rights were not "created." They always existed and only came into common knowledge that they existed when the court ruled it was always there.
It appears you are on both sides of that argument Adam.
Who said anything about abortion?
Yes, the "penumbra" idea is a controversial one as well, but this is the gun-argument room; the abortion-argument room is down the hall.
Intellectual Honesty
You said there was no individual right to own a gun until the Heller decision. All I said was there was no Right to Privacy or right to abortion until Roe.
It is an exact parallel. Either both "rights" always existed, and the Court simply had to opine on it, or both were activist courts deciding what they wanted to permit their fellow citizens.
I'll admit, I agree to both as rights as I read both the Constitution and the opinions. I don't expect the Progressives in this conversation to understand this piece of the conversation, but I respect you enough to see your earlier statement was a bit rash.
Really?
Adam, you wouldn't post my last response?
Take a look
I know it's hard to believe, but even I take time away from my screen on weekends.
Pro Tip
You are already using a consistent pseudonym. Sign up for an actual log in.
Oh sure
As soon as you can drop dead from being on the receiving end of harsh language, I'll get right on it.
The second amendment
was ratified in 1791 when conditions were quite different. I'm quite sure our founding fathers never anticipated that people would be out there stockpiling weapons that could mow down tens or hundreds of people at a time. But gun fetishists don't seem to have any concern for the horrific effects of gun proliferation in the US.
constitutional
Assault rifle (AR) bans are constitutional. We had one for a decade.
People's right to live
trumps the fucking second amendment every time.
Actually they are demanding
Actually they are demanding confiscation. It's why Australia and the UK are mentioned so frequently and the leadership has been caught in open microphone gaffes. Nothing has changed with these billionaire funded astroturf groups since 1976 except the organization's names.
Mind you the total ban on heroin seems to be working so well lately.
Heroin, you bring up heroin?
Mind you, the total ban on murder seems to be working so well lately.
Should we repeal that law just because people - many of them armed with guns - break it?
A conversation not a lecture
The heroin epidemic is a pretty clear example why total bans on anything do not change human nature and are not some magic solution to the problem.
If the law keeps getting broken no matter how many times new ones are written then perhaps the issue isn't the law but enforcement of the law.
How many times a week in the past month has UHub had stories involving shootings by people with long histories of violating the law? Do you really think "just one more law" is going to change their behavior? How many crimes this year in the city of Boston have been committed with so called "assault weapons" which have been banned in the city since 1989?
You have no problem calling for increased regulation and deprivation of rights to the vast majority of people which responsibly enjoy firearm ownership when the problem is an increasingly smaller segment of the population which are already violating the law (already felons) to begin with.
Should we require all bloggers to undergo background checks, mental health screening, training, and approval by local censorship authorities prior to making each post because a small number of bloggers post dangerous things which lead to deaths or mayhem?
I really wish you'd take the required safety course and go through the application process in Boston for a license to carry Adam. You would learn a lot and have a much more informed understanding of the subject.
Chronicle had an excellent program the past week on the subject:
http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/tuesday-december-8-guns/36800254
Many myths and falsehoods were dispelled during the program.
Who's calling for total bans?
Lots of people die in horrible car crashes, many caused by irresponsible people. And yet nobody calls for a ban on driving.
Regulation is not the same as a ban; anymore than the requirement to pass a test to get a driver's license is.
As for Boston gun regulations, yes, I realize how tough they are. I approve of the job Boston Police are doing and realize there's only so much they can do about guns flooding the city from states with a more relaxed approach to gun ownership.
You're right about the need for online mental-health tests, and I'll agree to that - but only if online comment writers are subject to it as well. Deal?
Bad example
The real problem with the heroin epidemic is that the strength of the street drugs is much higher than when there were opium dens.
Similarly, the worship of fire power (to the point where some jackass was claiming that a hunting rifle was equivalent to a bb gun) and the increase in firepower is a problem with guns.
You don't carry out mass shootings with a .22, but you can take out a large buck or an intruder with it if you know how to aim. Anything else is a weapon of mass destruction.
Had the Tsarnaev brothers simply purchased some WMDs at a gun show, they would have killed far more than the three people killed in the bombing.
Awesome!
Where can I get myself a rocket launcher - that counts as a gun, right?
I might someday like to use one to shoot at a couple of boats in the harbor. C'mon - it'll be FUN!
(/unfunny "joke")
You really despise these
You really despise these mothers who have lost children due to gun violence. Wow. No compassion. Merry Christmas to you.
Amen
Amen
I'm so glad someone has
I'm so glad someone has finally stepped up to speak for us scared rabbits! Because that describes me and women who care about others being killed PERFECTLY.
Also, a technical matter: curious how these comments from 1953 are appearing on here! Elvis, are you out there?
Tell me more about your
Tell me more about your militia and how, exactly, it's regulated.
muh second amendment!!!!!
what vacuum do you live in where the people are responsible/background checks work/the world doesnt change in, like, 300 years? do you just never leave your house? I suppose all our laws should reflect life as it was in the 1700s.
I also thoroughly enjoy your false sense of smugness, talking about how "scared" these people are, while clinging to a law that allows him to horde the most deadly weapons in the world to "protect" himself against the big scary gubbament/world. if that doesnt sound like an entitled special snowflake, I don't know WHAT does.
no
I think that sense of smugness is entirely real. Nothing false about it.
I swear, gun nuts are the most insecure people ever
Look, you people won. The Heller decision got you near the goal line. And then you won the whole shootin' match after Sandy Hook (guy with a gun massacred 20 children and 6 teachers, you may recall) when the country as a whole shrugged its shoulders and did absolutely nothing.
So enjoy your freedom to spurt hot lead out of the end of your gun. It's your right!
And yet, here you are all offended by a group of mothers who object to little children being mowed down like targets at some carnival booth.
That's some fragile psyche you people have.
Me, I'll listen to gun-owner Stephen King.
There is nothing wrong with
There is nothing wrong with responsible gun control. The problem is controlling the insignificant to check off that something was done, all while ignoring the larger issues.
MatthewC, I just spent 10 minutes scanning their site...
...and checking their press mentions. Unless you can point to something concrete I missed, Moms Demand Action has not and does not advocate
Do you have a source for that, or is it hyperbole?
If you carry a gun for "protection" then YOU are the scared one
.
yup
Same reason I wear my seatbelt and have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. I just live my life in fear.
When's the last time ...
your seat belt or fire extinguisher put a hole in your leg or one of your kids? You're afraid of the wrong things if you think carrying a gun makes you safer. It doesn't; just the opposite.
I don't have kids
And I'm very strict on firearms safety, laws, and regular range time. If you're trying to argue that some people aren't responsible enough to own firearms, you won't get any pushback from me. If you're projecting the idiocy of a group of people onto law-abiding adults who believe in personal responsibility, you might want to revisit your argument.
Care to tell me more about myself?
Sorry "MatthewC"
But it's called respectful and honest dialogue, not misrepresenting others' position to the point of outright lying.
But it's called the second
And all it took to get to this truly bizarre interpretation of the Amendment was fifty years of the most extremist conservative juris prudence since the Salem Witch Trials. Congrats!
More MDA and MDMA, fewer guns!
Yeah! Moms Demand Action (MDA) and Moms Demand More Action (MDMA).
Jobs, Justice, Climate
Thank you for posting this, but there was another rally that same afternoon with about 10 times more people (200 versus 2000) for Jobs, Justice, and Climate. Please post something about this event, which brought people from across New England to a rally on the final day of the Climate Talks in Paris. This was a great event which highlighted the intersectionality of so many social justice movements.
There are hypotheticals and there are hypotheticals
If your argument to let all "good men" have guns is that that's all that's standing between us and roving gangs of vicious raping brutes, especially when you include graphic details of such crimes, no, I'm not going to approve those comments. Sorry, Donald.
Ironic
Considering it was Adam Lanza's mom who shares A LOT of blame for what happened. Mom knew he had very serious mental health issues, yet she behaved in a bizarre fashion in raising him. No wonder Adam Lanza's father divorced her, she sounds like she was a brick shy of a load, too.
A lot of hardcore, violent criminals come from single parent homes, raised by a mom. Obviously, moms are doing something wrong.