Saturday, June 13, 2009

The Silence About Guns

By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
June 13, 2009

You know by now that in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, an elderly white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed a security guard before being brought down himself.

Read on.


Anonymous said...

If you want more gun laws or gun bans, then by all means you are free to try and repeal the second amendment. All the emotional drivel you spew means nothing; the Constitution settles the manner.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how the guy who shot up the that museum should be used against law abiding gun owners? Nor does his guns actions reflect other guns. That is the same as blaming all white people saying they are all that way. That would mean that every white man on PBS is not a socialist liberal with hopes of an unarmed populace that is dependent on the government for everything including protection, but instead a racists white man that hated alot more than just Obama and his policies and looking for a way to punch out.

borecrazy said...

So you were INVITED to hear another side of the gun ownership story and you refused? And you don't see that as closed minded?
You list figures about yearly gun deaths, but ignore the high percentages of those that are gang or crime related-both a misuse of guns, not responsible gun ownership. And while I dispute your figures of 22% more likely to be used on an intruder as on a family member (how could you even calculate that?)ask yourself as a starting point, how much more often do you see family members than an intruder? That answer alone would slant your calculations way out of the range of credibility!
The difference between gun owners and yourself is they refuse to be a defenseless victim to someone intent on doing them or others harm, while you have convinced yourself that if you do away with the tools used you will be safe. It is the intent of bad people to do harm that is the problem, and your plan doesn't address that. And as we all know, it has been proven time and time again that gun control does NOT reduce crime.

L K Tucker said...

It fails to capture your attention but current gun control laws would have stopped this shooting if the shooter had obeyed them. He was prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

Why do you think those intent on murder/suicide would obey registration laws?

I have seen recent published stories showing that in those states and cities that have strong gun registration laws there has never been a crime solved through that information. Why not? The link back to the shooter stops when it is discovered the weapon was stolen.

Why not ban all guns? When there is no fear that the victim of a crime has the ability to defend themselves gangs of even children can steal using sharpened sticks. In those areas they have threaten to gouge out eyes if money is not given up.

Anonymous said...

Your argument makes the same basic assumption that most similar arguments make: that the gun is to blame for the actions of the criminal behind it.

Harsh sentencing for violent offenders (with a gun or otherwise), no early release/parole for violent offenders, no bail for repeat violent offenders. Three violent convictions gets life in prison without the possibility of parole. This is a good start.

I won't bother presenting the proven deterence of concealed carry; it would fall on deaf ears.

Anonymous said...

After reading the comment above about 'refusing to hear the other side.,' I went back and re-read your editorial.

I have always been a fan of Bill Moyers', but I am surprised and disappointed that you would not search out ALL the facts and offer a balanced statement.

But, it is an editorial. And the First Amendment protects (not provides) your right to make one-sided statements. And, I will use my rights protected by (not provided by) the Second Amendment to defend your right to do so.