If ever a site dictated a question that must be asked in a presidential debate, it is Denver. Two of the worst mass shootings in the nation’s history happened in its suburbs, at Columbine High School in 1999 and at a movie theater in Aurora this summer. The shootings combined killed 27 people and injured 81.
Moderator Jim Lehrer will spend half of Wednesday’s 90-minute debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney on the economy. That is understandable. But somewhere in the remaining half dedicated to “health care,” “the role of government,” and “governing,” he must ask about the obvious issue: guns.
Comments
Excellent article. As for the answer to "how many are enough", it would appear to depend on who is answering. For some, more deaths means buy more guns. For others, more deaths mean re-think gun laws. The buy-more-guns crowd clearly has been dominating the national conversation. Until there is some advocate for the other side which can refute the NRA position, it is looking grim for opinions in opposition to the obvious fallacy of more guns equals more safety.
Agreed, djm71. I'm waiting to see the gun zealots call for arming all UPS drivers after the deadly shooting in Minneapolis on Thursday.
I suppose when a card-carrying NRA member, with the text of the Second Amendment tattooed across his chest, shoots up the NRA headquarters, and the dead include those killed by other office staff confused as to who is the shooter, then we might see a change in attitude.
This comment has been removed.
Those that buy legally guns a strict ID laws and background check is needed and certain guns or ammunition should not be sold unless approved by police etc. (security firms etc.) may need certain type guns.
Our inner cities like Chicago & Boston have more gun deaths then these terrible other shootings.
Those that have committed these shootings have mental problems...and there should be someway it can be known before guns etc. can be bought. There should be a certain wait period to buy a gun and a limit how many guns can be own. We have technology for everything so something should be able to be done in tracking gun sales.
Maybe Mr. Lehrer can ask a question about health care and say by the way wouldn't banning automatic weapons and high capacity clips be part of the discussion on caring for the nation's health? What about protecting children from concealed weapons carriers in national parks? What about the right of parents not to have their children exposed to people toting guns in public places? It's like that song "Blowin in the Wind". How many children have to be killed by gunfire before we take a stand? The answer my friend in not blowing in the wind it should be in the legislation for gun control and banning automatic weapons and high capacity/impact clips and ammunition. Don't be gun shy.
Legally purchased full automatic weapons are not used in crimes, they cost way too much :).
The way to protect yourself and your children in national parks is to be a responsible adult and have a means to protect them, such as a firearm and the training to use it.
Your problem is not guns, it is a complete lack of personal responsibility for yourself or the safety of the children you mention. You want to sit back and have someone rush to save you, to risk their lives to protect you. What right do you have to expect that when you yourself are not willing to do what is necessary to defend yourself from criminal attack?
This comment has been removed.
Another question would be: How many power-hungry corrupt politicians are enough for gun-control radicals to become concerned about citizens' ability to defend themselves?
This comment has been removed.
Guns are a fact of life you can't change that.
Another fact, states and cities with the least restrictive gun laws also have the lowest crime rates.
More gun laws will only strip lawful citizens of their right to bear arms, leavingthem defenseless against criminals who don't obey the current laws.
On the heels of your excellent piece of writing yesterday, here in Massachusetts a 21 year old shot his 17 year old brother with someone else's gun, a few weeks after the 21 year old had received his first firearms license. This is madness! How the hell did the NRA become so incredibly powerful? Why are our elected officials not standing up to them and just saying "no"?
On the heels of your excellent piece of writing yesterday, here in Massachusetts a 21 year old shot his 17 year old brother with someone else's gun, a few weeks after the 21 year old had received his first firearms license. This is madness! How the hell did the NRA become so incredibly powerful? Why are our elected officials not standing up to them and just saying "no"?
On the heels of your excellent piece of writing yesterday, here in Massachusetts a 21 year old shot his 17 year old brother with someone else's gun, a few weeks after the 21 year old had received his first firearms license. This is madness! How the hell did the NRA become so incredibly powerful? Why are our elected officials not standing up to them and just saying "no"?