Killers aim to kill, guns do the killing, the NRA protects the guns, lawmakers protect the NRA, killers aim to kill.

By Ramona

Suspected Colorado movie theater gunman James Holmes purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told a news conference this evening.

"All the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally, all the weapons he possessed, he possessed legally, all the clips he possessed, he possessed legally," an emotional Oates said.

The chief declined to say whether the weapons were automatic or semi-automatic, but "he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semi-automatic, within one minute," Oates said. 

Good Morning America, July 20,2012 

In the wake of the latest mass murder in America, the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting spree, the usual talk about how insanely easy it is to acquire assault weapons and heavy ammo seems to fill every inch of air and space. In the wake of the Columbine shooting -- talk, talk, talk. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting -- talk, talk, talk. In the wake of the Fort Hood shooting -- talk, talk, talk. In the wake of the Tucson shooting -- talk, talk, talk. The analysis of the dozens of mass shootings in the past 30 years -- talk, talk, talk. The consensus is that it's too easy to stockpile the kind of weaponry crazy people use to massacre innocent human beings whose only deficiency is that they manage to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Immediately upon hearing the outcry, the National Rifle Association goes into defensive mode, taking their usual stance that guns don't kill people, gunmen kill people, so you can't blame the guns and you can't blame the easy acquisition of those guns. because only a few gunmen are nuts enough to go out and shoot up a bunch of people. (The second most popular NRA stance is that if everyone was armed and ready, things like this couldn't happen.)

Crazy, isn't it? But here's the craziest part: The NRA gets away with it. Every single time. All of America -- or at least those in a position to do something about a runaway gun association -- seems to be terrified of a powerful lobby whose only public position is advocating widespread use of all types of guns and ammo, including repeaters, military-type assault weapons, "cop-killer" bullets, the whole shebang.

So here's more talk -- not that it'll do any more good than the talk before it, but it has become obligatory now. We use it in place of actually doing something about the legality of assault weapons, the obligations of gun owners (and their associations), and the rights of those who fall victim to this irresponsible nuttiness:

• Bill Moyers on Living under the Gun
• Adam Gopnik on One More Massacre 
• Russ Baker:  Did you Hear about the Shooting?
• Michael Tomasky on the Country the NRA Wants to See
• Michael Daly on whether the NRA is Also Culpable
• E.J Dionne on The Gag Rule on Guns
• Daren Samuelsohn on Why Gun Lovers still fear Obama
• Digby on The Horror at Talking about Shooting 

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

The website for the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, is here. If you can figure out a way to get them to pay attention to you without having to join the NRA, go for it.

And if you can figure out a way to get our politicians to pay attention this time, here is where you can reach them:

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies.shtml

James Holmes bought four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition and went into a movie theater with the sole purpose of mowing people down. He might have had those same thoughts even if he hadn't had access to guns capable of mowing people down as swiftly or efficiently as these did, but a madman with a single-shot rifle or even a six-gun couldn't kill 13 and wound 70 people within a few minutes.

That's what has to stop. That's what the talk is all about. 

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices.)

Shrink rap

By Mustang Bobby

David Brooks, the other day, went Dr. Phil on killing sprees:

Looking at guns, looking at video games — that's starting from the wrong perspective. People who commit spree killings are usually suffering from severe mental disorders. The response, and the way to prevent future episodes, has to start with psychiatry, too.

The best way to prevent killing sprees is with relationships — when one person notices that a relative or neighbor is going off the rails and gets that person treatment before the barbarism takes control. But there also has to be a more aggressive system of treatment options, especially for men in their 20s. The truly disturbed have always been with us, but their outbursts are now taking more malevolent forms.

In other words, better gun control won't subdue the demons in the heads of the psychotics. (Maybe not, but like chicken soup for a cold, it couldn't hurt.)

The problem with his solution is that it's really hard for the relative or neighbor to make the kind of judgment as to whether or not to contact someone like the police before someone goes "off the rails." Who's to say that the guy next door just likes a quiet weekend doing the crossword puzzles and catching up on TiVo as opposed to the guy with the secret closet full of high-grade ammunition and pomegranate pits? And now that guns have become so politicized that neither candidate will even bring it up, nothing will be done about assault weapons or, for that matter, Mr. Brooks' suggestion that we keep an eye on quiet loners who max out their credit cards at the sporting goods big box store.

The defenders of the 2nd Amendment rightly note that it is unfair to conflate the gun owner and collector with the mass murderers. (Ironically, a lot of people have no problem conflating gay men with child molesters, but that's another post.) But as long as we avoid the issue; as long as the line in the aftermath of Aurora, Tucson, and Virginia Tech is "Now is not the time to talk about guns..." the more we will find out that the time to talk about it is before it happens. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Out, out, damned spot

By Capt. Fogg

I saw this clip on The Impolitic this morning: Sharron Angle having a bit of a smugfest about how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Ben Franklin really wanted us to have the uninfringable right to own firearms, not to facilitate raising a militia, as was stated, or to put food on the table or keep the fox out of the henhouse, but to protect us against tyrannical despots demanding to provide us with affordable health care.



To be fair, I'd like to know the rest of the sentence starting "we need to take Harry Reid out. . ." Vote him out of his elected position, or just "take him out?"

Inquiring minds want to know, but batshit crazies with their hairy ears glued to the radio don't bother to ask. They already know. One has already spoken and as in Mao's famous statement about the voice of revolution -- from the muzzle of a gun. Indeed many self styled conservatives seem to have read intensively from the little red book.

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for the nonce, but although Jefferson did indeed, how literally I don't know, suggest further revolutions, one would have a hard time convincing me the system he helped design wasn't intended to facilitate that process bloodlessly and with due process of law.

The bit about guns being needed to protect against "tyranny?" to allow the minority to have bloody revenge for the actions of elected representatives? Sorry, Sharron, this is beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech and perhaps even further into the territory of treason, if fomenting armed insurrection against an elected government be such.

It recalls Henry II crying "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Not exactly a demand that someone kill Thomas à Becket, but someone soon did and Hank got to wash his hands of the matter. Whether it be the king of England, the Queen of Scotland or a Prefect of Roman Judea, some bloody bastard is always seeking such cleanliness, but that damned spot usually proves rather difficult to remove.

(Cross posted from Human voices)