Durst: Guns, Guns and more Guns. That's the ticket.
Will Durst
Five-time Emmy nominee Will Durst’s new e-book, “Elect to Laugh!” published by Hyperink, now available at Redroom.com, Amazon or any fine virtual book retailer near you.
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
25 comments:
Rules of Conduct
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Juggernaut8000 posted at 6:23 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
Whatever the politicians decide, it will only inconvenience law abiding gun owners and have no effect of those set on commiting criminal acts.
mikedurham posted at 7:03 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
juggernaut8000, yup. I'd rather you be inconvenienced than shot to death by a person who meets NRA standards for packing a Bushmaster and just decided to kill at a random place and time. Wow! I just increased the likelihood of you living! Say thank you, juggernaut8000.
SculptorDad posted at 8:08 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
Another average thinker looking at obvious problems...Maybe we should be looking deeper? What psychotropic overprescribed drugs pushed by Big Pharm were intentionally altering the shooter's brain chemistry when he "decided to kill"? Look at causes, people, not effects.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:00 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
Will pretty much said it all. His reasoning is sound.
SculptorDad, None. Wait and see!
Jugger, I add my vote to what mike said.
bungknock posted at 11:24 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
People like a certain female senator we all know, who has suffered a great trauma because of an incident involving a firearm, should not be responsible for gun control legislation. She should be treated for the disease.
From gun control:
1. Experts with an ax to grind.
2. Appeals to fear, emotion, and mass hysteria.
3. Biased estimators; lies about the numbers.
From gun advocates:
1. Hard objective facts from real experts.
2. Unbiased statistical analysis.
3. The argument that people will lose their lives, who might have saved themselves with a gun. The gun control cabal never addresses this subject directly. You get one of those bellicose, idiotic, and obtuse outbursts.
About educators. Armed with the knowledge that the likelihood their school will be hit with such an attack is almost zero, still insist on a gun-free-zone. More stubborn rhetoric about psychology when they are the ones mostly responsible for influencing children. Who really created the monster?
bungknock posted at 11:44 am on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
A note to the author.
Nobody has a problem with hyperkinetic activity involving music, cars, sports, or other things that are considered acceptable by the social elites. I guess being really excited about firearms is to scary for those of the beautiful elite. This fear of guns is called haplophobia, which is a treatable disease. Why should gun enthusiasts be ruled by such madness.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:13 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
More of the ...Democrat, Socialist, Anarchist, Marxist, Commie Wanna-be ...'BLATHER.
Tens and tens of millions of Americans have guns, use guns, enjoy guns and don't shot un-armed children.
These assault and semi-automatic rifles and pistols didn't go off by themselves.......SOME CRAZY PERSON PULLED THE TRIGGER.
The millions of guns in America aren't the ....'PROBLEM".
MENTALLY-ILL PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM.
But the Shrinks and the Clinics and the "do-gooders" have all gotten their ....DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEN AND WOMEN AND SENATORS....to pour billions of dollars into .........."HELPING THE MENTALLY-ILL"....instead of putting the crazy ones away to protect ....SOCIETY.
JUST LOOK AT THE "LOONEY-TUNES", COMPLETELY DISFUNCTIONAL ...KENNEDY FAMILY....[wink]
downtownresident posted at 12:57 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
I'd rather read Turley-Hansen, than this moron, who said nothing worthwhile.
Slow news days beget trash journalism.
nodon7 posted at 2:31 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
Gee, what a surprise. Hands down one of the most ignorant population bases in the U.S., yeah that's you AZ, has a bunch of gun nuts. The world is shocked. Fact is there is no legitimate reason for the type of gun used in the Newtown massacre and even more recently in the murder of the NY fire fighters to be sold to the public. Period. Don't worry gun whacko's, no one is trying to take your hunting rifles, shotguns or even hand guns if you are legitimately allowed to own them. People just want some sanity on the issue. Your frothing at the mouth, gun nut rhetoric is meaningless. No one cares what you have to say.
betterchoice posted at 2:37 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
Mr. Ceniceros - it was under President Reagan that the mental institutes were closed... ironically, one of them was in Newton, CT. Nope - not "bleeding hearts" but "hard dollar" politicians that closed them down to save the money.
bungknock - There was an armed guard in Coumbine - didn't help. As a professional SWAT team member told me - "unless you train every day ... and sometimes even that isn't enough... you will not react correctly to an even like Sandy Hook"
As for the NRA, are they willing to pay for the armed guards? Probably not...
Mike McClellan posted at 3:43 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
betterchoice is right on the mark. Tom Horne today proposed training principals to carry weapons in order to stop crazies.
Besides the constant training that police go through, training that no principal has the time for, one other big factor is ignored by Horne:
Policemen tend to be a little different from the rest of us, have personalities that tend to be calm in the midst of chaos, deadly chaos. We had the "pleasure" yesterday of watching the Gilbert SWAT team in action in our neighborhood. A guy had threatened to kill himself and others in a house down the street from us.
The SWAT team showed up, geared up, and calmly, quickly, and efficiently planned and carried out an operation that resulted in no one dead.
Horne and the other "arm the teacher" crowd seems to think that if they're trained to shoot straight, they somehow become a de facto SWAT team.
Which, in a way, is a huge insult to the brave men and women of SWAT teams.
karlns51 posted at 8:33 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
I firmly support arming and training teachers that volunteer, pass CCW background check and also receive police or Gunsite training. When an attack such as this occurs, and it unfortunately will again since we still have people in love with their 'Gun Free Zone' (attn, sheep be here) sign, arming someone at the most critical point because SECONDS COUNT is obvious. SWAT and the police are fantastic. Unfortunately, they show up right as the massacre has ended.....the children do not have a SWAT team in their backpack. Get some people armed that can get between the loony and our kids.
karlns51 posted at 8:40 pm on Wed, Dec 26, 2012.
I guess I'll also address the 'what do you need those types of guns for' crowd. First and foremost is home defense (obviously the bad guys are using these guns, why would a homeowner want to combat that with a frying pan? You fight fire with fire.)
Next is varminting, which I'm sure the suburbanites have no idea what it is. However those that do the farming and ranching use those .223's to get at coyotes, squirrels, gophers, whatever is getting into the crop or supplies. Flatter shooting than a .22 and perfectly suited to the task.
There's also a lot of competition such as 3-gun, national match (which has been around for 100 years...civilian marksmanship program), small bore, high power and a pile of other competitive divisions based on setup.
loose stool posted at 4:25 am on Thu, Dec 27, 2012.
Any laws or restriction made now will not stop a criminal,a mentaly ill person or the government from giveing or getting a weapon. Only law abideing people will follow the law.
I dont see anything wrong with an armed gaurd in the schools, only a liberial would oppose putting someone in the schools to defend thier children.
soricobob posted at 6:14 am on Thu, Dec 27, 2012.
I read elsewhere that Tom Horne recommends training one teacher in each school to handle a gun. Is that true? Will the State, the District, or the teacher be legally (financially) responsible for an errant shot?
DrJCA1 posted at 12:43 pm on Thu, Dec 27, 2012.
There have alway s been mentally ill people. The big differences now are two-fold. One is the fact that the past two generations have grown up with violence as being normal - it's in the movies, on TV, and those disgusting video games. So when someone goes off the deep end, instead of simpy harming themself or one or two others, they can obtain a weapon that shoots 30, 40 or more rounds in a few seconds and can kill lots of others. The gratuitous violence in the media was warned about by those of us in medicine 50 years ago. Of course, all the brainless jerks said we were blowing smoke.
The other part of this tragedy is the availability of many things that easily interfere with normal brain functioning, such as prescription and illegal drugs, alcohol, wireless everything (huge increase in neuro disorders among newborns in the past 20 years), and of course both parents who are too busy working to buy that Lexus or million-dollar house to pay attention to their children.
Whie everything was far from perfect when I grew up, at least we has a semblance of family and community, along with some positive role models and common sense. While technology is terrific, it also allows many humans to abrogate their responsibilities to devices and allow electronics to raise the kids. Machines and programs do not have a sense of decency or any ethical values at all. Where do you think elementary, middle, and high schoolers get the ideas they have come from?
valleynative posted at 3:41 pm on Fri, Dec 28, 2012.
Statistically, only a very few crimes are committed with "assault rifles". The overwhelming majority of murders with guns involve cheap pistols and fewer than 3 rounds.
An AR-15 won't fire any faster than you can pull the trigger, which means no faster than you can fire a pistol.
Ignorance is NOT justification for legislation.
Pirate62 posted at 1:54 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Betterchoice,
I don't know whether you are repeating a lie deliberately or through ignorance, but Reagan budget cuts did not close the mental facilities. The "bleeding hearts" you refer to made it nearly impossible to institutionalize someone against their will. This is evidenced by the difficulties the shooter's mother had in attempting to have her son locked up. Get your facts from someone besides John Stewart and Oprah.
Pirate62 posted at 2:02 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Mike McClellan,
No sarcasm is implied when I applaud the fine SWAT team officers. And I know that they also did a fine, professional job in Newton...AFTER everyone was slaughtered. If you talk to most rank-and-file police, they will tell you that they cannot be counted on to prevent violent crimes.
Mike McClellan posted at 10:09 am on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
First, Pirate, let's be clear about the SWAT team at Newtown --- the shooter didn't kill himself until they showed up. Had they been even later, more kids and teachers would've died.
Secondly, understanding that SWAT teams react to Newtown-like situations, I was suggesting that if we had to choose between funding a trained policeman at every school or doing the Tom Horne-on-the-cheap principal or school employee plan, it's clear that kids are safer with a professional at their schools.
So then - again - the question becomes, "How much are our kids' lives worth?"
You are correct, however, about the emptying of mental health facilities -- the ACLU and other liberal groups sued to make institutionalization much more difficult.
In many ways, we reap the results of that.
sockratties posted at 9:48 am on Mon, Dec 31, 2012.
Durst’s commentary is right on the money…. the one common denominator in all the tragedies, and you can start as far back as the Kent State massacre if you want, or the assassination of John Kennedy or even Abraham Lincoln, is guns. Guns are the preferred tool when you really want to kill someone. There are weapons of opportunity such as knives, axes, baseball bats and tire irons, but if you’re going to do it “hands-on” and have time to plan, guns are the obvious choice. They’re fairly inexpensive, easy to get hold of, don’t require a lot of learning (like flying airplanes or building dirty bombs) and you can have them in public without making people suspicious of your motives. Guns have become part of our culture instead of part of our tool box. They are a big part of our entertainment, our business, our national image, our law enforcement and for many, part of our ego and bragging rights (my Bushmaster AR-15 OCR has more bell and whistles than your Bushmaster AR-15!). As this lunacy ingrains itself deeper and deeper into our psyches, we can only expect more tragic events to occur.
TempeTownToilet posted at 5:32 pm on Mon, Dec 31, 2012.
The Second Amendment wasn't created to give the people the right to go target shooting or rabbit hunting.
The Second Amendment was create to give the people the right to overthrow a tyrannical government.
If the people are going to succeed in overthrowing government tyrants they need the same weapons the government has.
In 1776 that meant flintlock rifles, swords and cannons.
In 2013 that means machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, bombs and tanks.
The Second Amendment wasn't created to give the people the right to kill defenseless unarmed children.
The Second Amendment was created to give the people the right to kill well armed government tyrants.
Mike McClellan posted at 10:06 am on Wed, Jan 2, 2013.
So, TempeTownToilet, I guess the six and seven-year olds in Newtown were "well armed government tyrants"?
I guess the people killed in Aurora were "well armed government tyrants"?
I guess the two killed in the Portland mall were the same?
The people killed in the Safeway parking lot?
Yep, all "government tyrants" the Second Amendment was created to protect us from, right, TempeTownToilet?
Butters posted at 1:17 am on Fri, Jan 4, 2013.
Mike McClellan, you can keep your rhetoric. As for me, I'll keep my guns to protect my family, especially since our government likes to provide assualt weapons to drug cartels.
As for the 2nd Amendment, Mike, I suggest you read it because TempeTownToilet is right on the money about we, the people, having the right to form a well armed militia for the purposes of overthrowing a defecttive government. Mass punishment will not stand against the law abiding gun owners, just because a few people with some serious mental health problems got their hands on assault weapons. You should be angry at the Newtown shooter's mother. She's the dipstick who trained him to handle and shoot firearms. The same woman who knew her son had mental health issues that forced her to file a court petition to have her son committed to a mental health facility.
Betterchoice, it wasn't President Reagan's fault that mental patients were released into the streets. You can thank the socialist progressive creeps at the ACLU for that. That's right, they are the ones who took legal action to protect the rights of the mentally ill at the expense of innocent, law abiding citizens. Kind of makes you feel warm and secure, doesn't it?
NoneSuch posted at 10:27 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Yeah, and I wanna know how well anyone would fair firing on a Blackhawk Helicopter with their personal stash. I think I've seen it before, and it doesn't end well for the one firing... Also, it WAS Reagan who sent the mentally ill-including the one who shot him home-because, in his words, they were "better off at home." He also thought homeless people, including veterans, LIKED sleeping on heating grates, and "when you see one redwood tree, you've seen them all." Sorry if this doesn't line up with the myth, but reality rarely does. Personally, I think we need to register every gun and set of ammo sold. Period. Background checks for all. Period. And yes, I have passed the check, but I don't expect to get suicidal against any military helicopters. Ever.