NRA Fantasy Is Just That

As of Tuesday, August 7, 2012

After the horrifying events in Aurora, Colo., and the predictable NRA defense by Republican county leader Robert Levy (July 29), I began thinking that arming my dementia-afflicted 91-year-old mother with a Glock was probably a good idea.

After all, had those poor souls in Pinelake been packing heat in their walkers and wheelchairs, as Levy suggests, the tragedy there could have been minimized. Nothing better than Granny wasting the bad guy.

The NRA fantasy, an armed public bringing down a crazed gunman, is just that, a fantasy. I submit that had anyone been armed in Aurora, chances are they would have (a). been nowhere near the gunman; (b). forgotten they were armed; (c). shot an innocent bystander; (d). been shot by the gunman, easy target and out-gunned; or (e). all of the above.

Like profanity, gun lovers and gun controllers need each other. So I suggest a logical compromise would be to treat bullets like tobacco and alcohol. Tax the heck out of them.

Robert Tate

Whispering Pines

More like this story

Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Bobby - 1st, what was your dementia-afflicted 91-year-old mother doing at a Batman movie at midnight? 2nd, people have a right to defend themselves. 3rd, these heat packing gunslingers would most likely have had the proper training to handle the situation. 4th, I'd rather take my chances with the those gun lovers and gun controllers and last, how does profanity have anything to do with this?

fugitiveguy 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"After all, had those poor souls in Pinelake been packing heat in their walkers and wheelchairs, as Levy suggests"

Now, I don't remember it verbatim but can anyone tell me, did Bob in anyway say or alude to the above or is it just more phony baloney lefty horsecrap? Why can they not argue using facts? Why must they continuously create one falty premise after the other.

LSM 9 months, 2 weeks ago

The real fantasy. “For instance, Time Warner, the parent company of Warner Bros., the studio that produced "The Dark Knight Rises," has given almost $22 million in campaign contributions since 1989, mostly to Democrats. And that's just one of the six major studios. The NRA, by contrast, has given almost $19 million, mostly to Republicans, over the same amount of time. George Clooney's Hollywood fundraiser raised almost that much in one night for President Obama.” http://americanpoliticalblogs.com/2012/07/national-journal-hollywood-lobby-trumps-nra-clout/

cooldaddy 9 months, 2 weeks ago

It is a free country. Any idiot can write to the editor, and one did.

PaleRider 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Cooldaddy, that's the funniest post I've ever read. 24 years reading the Pilot, and that's the wittiest.

inthepines 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Maybe we should tax morons.

skylinefirepest 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Ok, let's tax the heck out of bullets...providing that all of our military and all of our police and security entities pay the same tax. Since you apparently want to tax the law abiding then let's by all means tax ALL the law abiding at the same rate. Like that idea Mr. Tate, seeing as your tax bill would go up by a goodly percentage also?? Even though you apparently think that guns are bad and only bad people have guns.

skylinefirepest 9 months, 2 weeks ago

By the way, Mr. Tate, let's make that tax retroactive so that the Aurora shooter has to pay for the six thousand rounds....and don't forget, the ATF just ordered forty MILLION rounds so let's add a little more tax to your share for those rounds!!

craigms 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I have had training in “Unintended Gunfights” , so exactly what occurred in Colorado. I can tell you, just one person with a gun shooting back at the attacker, makes a HUGE difference. Knowing people carry guns, forces bad people to think twice before shooting. In our scenarios, the man doing the shooting was Former Special Forces. The people in the room, were you’re average American, no training besides basic weapons handling and this day of training. 98% of the time, the defender in the room with the gun was able to shoot the attacker before he even saw the defender. Why, cause of concealing the draw. He got to cover first, then drew his weapon and fired. One day of training by One person, could have saved at least One life in that theater. That sounds like its worth it to me.

JimRussell44 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Courseaire, the 91 year old grandma was at the midnight showing of the Batman (PG13) movie babysitting the 6 year old who was also there.

Cooldady, that also goes for people who post here.

PaleRider, maybe you should get out more.

Inthepines, that should balance the budget and provide a surplus.

Taxing bullets was the best idea put forth here. Let's aim for quality over quantity and force everyone to be a better shot. Hell, even I could hit something when given 100 chances to spray the bullets around.

JimRussell44 9 months, 2 weeks ago

The more I think about it, the better the bullet tax sounds. I'm thinking that law enforcement could issue each officer one bullet, which he could keep in his shirt pocket. This system worked extremely well right here in North Carolina, where the crime rate of a certain town was zero and when someone thought he did something wrong, he checked himself into the jail without the need for a single shot being fired. The other plus is that the tax would most effect criminals, who, according to reports I read here, evidently have large stockpiles of weapons needing bullets.

Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago

JimRussell44 - I think you'd probably shoot yourself in the foot. So what was a dementia-afflicted 91-year-old mother & a 6 year old doing at a Mid-night showing of Batman. They could have easily gone to the Sunday Matinee and gotten the Senior & Children's discount.

JimRussell44 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Courseaire - The 91 year old at the movie did not actually happen, it was a humorous supposition made by the letter writer. The six year old (who was killed) was actually at the movie theater because her parents found it necessary to be the first to see the movie and put the needs of the child second. PS: Shooting yourself in the foot requires a weapon and bullets, of which I have neither.

skylinefirepest 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, I'll be glad to loan you one, with which to shoot yourself in the foot, if you swear to tell the police that it was an accident so they don't confiscate the gun!! Now tell me, why would you want a big tax on bullets?? You all still are trying to penalize the law abiding for the actions of the few criminals...and we won't stand for it, which is why the politicians still go after us with piece meal restrictions on our rights!! You will not do away with guns in this country, it can't be done without a horrendous loss of life which even the gun haters don't want, so why don't you figure out a way to stop the criminals??? Oh, is it that there is no answer for crime so it's just so much easier and lazier to restrict the law abiding? I haven't seen one comment on the Pilot for the last few weeks that does anything but that...

MarkinMiami 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Well robert if you're ever in danger I'll be sure not to use my gun to defend you.

JimRussell44 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Skyline, you are, of course, correct. We will never be able to eliminate crime. All I have been saying is that a firearm makes committing a crime so very much easier for the criminal. If you go back and review, I have never said that firearms should be banned. Rather, I have asked the legal gun owners, along with the NRA, to make suggestions and proposals that would HELP (not eliminate) just help make it harder for criminals to have guns. The response to my plea has been underwhelming. No legal owner of a firearm wants to be heard or be in anyway associated with limiting the supply of firearms to ANYONE. Therein is our problem. It is easy for us non-gun owners to see what the problem is as well as possible solutions. It is absolutly impossible for the legal firearm owners and the NRA to even consider the subject because each and every one of you has a deep seated fear that ANY action taken to restrict firearms from falling into the hands of criminals is one step closer to having the evil government take away your weapons. It is in your best interest that you are the ones who come up with the ideas. I'm fairly certain you wouldn't want guys like me dictating firearm laws.

JimRussell44 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Here are some statistics that some may find revealing: The population of the USA is about 311,600,000. There are about the same number of motor vehicles as there are firearms in this country (vehicles, approx. 260,000,000; firearms, approx. 270,000,000). The part I found a little surprising was that the deaths by motor vehicle and the deaths by firearms are also very similar ( in the range of 33,000 to 35,000 per year). I'll also point out that deaths of military members in both Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 totaled 559, which makes you wonder if it might actually be safer to get deployed. Owning a firearm is a right, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. In my view, it would appear we have tougher regulations for driving a motor vehicle than for owning a firearm. Given the statistics above, is there not some room to move on firearm regulations that might help keep them out of the hands of criminals?

Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago

JR44 - I'm not sure where you got your info, but I checked serveral sources and death by firearms ranged from 6,000 to 9,000 out of a total of 13,000 to 18,000 over the last several years out of a total of 13,000 to 18,000.

DaveyNC 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Mr. Tate seems to have missed the fact that one properly trained, armed individual put an end to the Pinelake massacre with one shot, IIRC. Matters not that that individual was a policeman. Any properly trained, armed individual could have done the same. That is not to disparage the actions of Officer Garner that day; he is truly a hero by any definition of the word. But it is to say that any well trained individual in the same situation can make a difference. Like this guy: http://goo.gl/yD3aJ

SH59 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I said this once before in another similar conversation: We can't keep asking the government to solve all our social issues. When do we start taking responsibility for knowing our neighbors and become more involved in our communities instead of sitting at home in front of the TV or computer. People don't even talk on the phone any more but rather text quick messages to each other. Making a social connection to someone who seems to be a loner could actually change the coarse of someone's life. I thought most people were asking for less government in the future but doing that will require people to be more involved in their own lives relying on each other instead of asking Big Daddy Government to solve all our problems.

irkim13 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Good point SH59. I agree and by the way I like the Big Bang as well but believe God initiated it.

Courseaire 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Can't have a big bank unless someone lights the fuse. Who do you think lit it?

fugitiveguy 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"After all, had those poor souls in Pinelake been packing heat in their walkers and wheelchairs, as Levy suggests"

I just read the Levy article, the above grossly represents what is written in Mr Levy's article

irkim13 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Are you asking me? Courseaire because I already answered that. I only brought it up because I did not get to respond to SH59 on another article.

JimRussell44 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Courseaire: The numbers I used for firearm deaths were not just for homicides. They include all firearm related deaths. Suicides account for more than half the numbers I referenced, proving again that ease of use is a key component.

skylinefirepest 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I fear that we are, once again, at a stalemate on the gun issue. There is practically no way to restrict guns to criminals without restricting guns also to the law abiding...agree with that Jim? We go through a background check with law enforcement...if a potential criminal passes the background check then he or she can buy a gun. But you are still trying to put the onus on the law abiding, and I ain't buyin' it!! Why should I have to jump through a bunch of costly hoops just to satisfy a gun hater who doesn't really want anyone to have a gun in the first place? In the last half dozen pieces in the Pilot we have had quite a few snotty name calling comments from gun haters who don't know anything about firearms, don't want to know anything about firearms, and therefore will not do the slightest bit of real research even with easily obtainable facts and figures from our very own "anti-firearms" government. At issue in this last letter by Mr. Tate is the fact that had there been a few ( or ONE ) legal firearm in the theater there could easily have been a significantly lower victim count. That has been proven time and time again in terms of crimes prevented by just one legally owned firearm. Rarely reported in the liberal mass media however. And I've heard the predictable "never owned one, don't want to own one, and I'm still safe so my anti-gun attitude has proven itself to be reliable" comments from the peanut gallery. And we still have thousands upon thousands of laws and have they prevented a single crime? If our know all, see all government could just come up with the super law then we'd have no more crime, believe that? Every law ever written has been broken, right? Or is there a law that I've not heard of that everyone obeys?? At any rate I'll go back to my original premise...I'll bet you have fire insurance on your house, ever had a fire? Car insurance...ever wrecked your car? You have health insurance...ever had a serious illness? Life insurance...ever died?? ( Ok, I got a little carried away with that one. ) But what is your insurance against a home invader, or a mugger, or a rapist?? Call the cops? They might only be ten minutes away when you need them at the front door and...you do know that the police are not obligated to protect you anyway, right?? I keep firearms because I hunt, plink, collect, target shoot, AND for the protection of myself and my family...to put it bluntly I simply cannot understand the attitude of a husband or father who would not use every means at his disposal to protect his family from harm!! Your neighbor, the police, the state and federal governments are not at your disposal for your protection. Your protection is YOUR responsibility!

Comments No Longer Accepted