PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Culture, Not Guns, To Blame For Chaos

Posted: January 15, 2013 at 1:16 a.m.

The dreadful massacre at Sandy Hook has resulted in much posturing and debate about the gun rights aff orded every citizen so clearly in the Second Amendment. I urge the president to be very careful as he decides what measures to take in response. Do not awaken the sleeping giant.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 01/15/2013

The 2nd Amendment, Batman Shooting & High Fructose Corn Syrup

Posted by: Deep_Space

January 15, 2013 at 3:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Thursday, January 03, 2013

For the first time, most Americans are calling for tougher anti-gun laws. Even more are calling for stricter enforcement of the gun control laws already on the books.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of American Adults now support stricter gun control laws, the highest finding in over six years of tracking. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree and oppose tougher laws in this area.


Posted by: cdawg

January 15, 2013 at 7:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr. Baker says "The ever-darkening shadow of evil in our culture that fosters the existence of such men was unknown 200 years ago." He seems to imply that mental illness and criminal behavior did not exist in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
"In one of the most famous crimes of post-Revolution America, Barnett Davenport [committed in 1780] an awful mass murder in rural Connecticut. Caleb Mallory, his wife, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren were killed in their home by their boarder, Davenport.....Davenport's crime and its portrayal to the public caused people to perceive criminals as evil and alien to the rest of society. To some degree, this view has persisted through the years."

Posted by: Coralie

January 15, 2013 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I can't understand why any reasonable gun owner would get hysterical about requiring background checks for all gun buyers instead of only 60% of them--to make sure that known criminals and people with mental illness do not acquire guns.

Posted by: Coralie

January 15, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Define mental illness and how it would be detected.

Posted by: JailBird

January 15, 2013 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, right, that is a fuzzy area.
Most people who are mentally ill are no danger to anybody. Stats seem to show that a large minority of us have something that could be called mental illness at some point in our lives.
The filter would be only approximate, But surely Lanza, Loughner, and Holmes were noted by somebody somewhere, educational or medical authority, as having potentials for violence.

Posted by: Coralie

January 16, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "But surely Lanza, Loughner, and Holmes were noted by somebody somewhere, educational or medical authority, as having potentials for violence."
The mental health and treatment histories of the three indicate that there were concerns about all of them. In the case of Holmes, a lawsuit has been filed, citing the lack of response to the danger he allegedly presented.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 16, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun owner education modeled not too differently than currently required hunter's education is something I would like to see as a prerequisite to private gun ownership. Complete the checks while the individual is going through the course. Upon completion the person is educated to some degree and checked through big brother's books. Ok course, people would have to show I.D. for this just like they should have to do to vote.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 16, 2013 at 9:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

None of this is going to stop criminals that are set on getting guns and killing people though.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 16, 2013 at 9:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

One problem is dividing people into two classes, criminal and not-criminal. (Our old everything-is-divided-into-two habit.) Or, mentally-ill vs not-mentally ill.
What about some guy who gets fired from his job and snaps?
What about road rage, airplane rage, and whatever kinds of rage--a lot of people need a course in anger management.
What about somebody who hasn't been arrested before--who is not a career criminal? You're not a criminal until you commit a crime.
I understand that in many states it is legally permitted to carry guns into a drinking establishment, or even to carry while intoxicated.
Even a sane and trained person has impaired judgment when drinking.

Posted by: Coralie

January 17, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


There is not a class called simi-criminal or part time mentally-ill.

I don't have a rage problem I cause rages.

The best counterfeiter made bills so perfect the Treasury couldn't tell the difference and never did. Was that counterfeiter a criminal?

Oow, how would we word that law? Carrying a gun while Intoxicated. CGWI. I actually rather be shot at by in intoxicated person than one who is cold sober.

Drinking is not the problem, the amount of drinks consumed is.

If a drunk drives a car with a gun, could that be considered double-jeopardy?

Posted by: JailBird

January 17, 2013 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )