Clareified

Where does the good go

17 WITH A BULLET


17 WITH A BULLET

My cousin Derek was easy to explain.
A street hustling thug, he was the first person to offer me pot and stick his tongue out at me in that nasty suggestive way no one should ever aim at an eight-year-old girl. So when he was shot to death by cops while attempting to getaway in one of the police cars that arrived at the scene of his last burglary, no one, except his grandmother was surprised.
Reynoldo was much harder.
Four years older than I was, my mom would pay him five dollars to take me to dance classes during the school week and pick me up at the end of an hour. During the winter, we’d usually use the cash to buy candy before heading to our aunt’s house to play Atari. Reynaldo ran track and his mom’s mantle was covered with all trophies from his high school meets and summer track competitions. Two months before his high school graduation he was killed by a stray bullet while dancing at a local nightclub.
He was seventeen.
His killer, nineteen at the time, will be released from prison today, having served 2/3 of his sentence – seventeen years.
Reynaldo’s entire lifetime.
Having already been held hostage at gunpoint when I was a kid, it didn’t take the deaths of my cousins to turn me off guns. Any arguments to convince me that gun ownership should not only be a constitutional right, it should be mandatory, would be as successful as…well, convincing a Chernobyl victim of the virtues of nuclear power.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Sadly, it seems that having one’s family “touched by a bullet” is the most persuasive argument against the lunacy of the right wing gun nuts.
Just ask former Republican Carolyn Maloney.
It amazes me, though, that until the death of her husband and paralysis of her son, she didn’t see how an automatic weapon in the hands of a lunatic might be a bad thing.
In the face of a high school shooting, a courthouse massacre and a church service killing spree, all within a ten-day period, how delusional does one have to be to continue to oppose firearm control?
Last month I toured the Tampa jail system. The complex houses the accused murderers, arsonists, rapists and burglars in Florida’s second largest county. Basically, the worst of the worst Tampa has to offer. Allegedly.
But there was one thing very conspicuously missing.
“Excuse me, warden?”
“Yes.”
“Um…why aren’t the officers armed?”
He laughed at the question.
“Miss, this is no place for guns. Can you imagine?”
Yes, I can.
But unfortunately, I don’t have to.

14 Responses to “17 WITH A BULLET”

  1. Karol Says:

    So, if both of your cousins were killed in car accidents, one because he drove recklessly and one because of a drunk-driver, you’d be completely against cars, right?

    Your prison example isn’t a good one because the pro-gun position is that criminals will always have weapons, why shouldn’t the law-abiding citizens? In the case of the prison, the criminals don’t have weapons and are heavily controlled.

  2. Dawn Summers Says:

    And now imagine if law-abiding citizens didn’t have guns and weapons were heavily controlled.

    And yes, if I was held at fender point during a car hold up of a store, yes I would be against cars.

    Doof.

  3. Karol Says:

    And now imagine if law-abiding citizens didn’t have guns and weapons were heavily controlled.

    ….then only criminals would have guns?

    And yes, if I was held at fender point during a car hold up of a store, yes I would be against cars.

    Say you were carjacked, or kidnapped in a car. Ban cars?

    You’re blaming an inanimate object for something you should be blaming humans.

  4. cube Says:

    “It amazes me, though, that until the death of her husband and paralysis of her son, she didnÂ’t see how an automatic weapon in the hands of a lunatic might be a bad thing.”

    Automatic weapons (or machine guns) have been regualted since the 1930′s.

    since 1986 it has been illeage to purchase a brand new one, but all the old ones were grandfathered in.

    If you have the money, you can still purchase an automatic weapon.

    All other guns (hand guns (glocks, revolvers), rifles, shotguns, assult weapons are SEMI automatic.

    Semi automatic means when i pull the trigger ONE bullet is fired until ammo is gone or until a malfunction is triggered. A derrigner is semi-automatic.

  5. Jake Says:

    Both the UK and Australia put in gun control in the 90s and both have seen gun violence increase. France has had gun control for decades and there is more violent theft in France than there is in US.

    There are two reasons for this:

    1. Bad guys don’t obey laws not even gun control laws.
    2. Bad guys know they have nothing to fear from their prospective victims.

    All those gun incidents you mentioned would have occurred if gun control were in place. The lawlessness of the guy who shot a gun in a nightclub is the same lawlessness that would have made him obtain an illegal gun.

  6. cube Says:

    “In the face of a high school shooting, a courthouse massacre and a church service killing spree, all within a ten-day period, how delusional does one have to be to continue to oppose firearm control?”

    You sure have picked poor examples to justify you case.

    high school shooting –
    the kid got the guns from his grandfather, a police officer.

    (I am not sure which one you are reffering to so i will hit both of them)
    a courthouse massacre in GA- A old lady cop was beaten down and killed by a convict that commone sense would have told you that she was not able to gaurd. The convit took her gun and killed people. If you would investigate why they old lady was gaurding a convict, i bet you will find dicrimation laws at the heart of it.

    a courthouse massacra in TX – they gunman was slowed by a civillian with a gun. that civillian was eventually killed and probably saved one of the people the man was trying to kill

    church service killing spree – If people in the church were carring guns, that gunman would have not killed as many people. By the way, i do not think that state has CCW licenses.

    If you want just as many stories for the use of guns defensivly, here is a website.
    http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

    It is fine if you want to support gun control, but do it using numbers and facts, not poor examples or emotional arugments.

  7. PAUL Says:

    But emotional arguments make such better reading than boring old facts and figures.
    And Dawns a great writer.

  8. Stacy Says:

    I feel the emotion in this post, but have to agree with the first couple comments. You sound as though, if you burned your hand with a match, you’d want to ban matches. That’s sort of giving up part of the reasoning ability that distinguishes you from, say, a cat which as the saying goes, will never sit on a hot stove again–or a cold one.

  9. Dawn Summers Says:

    Except that matches aren’t designed to burn hands — if a match burns a hand something has gone wrong. Same with car accidents. However, if a gun kills a person, well, ecellent because that is what they are designed to do.

  10. cube Says:

    “Same with car accidents. However, if a gun kills a person, well, ecellent because that is what they are designed to do.”

    Yep and that is why I am for guns. They kill better than anything else man has devised. And I want to use that ablity to protect my life and my family.

    You liberals rasie the specte of death like it is somthing to be afriad of…if that is the case, why can’t i protect my life with the most effective tools available.

    Basic logic goes.

    Point One:I have a right to pusure life, liberty, and happyness.

    Corrallary to point one: I also have a right to protect those goods (particually life)

    If i have a right to protect my life, then why deny me the most effective means of protecting my own life.

  11. Dawn Summers Says:

    because it’s more than likely that your effective means of protecting yourself will be someone else’s even more effective means of killing you. Either intentionally or accidentally.

  12. cube Says:

    not true…again.

    Are guns used more in defensive uses are in criminal pursuits? Stats show that guns are used for defensive purposes much more than criminal purposes. Look up the data yourself.

    Secondly in the relam of gun stats accidential deaths from gun do not even fall on the map (some where around less than a 1000 a year, and the cases happen more to adults more than children – which seeing how their are more than 300 million guns in the US that is a very nice accident rate).

    also please do not use the kellermann study ever again (though you might have not realized you were qouting it you were), i have addressed that issue here.

    http://sandcastlesandcubicles.blogspot.com/2004/11/trying-to-make-convert-iii.html

  13. cube Says:

    the only card left in you box of liberal logic that i can think of would be that more guns causes more crime.

    That is not true either, just track the number of guns in america versus the crime rate for the last 20 years.

    Please do not bring up sucide, it was covered before in my earlier link.

    Do you know that early gun control started in the south and was to prevent blacks from owning guns…it is odd that modern gun control has the same effect.

    btw…if you are in memphis and want to go shooting, i would be glad to take you.

  14. Clareified » Blog Archive » Happiness is a warm gun Says:

    [...] to get a gun and he goes “Five days…? But I’m mad now!” HAHAHAHAHA.) I’ve blogged about my distaste for guns before. It’s kind of a sad post, and I’m glad I didn’t read before today…or I might not have gone [...]

Leave a Reply