Among the deceased victims was a 6-year-old girl…
Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6, had gone to the movies with her mother, who was drifting in and out of consciousness in a hospital intensive care unit, bullets lodged in her throat and a gunshot wound to her abdomen.
“Nobody can tell her about it,” Annie Dalton said of her niece, Ashley Moser. “She is in critical condition, but all she’s asking about is her daughter.”
Veronica had just started swimming lessons on Tuesday, Dalton said.
“She was excited about life as she should be. She’s a 6-year-old girl,” her great aunt said.
I find it difficult to describe what I’m feeling about the shooting tragedy in Aurora. A mixture of rage and sadness, I think, comes closest to putting a label on it. That and a sense of resignation in knowing that whatever talk there might now be about greater gun control legislation, it won’t happen. Not today. Not tomorrow. Maybe, not ever.
Whatever lessons one could take from the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabrielle Giffords and now the Aurora shootings, they’re lost in a society where the majority believe that the right to own guns is more important than controlling who owns them and the type of guns they own.
No one is suggesting that greater gun control could stop every crazed individual from taking innocent lives. But then, no one suggests that seat belts are going to prevent every person involved in a serious car crash from being killed. It’s going to happen no matter what laws are in place. But would anyone then say that there should be no laws governing car ownership because, “cars don’t kill, people do“? Of course not.
Another 12 people are dead and a mother lies in a hospital bed crying out for her 6-year old daughter, unknown to her that the child is dead. The NRA can pat itself on the back in the knowledge that it has done its job well in promoting gun culture in America and lessening the possibility that smarter gun laws will ever be implemented.
___
Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.
they’re lost in a society where the majority believe that the right to own guns is more important than controlling who owns them and the type of guns they own.
John Liming Says: “It is definitely not the majority of Americans who believe this but it is the majority of some of the more extreme wing nuts from the far right and of the leaders of the billion-dollar gun industry, their lobbyists and the legislators they have bought off in one form or another.
I fear that we are now living in a society where the paranoid would rather make a buck than save a life.
john liming wrote: “It is definitely not the majority of Americans who believe this…”
John, it is the majority. From the Pew Research poll taken last April.
As I wrote, the NRA has done its job well.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if someone went in and shot up a CPAC or NRA convention or a teabagger rally; the gun nuts wouldn’t change their tune. Probably not; instead, they’d blame it on a lib’rul conspiracy incited by the President and the “Democrat Party”, not an “isolated incident”.
Whenever there’s a mass shooting like this, it seems like the targets are people perceived as liberals (Tucson, the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, Dr. George Tiller) or innocent bystanders (Virginia Tech, Columbine and dozens of others).
Representative Louis Gohmert Pyle opined that if other people in the theater had been packing, they could have shot Holmes and saved lives. In the example he gives, they guy who tried to save the day died. Furthermore, I think most rational people would say that the last thing we need in a panic-filled situation is a bunch of untrained people contributing to the crossfire. After all, a platoon of highly trained Secret Service agents couldn’t keep Hinckley from putting a bullet in a president in a sudden attack (besides, Holmes was dressed in head-to-toe body armor).
Gun nuts often justify their position from the notion of “home defense”, but unless one always has a gun at the ready, how could one defend from a sudden home invasion? The level of paranoia it takes to be armed at all times, prepared to shoot, even in one’s home, is crippling. It’s times like this that make me ashamed to be American.
Finally, does anyone but me find it odd that Republicans are in an absolute frenzy to combat voter fraud but not gun violence, when the latter occurs 60,000 times more often than the former?
For the record: yes, I do own a gun. It’s a .177 caliber pellet-shooting pistol powered by CO2 cartridges. I own it for the satisfaction I get from knowing that I am actually a crack shot and can hit a bullseye on an inanimate target at extreme range. I do not need assault rifles or semiautomatic handguns to verify my skill at hitting what I want to shoot.
John, it is the majority. From the Pew Research poll taken last April.
On gun control, 49% of Americans say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45% say it is more important to control gun ownership.
John Liming says: “I would say that I stand corrected if – - – if someone from Pew had asked me what I thought about the question. I am an American and no one from Pew asked me anyhting. So I guess the 49% who said what was said belonged to some other group than I do.
Incidentally I ran my own poll here where I live and guess what?
Interesting thing about polls and I do not know if it is true, but most likely: Pollsters call land lines, not cells – resulting in the numbers being tilted towards older Americans. That demographic leans towards being Republicans( self not included).
I believe that woman also lost her husband. I hope she has health insurance, or she is going to be victimized a second time.
I believe that woman also lost her husband. I hope she has health insurance, or she is going to be victimized a second time.
I hope the woman’s health insurance company doesn’t decide that whatever the problem is was a pre-existing condition.
I have no problem with someone owning a gun who is responsible and has been screened to some extent.
Still, just knowing how to use a gun does not mean that someone who owns a gun won’t do something like have a few drinks at a bar for example, and then lose their temper over jealousy or some other reason and then pull their gun and shoot someone.
It makes no sense to have decent gun control in some communities if we then allow Gun Shows to overstep gun control laws by selling guns to anyone who has the money.
@ fidlerten
Not sure where your gun show info comes from, but I have been to gun shows in MD and PA and the gun sales all follow the state and federal laws as to background checks.
Face to face sales of certain guns are allowed under state laws between private citizens. This can happen anywhere, at a gun show, parking lot, your home, doesn’t matter. Typically these sales are limited to long guns, hunting rifles, shotguns, antique or Curio and relic Military rifles, etc. I think most private sellers would use a background system to look up people to at least look for criminal history if it were made available.
@EA Blair you said ” I think most rational people would say that the last thing we need in a panic-filled situation is a bunch of untrained people contributing to the crossfire.”
I think most people would agree with that scenario as constructed.
Do you think it was a better situation to have James Holmes heavily armed and unopposed able to execute as many people as he had ammunition to do so with no resistance? How much worse could it have been to have someone shoot back at him? Worst case someone is shot by the armed person. Best case Holmes is shot and incapacitated or his equipment is damaged reducing his effectiveness. Next best is Holmes is forced to deal with return fire and maybe all it buys is a few seconds, but that’s a few seconds Holmes isn’t executing people and others could escape.
What would be an interesting poll is how many people in that theater wished THEY had a gun to oppose Holmes that night.
I did say “rational”. By your statement, I have no choice but to conclude that you are otherwise.
I’m not rational? You think the best situation was James Holmes killing 12 and injuring 58 with no one resisting or fighting back?
Explain how it could possibly have been worse for Jonathan Blunk, Alexander Boik, Jesse Childress, Gordon Cowden, Jessica Ghawi, John Larimer, Matt McQuinn, Micayla Medek, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6 Alex Sullivan, Alexander Teves, and Rebecca Wingo, and Ashley Moser
No, the best situation was James holmes not being able to buy 100-round clips and mass quantities of ammo without some sort of flags being raised. I weigh the victims’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness above the right of the shooter to buy an unlimited number of penis substitutes.
Mike,
I’m certain there were those who wished they had a gun at the time. I know I would have. I would have used those seats as best I could for protection or at least to hide and take off some shots, trying to get him where he’s not armed. I would pretend I was Bruce Willis and this was another sequel of Die Hard.
As far as gun shows, I think it might have to do with what states they’re held in. I’m not that familiar with the laws but my understanding is that at least some states, anyone can buy guns, without a background check.
The man was totally armored up, the theater was dark and innocent people were scurrying about to seek escape or protection. I don’t think a shoot out in the dark under those conditions would have been wise.
Gun show or no gun show, if a crook wants a gun the crook is going to get the gun because there is always some idiot willing to look the other way.
@john liming: not only that, but there is absolutely no justification for selling arms, ammunition or body armor over the internet or by mail order.