Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

Did Newtown change everything?

December 18, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

I've talked a lot about the massacre in Newtown with just about everyone I've had a conversation with since that horrible day. Our minds cannot escape the horror of it, so it's as though we are trying to exorcise it from our minds by affirming our mutual sorrow and rage over what evil has been done.

I've had more than one friend tell me they believe that it is like 9-11--an event that will "change everything." A part of the change they believe will take place is a conservative shift on guns and gun control. Perhaps they are right. As you can see in the video I've posted of Joe Scarborough, he passionately states that his views have changed on both the 2nd and the 1st Amendment (he appears to want action against violent video games and movies).

While I am sure that some games and movies (and TV) is harmful (especially for already disturbed minds), I am not so convinced their is a government solution. Netflix and Amazon could refuse to stream or distribute. Theaters could refuse to show the worst of the lot. There could certainly be some kind of limitation on what could be shown to minors. But I'm not sure how any of this would look from a legal perspective or what kind of mandate from Congress is expected.

As for guns, while people like Scarborough are passionate, what exactly are they advocating? Of course I'd like to make the nation safer. But "doing something" is not the same as "doing something that will actually make schools safer." Gun proponents point out overall violent crime going down SINCE the "assault weapons" ban was allowed to expire. Of course, there is no necessary cause-effect relationship there, but it may show that such a ban will not actually reduce violence. Should magazine clips be limited, and if so, by how much? Personally, I use a 3 round clip in my rife (or a 5 round clip), so a magazine restriction would not affect me. But would it do any good? Some say yes, but I think it's worth weighing all the evidence before assuming we have "done something" that would make schools and kids safer.

If I could bring back these children or save a future classroom from such evil I would gladly surrender all my guns. But I can't and I don't think it would make the nation safer if I did. So I'll keep on supporting the 2nd Amendment.

But might there be restrictions or ways in which we could improve safety and stop killers? I will also listen for how we could actually keep kids safer and stop monsters of this kind. But I will not aid in turning law-abiding people into criminals simply for appearances sake in the name of "doing something" if it doesn't actually stop killers and criminals.

What strikes me about the conversation on "solutions" so far is that instead of wanting to discuss it and hear what might actually work (and what choices might work better than others), media pundits and politicians seem more eager to "get something done" so that they can put the issue behind them.

 

UPDATE on Oregon shooting: When a madman is out to kill people, sometimes it's a guy with a gun who stops him.

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (12)


  • Add A Comment

  • messiah101 wrote...
    Boze
    December 18, 2012 1:34 pm
    The NRA spends about $300,000,000 of its members money as well as money from the gun makers to resist any changes in existing gun laws and I'm sure that a plea for more donations or higher membership costs will be made by the NRA to defend the status quo.Unless a organised well funded group who can agree on sensible changes to our gun laws comes forward then the NRA will win this battle.AS we all are aware of public support wanes with time.The Gun lobby are 100% dedicated and a tough (impossible?) nut to crack.A National Campaign needs to be undertaken to keep the memories of this massacre and others in the minds of the citizens of our country
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    Every "mass" shooting since 1950
    December 18, 2012 4:02 pm
    mass as described as three victims or more, with the exception of Gabby Gifford, was done in a gun free zone. Don't tell me that crazy criminals broke the law to shoot people! Why is it that the gun is the only inanimate object that is blamed for the act of a person? I don't see cars being blamed when a drunk uses it to kill on our roads.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    dsbab, let me start off by stating I own 3 guns
    December 18, 2012 4:44 pm
    But you can use the anaology of blaming a car when a drunk kills people. There is a huge difference. Guns and the ammo used are designed for one purpose, to kill. In the situation of a vehicle killing someone, it's due to missuse or negligence. A car was not designed to kill, in fact, design in put in to a car to try and prevent death. While I do not see the need for weapons designed for the military with the sole purpose in design being to kill as many people on the battlefield as quickly and efficiently as possible to be in the hands of the general public, I also do not believe that "gun free zones" or anything of that ilk do a bit of good. While I do believe that military styled assault weapons should not be available to the general public, the problem is that the ban on them should have never been lifted in the first place, at this point, I am not sure re-banning the sale of them does any good. I know violent crime has gone down since the ban was lifted, but I doubt that has much to do with anything. I fully support my 2nd amendment right, but I also realize that it was written at a time when arms consisted of black powder muskets shooting lead balls. The constituion was specifically designed so it could be tweaked. There does need to be intelligent conversation, steadfastly waving the 2nd imo is just as idiodic as those thinking that banning guns altogether gets us all to hold hands and sign kumbaya.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    I need an edit function
    December 18, 2012 4:45 pm
    The first sentence should read " you can't use the analogy"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dsbab wrote...
    Muskets?
    December 18, 2012 6:10 pm
    Hand set type and spoken word are the only speech rights covered. Muskets? What a silly argument. An inanimate object has no intent. Intent is human driven. Cars have been used as a weapon to kill, transport to and from a crime. 8000 gun deaths in 2011. 35,0000 vehicle deaths. Where is your outrage? Cars are not even a protected right. You say you own guns. You have never used them in any capacity other than to kill? I have never used them to kill and yet I enjoy collecting, tinkering, target shooting. And yes, I take comfort in knowing that if/when needed, I am not at the mercy of a 13 minute police response. You acknowledge the ban did nothing, in fact deaths went down after it expired, yet you want to ban them anyway? Not real logical or realistic. Crazy people do insane things. Like it or not, there is no law that would have prevented the tragic events. He broke 41 laws.Making it 42 would change nothing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Frogsplash wrote...
    A few answers for you
    December 18, 2012 10:09 pm
    First - Hand set type and spoken word. You must not have read when I said "the constitution was specifically designed so it could be tweaked". What exactly did you think I meant by that? I'll help you. In your context, it means the constitution can be examined in todays world to see if it covers radio, TV, the internet etc. Now, apply that same sentence to my "I also realize that it was written at a time when arms consisted of black powder muskets shooting lead balls" statement. As technology has advanced, you have to re-examine and interpret things, not do away with, but re-examine. That's all I said. I will give you that inanimate objects have no intent, but they most certainly do have a design function. A gun is designed, again, for one purpose, to kill. I never said a thing about intent. Can guns or cars be used for another purpose? Sure, but the design and purpose of the object remains the same. Target shooting, collecting, and tinkering do not change the design and purpose of the gun. Yes, I own 3 guns, 2 I purchased for hunting (a rifle and shotgun) and a pistol for if and when someone decides to break in to the house. The rifle is shot occasionally for sighting (non killing) and the pistol has only been fired so that I could get a feel for it for if and when the need arises. Even Dave acknowledges that violent crimes going down probably has little cause-effect relationship to the ban being lifted. I never said the should be re-instated, it's just my opinion that it should have never been lifted. Military style assault weapons are built to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. That's all I said, Want to dispute me on that? Give it your best shot. I said it's time to have intelligent discussion, and not at least discussing assault weapons just because you or I say they are covered under the 2nd amendment, isn't intelligent. Are hand held RPG's then covered as well? Why not? Lastly would some law have prevented the tragedy? Nope, unfortunately not. But, would things have been even a little different (but not any less tragic) had he not had an assault rifle with a 30 round clip? Could it be that a few extra lives might have been not lost had this type of weapon not been available to him? What's wrong with having that discussion?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    False
    December 18, 2012 6:47 pm
    The one in Portland (which was an attempted mass shooting) was not in a gun free zone.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    And I Can Name a few Others
    December 18, 2012 7:08 pm
    McDOnalds, California. Luby's, Killen Texas, and George Banks in Pa. There's more too. You are just regurgitating stuff the right is putting out that IS NOT TRUE.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    The rights of Americans to own and use legal firearms are not in question here.
    December 18, 2012 9:11 pm
    Despite all attempts by the Left in this nation to make it so. It is the question of should a known mentally ill person be allowed free access to cars, explosives, firearms? Americans owning legal firearms killed NO ONE that day of the massacre. A unhinged person full of evil did so. There is a bid difference.

    As for all the left wing media and it's hype of how "The climate has changed" is simply that. Hype. There is no backlash against our Second amendment. No more than usual. The backlash is from us Americans who understand that guns are not killing people. How could this even be? A gun, like a car, is an inanimate object. A car will not start itself and drive down the road any more than a gun will load itself and begin shooting. This "Gun Control" argument is old and worn out. The American left in our nation has wanted all guns banned for decades. Why? Only the left knows. They fear armed Americans just as much as Hitler, Stalin, or Akmed in Iran does.

    If your Dear Leader Obama ever were able to abolish the Second amendment, you Useful idiots here would look to him and this regime as a deity that you can control. Actually it is your beloved regime controlling you Parrots!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    A Gun and Magazines are amoral.
    December 18, 2012 10:56 pm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorality
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }