Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, April 13, 2013

Vigil held to promote gun control

April 13, 2013

Advertisement

A dozen local residents with the group Organizing for Action held a candlelight vigil for the victims of gun violence Saturday evening in front of Lawrence City Hall, 6 E. Sixth St.

Vigil organizer Jan Pool said the group hopes to bring attention to gun violence in America and the need for tougher gun control.

Group members discussed violence, sang and related personal experiences during the demonstration.

According to its website, Organizing for Action is ”a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012.”

Comments

citizen1 1 year ago

The current tragedy, at the Boston Marathon, makes one wonder why we think all this talk about gun control really means anything. This tragic incident dramatizes to us that the government, at any level, or laws of any kind, can not protect us in any situation if some crazed person(s) wants to commit a horrific act using any means. Don't we already have laws against killing and bodily injury to others including guns, bombs, etc.? All such laws just reduce our freedoms. They only lead to punishment of the perpetrator, if they are caught, but they do not stop the explicit act!

The only actions we can reasonably take are personal defense. An analogy is driving, the best we can do to prevent an auto accident is to drive defensively. Even with that we can not fully protect ourselves against a careless driver.

That said, I like my chances when I am acting defensively regardless of the threats surrounding me.

What we can expect here is the police and the Feds will respond and make a big show, investigations will follow, but basically nothing they did or do will have protected the innocent people killed and hurt as a result of this tragedy.

Cynically I say the next thing that will be happening will be our President will go on TV and expound on the tragedy, offer empathy, and I predict over time he will use it to promote another law costing us our freedom in some way, all under the auspices of making us safer.. And as this incident shows that new law will prevent nothing, will not make us safer, but it will cause a further erosion of our freedoms.

As John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Meaning if this countries citizens & elected people are not of a sound moral character, and behave accordingly, no law will protect us.

Our Constitution does not guarantee our safety! Our Constitution guarantees our freedom! Beware of those who come calling for a "loss of our freedoms in order to protect/make us safer"!

May God help those who suffered and died in this tragedy and their families.

1

lwctown 1 year ago

If they wanted to do something that might actually help people they should hold a vigil for mental health care.

0

verity 1 year ago

All the arguments have been made many times, so I have only this to say.

The posts of many of the extreme anti-gun control people do give one pause. Everyone seems to think they are perfectly trained and could bring down the sniper, they could/would never make a mistake and shoot an innocent person and no one could ever steal their arms. The very arrogance and the fact that so many gun owners do make mistakes does not give me cause to trust you, in fact quite the opposite.

Wayne LaPierre comes across as a crazy person and those who parrot him do the same.

0

Ronda Miller 1 year ago

Good discussion everyone. That's generally the first step towards reaching an agreement.

Fred_mertz, I don't know that we are coming from opposing sides. When I said I don't want to take your guns, I wasn't referring to all guns. And it was my personal statement. Truly there are people on far left and right sides. It isn't about an all or nothing in my mind. Just sensible restrictions, laws, health care for AlL, preventative measures, societal awareness and responsibility.

Reality_check, I agree that registered gun owners are not responsible for committing most crimes - it, registration, helps make people more accountable. That stat may change once all gun owners are registered. Registration isn't the end but a beginning. It also helps track a stolen or gift gun...to assist in finding criminals.

Larry, I disagree that this issue has come to the front in response to the ill person who committed the mass murders in Sandyhook. I think it's more about honoring lives of tiny bodies riddled with bullets. People have been fighting for these same changes for many years - our children being shot down has sickened a nation.

And, Larry, I grew up on a farm in NW Kansas. My grandfather didn't have a semi or automatic weapon. He shot coyotes for a couple of bucks for their ears, sometimes a rattlesnake, although my grandmother could use a mean hoe, and sometimes he put an injured animal - wild or tame - out if its misery.

I've shot guns for decades, am a former PD and enjoy target practice whenever I get the chance.

0

hitme 1 year ago

Here's your 21-gun salute...which Obama will understandably request not to have at his funeral

0

cheeseburger 1 year ago

Given the recent incident in Texas, will the group also be protesting knives?

0

kernal 1 year ago

The shooting at the NRA 500 NASCAR race today...

0

Gotland 1 year ago

Stalin, Mao, and Hitler thought the public was unfit to own guns too. These usefull idiots are in good company.

1

IKU57 1 year ago

Can you vigil this?

0

Nikonman 1 year ago

Actually I think Ronda Miller put up a very well written post and makes good points. Mental health is the key here. Not being an attorney, I would have to guess tha the problem with bringing mental health records into the background checks is the Medical Privacy Act. How do you get around that? Have you noticed in the past few years how many "privacy" forms you have to fill out at the hospital, pharmacy and doctor's office? You also no longer (or rarely) see condition updates in the paper after a terrible accident. A hospital spokesperson will only say he or she is still in the hospital. Mental health is an especially sensitive issue and there are probably lots of fine people undergoing counseling or treatment that pose no threat to anyone. If mental health records are part of the bacground check, who else has access to the information? Employers, Teachers, the gun store?

1

catfishturkeyhunter 1 year ago

I think I might throw up after reading that article.

0

IKU57 1 year ago

Check out the first episode of Vice on HBO. You'll get a good look at how gun control works in the Philippines.

I might note, it was guns and the European descendants that violently gave you the protected safe country you live now. Check out how non European descendants treat their children in Afghanistan.

http://www.hbo.com/vice?cmpid=ABC1361

0

Centerville 1 year ago

Citizen, timely that you should mention Gosnell - sorry that anyone who relies on the LJW for mass murder news knows nothing of this. As someone said "If he'd killed those children with a rifle, it would be front page everywhere." I think death count is somewhere around 900 X Sandy Hook - and he didn't even get a party at Cedar Crest.

0

swampyankee 1 year ago

should ban lead and gun powder too

0

citizen1 1 year ago

I find the gun control debate very confusing morally. On the one hand we have the tragic killings in Connecticut which inspired the current clamor to restrict access to guns or just gun control in general. Proponents say: it is only back ground checks who should argue with that?

Yet we have the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell from Philadelphia where police found what a grand jury report called a “baby charnel house” where illegal and late term abortions were performed under dangerous conditions. There is no public outcry against this situation. Since Roe V Wade approximately 53 million children have been aborted, some under the conditions mentioned above, yet no out cry.

There is no public outcry to restrict the scalpels, or other devices, or medications that cause these deaths and dangerous conditions for women. Not to mention the innocent lives that are taken some of which occur after birth.

Guns are legal and even encoded in our constitution; scalpels, & medications are also legal...Where is the balance?

If a bomb is set off that killed 53 million people all at once we would be going to war. Yet because we abort our children in clinics and charnel houses a few at a time we ignore this atrocity. We justify it because the Supreme Court said the citizens of the USA have a "Right to Privacy". Did the Supreme Court say we had a right to abort 1/6th the population of the USA?

So before anyone goes and expounds poetically about gun registration or any other method of gun access/control, ask ourselves "Where are our priorities really"? Can we really justify gun control without controlling the means, methods, conditions & reasons that facilitate abortions?

I do not support the needless taking of life under any circumstances, but given our current debate, are guns worse than abortions? Where is the moral balance in this complex situation?

0

BlackVelvet 1 year ago

It would seem to me that if banning certain types of guns would result in less crime, then why not just BAN CRIME?? Wouldn't that be easier??

1

EMR 1 year ago

Gun Control: When you hit what you were aiming at.

2

Prairielander 1 year ago

Uh-oh. Twelve people want tougher gun laws. I better run out quick and buy some more guns.

1

reality_check79 1 year ago

Houston had 207 murders in 2012... Chicago had nearly 3x that.... Conclusion is obvious, cold weather causes murders... Gun owners don't promote violence

1

jayhawklawrence 1 year ago

See how how quickly the conversation moves from background checks to confiscating guns.

You cannot trust these people.

3

jjt 1 year ago

Assault weapons by their very nature are what they are called, weapons for assault. I do not see a problem with shotguns riffles pistols etc for recreation. Thus if one owns an assault weapon one would surely own it with the intention of assaulting someone at some point which would be illegal, thus why would one worry about a ban on them? Or what about the folk who want to own a machine gun for their own protection this would be a Defense weapon.
Now clearly as we all know there is a vast difference between an assault weapon and a defense weapon. Just because they look the same, weigh the same, take the same rounds, work the same, does not mean they are the same.

0

tomatogrower 1 year ago

Is there any NRA member out there that is willing to support confiscating guns when a person exhibits scary behavior? For instance the guy who killed the bus driver and kidnapped the little boy had several complaints against him. What if when the first complaint came in the police had a right to temporarily confiscate his guns until he was cleared mentally? Yes, he could have gone out and bought some guns illegally, but he would have been distracted for awhile, and might not have used his legally owned guns to kill an innocent bus driver. Surely there were people who questioned a mother teaching her son, who appeared to be anti-social, to shoot. Even if they had made a complaint, there was nothing anyone could do to confiscate the guns. And how many of you out there would have ever said anything anyway. I mean crazy people should own guns too, it's their right. Isn't that what the NRA stands for?

4

Centerville 1 year ago

SouthWestKs: thank you for bringing a fact into the discussion. Even though it does kind of take the edge off the righteous indignation high. If you want to continue, please explain 'automatic' weapons. Then, 'assault' weapons. My favorite politician this week is that doofus in Colorado whose claim to fame is her advocacy for gun magazines that hold fewer bullets. She (and her staff, it turns out) think that bullets come pre-packaged in magazines and that the magazine is discarded after the bullets are shot. Oh, and she's a Democrat congresswoman...who specializes in trying to dictate legislation about magazines.

1

Steven Gaudreau 1 year ago

Ronda, this cry for gun control is in response to the mass murders committed by mentally ill individuals and nothing more. Gun haters have rallied around these mass killings, not a women shooting her husband for cheating. I also believe you know very little about guns. Have you shot a semi auto pistol? Skilled shooters use a six shooter. 99% of the population popping off a semi auto pistol as fast as they could shoot would miss a basketball 10 ft away with every shot except maybe the first one. With a six shooter, they would hit the target 50% of the time.
Pass all the laws you want, it will change nothing.

2

SouthWestKs 1 year ago

Lets put the online gun sales questin to bed. If you buy a gun online the people that are selling it will need to know a gun dealer that is close to where you live so that he can send the gun to that dealer. The dealer in question may not do that type of sale. You then have to find another dealer. Once you have a dealer, the seller will ship the gun to your dealer. You then have to go in and fill out a ATF&E 4473 form for the dealer so that he can run a background check on you. If you pass and pay the dealer his fee for handling the sale you will get your gun. If you fail the background check, you are most likely now a felon that is subject to arrest. So where is the loophole for online sales in the backgroung check law?

2

Ronda Miller 1 year ago

Fred, I agree with your suggestion - then again that check shouldn't be just for people with health issues but former criminals too. Most of the murderers won't be stopped via checks though. That doesn't mean we should've stop those we can. And I absolutely agree we need health care for all - not only those with brain (it's an organ folks!) problems but fit ALL.

There are mental health vigils. Get out more!

Larry, honestly I do find it odd that the stats are low in deeming that people with brain dysfunction (it's an organ, folks), commit few of the homocides, read them for yourself, because I think anyone who kills anything has got something wrong going on. I appreciate their are so called crimes of passion - aren't these also referred to as temporary insanity?

Gun control, back ground checks, better health care for ALL, no semi automatic weapons, social conscious are all factors. it. with so many issues. isn't as clearly defined as some would have it.

0

ChuckFInster 1 year ago

I would like to see this group hold a spoon control vigil. Obesity in our society kills many more then guns. Ban spoons, they make you fat.

6

toe 1 year ago

Stalin would have been proud of them.

2

poolside 1 year ago

Controlling violence by guns is vastly different than controlling guns. And mental health is a piece of it. But only a piece. So is the culture of power and hate. I believe the "two sides' can come together and make this country safe. But it starts by coming together. Last night, Republicans and Democrats did just that.

3

Steven Gaudreau 1 year ago

Do all of the Gun Control Nuts believe that a rational person commits mass murder? How's about a Mental Health Awareness Vigil? Pass as many gun laws as you want, until this country addresses mental health, no gun law will prevent these horrible events from taking place.
It is such a waste of time when polarizing opinions divide the country and nothing actually happens. Who is going to protest mental health care? Who is going to protest school's doing psych evaluaitons since some parents live in denial? Is it really that hard to see past your gun control opinion to see the issue behind the gun is mental illness? It baffles me that an eduacted person can not see the issue is mental illness is the problem, not the method of murder used by the sick individuals.

3

Ronda Miller 1 year ago

The real losers are the people killed each year due to gun violence, the additional sixty plus thousand who are wounded by gun violence, and the thousands upon thousands of parents, brothers and sisters, friends, children left to attempt to go on with their lives.

For those of you who were not among the dozen of us there last night, there is a difference between gun control and gun violence. We aren't trying to take anything from you, we're trying to give you something back. The ability to go to a movie or out to dinner without having to make an exit plan should a shooter with an automatic or semi automatic weapon appear.

And for clarity - there were at least a couple of republicans present last night. Caring about America the Insane's future is a bipartisan effort.

Additional clarity, very few people with brain illness commit murder. Are there statistics about how many people with high blood pressure or diabetes commit murder? We need to stop grouping people by political party and illness for starts. Once we begin to do that, maybe all violence will dwindle.

6

weiser 1 year ago

So, the laws don't apply to visitors of Chicago? They should make a law against that.

0

IKU57 1 year ago

How is control working in Australia?

           You know...Instead of banning guns from everyone.  People in government should only ban guns from the types of people that use them on other innocent  people.  The problem is, certain types of people closed down government  hospitals that were used to monitor people that use guns on innocent people.

It sounds like a vicious cycle. It's like the inmates, are in charge of the government hospital meant to monitor them.

3

weiser 1 year ago

Obama's Chicago has some of the most gun "laws" and also gun crimes in the nation. So yes, we should make more laws.

1

Curveball 1 year ago

Did they have any "Gun Free Zone" signs to protect them?

3

Commenting has been disabled for this item.