Robb Elementary Shooting: America's Hands Are Full of Blood
By: David Frum (The Atlantic)
Amid our pain and grief, we must face a bitter truth.
By David Frum
The scene at Robb Elementary School, Tuesday, May 24, 2022, in Uvalde, Texas (Dario Lopez-Mills / AP) May 24, 2022, 6 PM ETShare
About the author: David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thoughts and prayers. It began as a cliche. It became a joke. It has putrefied into a national shame.
If tonight, Americans do turn heavenward in pain and grief for the lost children of Uvalde, Texas, they may hear the answer delivered in the Bible through the words of Isaiah:
"And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood."
We will learn more about the 18-year-old killer of elementary-school children: his personality, his ideology, whatever confection of hate and cruelty drove him to his horrible crime. But we already know the answer to one question: Who put the weapon of mass murder into his hand? The answer to that question is that the public policy of this country armed him.
Read: What I saw treating the victims from Parkland should change the debate on guns
Every other democracy makes some considerable effort to keep guns away from dangerous people, and dangerous people away from guns. For many years—and especially since the massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School almost a decade ago—the United States has put more and more guns into more and more hands: 120 guns per 100 people in this country. The years of the pandemic have been the years of the greatest gun sales in U.S. history: almost 20 million guns sold in 2020; another 18.5 million sold in 2021. No surprise, those two years also witnessed a surge in gun violence: the spectacular human butchery of our recurring mass slaughters; the surge of one-on-one lethal criminality; the unceasing tragic toll of carelessness as American gun owners hurt and kill their loved ones and themselves.
Most of us are appalled. But not enough of us are sufficiently appalled to cast our votes to halt it. And those to whom Americans entrust political power, at the state and federal levels, seem determined to make things worse and bloodier. In the next few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver its opinion in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen , a decision that could strike down concealed-carry bans even in the few states that still have them. More guns, more places, fewer checks, fewer protections: Since Sandy Hook, this country has plunged backward and downward toward barbarism.
Read: What it's like to go back to school after a shooting
In his memoir of his career in the gun trade, the former gun-industry executive Ryan Busse writes of the effect of mass shootings on gun sales. They are, to put it bluntly, good for business. People think that perhaps the authorities might do something, and race to the gun stores to buy weapons before the "something" happens. The gun in the gunman's hand multiplies to more guns in more hands. Most of those hands do not mean to inflict harm. But the harm follows, even so.
In this magazine five years ago, I wrote a parable:
A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain.
At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.
After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won't work. "No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers—and oh by the way, you said 'stilts' when the proper term is 'piles,' so why should anybody listen to you?"
So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.
Since then, of course, things have only gotten worse. Can it be different this time? Whether any particular killer proves to be a racist, a jihadist, a sexually frustrated incel, or a randomly malignant carrier of sorrow and grief, can Americans ever break the pattern of empty thoughts, meaningless prayers, and more and worse bloodshed to follow?
The lobbying groups and politicians who enable these killers will dominate the federal courts and state governments, as they do today, until the mighty forces of decency and kindness in American life say to the enablers:
"That's enough! This must stop—and we will stop you."
Ammo 101: History of the Bullet — Bullet Art (downtownartwalk.com)
==============================================================
The Founding Fathers did not know what a modern bullet was. The bullet was not developed until 1830, 40 years after the writing of the second amendment. The truth is there is no evidence whatsoever that the Founding Fathers would approve of what has happened in America vis a vis the proliferation of guns, and bullets , that take their toll with deadly speed and accuracy.
The conclusion that everyone in America has a "right" to be armed to the teeth is a totally arbitrary one, the so called sacred right to own guns was affirmed by one Supreme Court vote in the famous Heller decision. It was affirmed, not on the basis of obvious Founders intent, but simply because there was one more conservative than liberal on the Supreme Court in 2007.
Question: Why don’t we enforce existing laws before demanding new ones?
I made pretty much the same point on the other article and have yet to get an answer.
According to the article , there are 120 guns in America for every 100 people. Do you sincerely believe this is a good idea? Do you seriously believe that the Founding Fathers would have thought this is a good idea?
Confront your own disingenuous belief system before you talk about "existing laws".
I am keeping that number up
yeah, I'm just a piker at this... But I'm executor for a friend who passed last year. His wife is still with us... Last month we finished cataloging his guns (info is with another friend to find out approx market value so that she can decide what she wants to do) and if 15 guns is considered an arsenal then he had several... LOL (and some really nice ones too, waiting for the valuation as I wouldn't mind putting a bid in on one or two of them).
Your usual casting of blame while denying you're part of the problem.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/05/24/biden-turns-texas-horror-into-a-partisan-screed-n2607761?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2
The Great Uniter he's not
According to Townhall?
No, according to me.
Biden promised repeatedly during the campaign that he would unite the country and that he would work to bring the two partisan sides together. And all I've seen him do for the past year is continue the partisan rhetoric and deepen the divide. He's not even done anything to bring in Independents to him based on polling.
I noticed that and I guess I mistakenly chalked it up to a coffee break.
According to bullshit you mean.
No one can unite with MAGA. All of you, denounce Trumpism, by name, and then we can discuss "unity". You dont want to denounce MAGA and Trumpism, then we can have "war."
And that seems to be the problem from the left in that someone else needs to make the first move because you are all pure of heart and narrow of purpose...
Problem is the right remembers the times they did make the first move (immgration when it was promised later movement on dreamers) and the left then did nothing once they got what they wanted.
You also seem to ignore that I've already moved away from Trump, do not want him to run again. Yet you continue to lump me in with that movement. You ignore what is in front of you and rely only on your "feelings"... It's almost impossible to have any discussion with you because you ignore anything that is not deeply in your echo chamber.
Because enforcing existing laws only affects the law abiding citizens. It does absolutely NOTHING for the criminal element that carries out acts like this.
Demanding new laws is a pathetic knee jerk reaction that does nothing to resolve the actual problem.
I dunno. That's a fair question. I'm not sure what you would do about it.
By these numbers, that's about 400 million guns in circulation. You can't just legislate away 400 million of anything (except dollars).
Statistically, there is real difficulty making the argument that the number of guns is the problem. In 2020, there were roughly 45,000 gun deaths in the US. Fewer than 20,000 of those were homicides (the majority of gun deaths are suicide). So fewer than 1 in 20,000 firearms is used in a homicide.
We have more car crash deaths per automobile than we do deaths per firearm.
Actually, probably yes, but guns were an integral part of their everyday lives, and "rapid-fire" was 3 rounds/minute, so I'm not sure it's a valid comparison.
Meh. I think demanding new gun restrictions is a knee jerk, yeah.
At some point, we're going to at least need to have the conversation about early identification of homicidal maniacs.
Less common sense and more emotion if you want to fit in here friend.
That is the part everybody is running away from. It's so much easier to place blame on an inanimate object than it is to deal with an actual person who is going through something.
2 reasons that I can think of.
1. If the conversation goes to enforce existing laws people may want to know why the laws are not being enforced now. If that question is asked they may find the reasons they are not being enforced is because of the same people that are screaming for new laws.
2. Feigning outrage for the camera looks alot better if you say ""more laws" and not "enforce laws". It also gives the clowns on the left the opportunity to tell Americans that Republicans hate people and want them all to be shot.
3.)
More gun deaths are just part of an “incredible transition” to more gun confiscation.
Just when you think Joe can't say anything dumber he goes and says that. What I want to know is did his handlers have him say that thinking it was a good idea to tell people to enjoy their pain and maybe (God willing) things will be better hopefully before they get to the point they can't pay for their bills or if Joe made that one up without any help.
His handlers are the ones completely out of touch.
Joe is just addled.
The only hands that are bloody here are the ones who ignored the plethora of red flags in this kids front yard.
Bloody as hell ......
I agree.
Attempts to politicize it be damned!
To quote someone famous: ‘So hard to think ... about anything else’
Did Trump cancel his appearance at the NRA event in Houston this weekend?
Why should he? How many guns do you own?
i have no need or use for a gun
I don't know. My life doesn't revolve around what Trump is saying & doing on a daily basis.
You would if you lived in the Riverdale section of the city.
Really? Your fervent and frankly bizarre defenses of Trump increase here on an almost daily basis.
Your 'articles' prove otherwise.
As do your fervent and frankly bizarre obsession with every breath he takes on an almost daily basis...........for the last 7 years.
What did you do, google the section of Chicago with the highest percentage of blacks ?
Actually It's an area of very high crime in what sadly passes for Chicago.
Gee John, Do you remember when they thought the M&M murders were a disgrace. Look at the place now!
Since 2017 you've smeared the man. He was a great President. On the other hand, it is you that have defended the disastrous policies of clueless Joe Biden.
The truth is not a smear. He was not a great 'president'. The only thing he is, is a great big pile of shit.
Given your infatuation with the man, you tell us.
Well, you know the Democrat mantra:
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Shameful.
So in your mind that means no one else should want one either eh?
Classic tyrannical thinking and a huge reason why we have a constitution and bill of rights
As I said, there is no reason, at all, to think that the Founding Fathers would approve of gun rights in the context of the damage guns have done to America. They had ZERO knowledge of what the future of guns would bring. They didnt even know what a bullet was.
We have more than one gun each for every man woman and child alive in America today. Why? Because there was one more conservative on the Supreme Court than liberals in 2007 when Heller was decided. Period.
Opinions on that do vary ...... greatly.
Your understanding of law abiding, legal gun ownership in the US is sophomoric at best.
The Puckle Gun, was patented in 1718. It was an early automatic weapon fitted with a multi-shot revolving cylinder, and it was mounted on a tripod. Instead of firing 3 rounds per minute (musket), it fired nine rounds per minute and was the world’s first machine gun.
You are not [deleted] addressing what I said, so you deflect.
Who knows or cares? They gave us a tool to amend the Constitution and change it should the people of the future want to.
Do you think the founders would approve of the President's son committing a felony while purchasing a gun and subsequently have his girlfriend dump the gun next to a school all without legal consequence? Sounds like something that would have happened in a corrupt monarchy, doesn't it?
Yet the Second Amendment was open enough to allow for growth and technological advancement so the Founding Fathers had some insight. And they did know what a bullet wa, they just had no technical experience to understand what a bullet is today.
So? Why do you want to control what people can buy? There are an estimated 15 million AR-15 rifles privately owned in the US, and I don't know how many more similar type rifles. If the large numbers of these types of rifles were truly a problem then we would be seeing 10's of thousands of gun deaths daily. We don't because most are held by legal law abiding people. Let's do the harder job of identifying those who should not possess a gun and we will see much better results.
If it was just a case of numbers, well there are approx 140 million households in the US and an estimated 385 million TV sets.
According to a site I looked at that glorifies ammo, the bullet was invented in 1830.
The comprehension issue and deflection are not mine but yours John. All day long .....
That is simply an unproven opinion.
Or the Arizona/Mexico border where I live.
Any more of an unproven opinion than yours?
Do you also argue that the First Amendment doesn't protect modern forms of communications?
I havent greenlighted the proliferation of guns in America.
modern forms of communication arent what is protected, speech is.
Do you think the Founding Fathers would approve of what guns have done to America (tens of thousands of gun deaths every year)? Its a simple question.
Speech on modern forms is protected, not just printed press or quill penned speech.
Of course not.
Yes, simple and irrelevant.
Don't know what they would think but I do know that over 60% of the gun deaths are attributed to suicide.
Either have I, my wants and desires have very little input into the market. So you want to talk about ideas to improve the situation or do you just want to whine?
Every day we hear about what the Founding Fathers wanted or intended regarding some issue or another. I think their views should be more irrelevant than what we perceive them to be, but my opinion hasnt prevailed yet.
As is the right to bear arms, modern or otherwise.
The Founding Fathers would disagree vehemently with the phrase "what guns have done to America". Guns haven't done anything. Americans have. And yes, they would be appalled and outraged by quite a lot.
Very true. Guns don't kill people. Other people kill people! Guns are just inanimate tools. When will those on the hard core liberal left ever learn that?
The bullet kills the dead person. This is literally indisputable. We can agree to ban bullets then.
[deleted]
Um, yes, it is disputable. I was shot 4 times in Afghanistan and blown up 6 times by roadside bombs in Iraq and yet here I am.
No its not disputable. If a person dies after being shot, the bullet is the cause of death.
Its amazing that you people will even argue the obvious.
I wonder if any ammunition manufacturer could survive on only supplying police, the US military, and federal agencies with ammo.
Seems like a rather small market to try to cater to exclusively.
Or are those named above supposed to use something other than guns after the ban?
So.... by this "logic"..... if a person dies after being hit by a car driven by a drunk, the car is the cause of death.
Based on your ill-informed premise 2.1.38 "The bullet kills the dead person." I should be dead. And yet, somehow here I am 10 years later still kicking it. Just like thousands of other veterans, law enforcement officers and civilians who have been shot. And yet you still double down on stupid trying to convince me otherwise.
Why do you insist on saying that I said everyone who is shot dies?
It is a total waste of time to talk to you. You cant even think straight.
[✘]
Because that is what you said.
Do you not pay attention to your own comments?
I'm thinking straight. You seem to be the one who can't remember what they said. Now don't get boo boo lipped and but hurt that I literally am the opposite of what you say is "indisputable".
That does NOT mean that everyone who is shot dies. It means that someone who is dead from being shot is killed by the bullet.
Seriously, you get so many things completely wrong it is a waste of time to engage with you.
That's not what you said or implied.
Not necessarily. I lost a friend in Afghanistan who was shot (multiple times) but what killed him was injuries sustained in a vehicle roll-over.
You just keep spewing out the stupid.
When some cannot defend their position in a reasonable and intelligent manner, they deflect or deny.
This is normal with many. They make a moronic statement, then when proven wrong they try to convince me that what they posted is not what they meant. Then get all boo boo lipped and butt hurt when they are called out on it.
Pure deflection there John and you know it. Bullet is another inanimate object that goes with the gun. Bullet cannot be fired from the gun unless a person pulls the trigger of the gun, and that's the bottom line.
The pablum "guns dont kill, people kill" is absurd. The bullet, which comes from inside the gun, is what kills.
The shooter gets the ball rolling.
Exactly, but as Mr. Bumble said, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass - a idiot".
The law has the temerity of convicting people of homicide, not bullets,
Lol .... pablum? I think you are projecting again John.
So this is the process.
A process like this has a beginning and an end. First you need a weapon to fire a bullet. No bullet fires consistently and accurately without one. Next you need a bullet. Lastly and most importantly you need a mechanism to aim the weapon and pull the trigger to fire the bullet. That mechanism is a person. No weapon is going to fire an aimed shot without one. No bullet is going to fire without one. The bullet hitting a target is the end of the process. A process that would never happen without a shooter.
The fact that you deny the inescapable logic of this process is testimony to how far gone you really are.
Mental health is a issue we don’t seem to want to deal with. We ignore all the flags then mourn the outcome.
And blame anything else but the real cause.
To do otherwise would require them to actually do something more than lip service.