No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Gun Worship’s Perversion: Just Don’t Call 10,000 Murders a Year “Terrorism”

| April 21, 2013

High-capacity delusions. (mr.smashy)

High-capacity delusions. (mr.smashy)

It was one of those weeks of revolting paradoxes, with mayhem to match.

pierre tristam column flaglerlive On Monday the bombs went off at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and wounding 170. Two days later, a different sort of bomb went off when the U.S. Senate voted down the skimpiest of gun control legislation: making background checks universal, banning high-capacity gun magazines, and banning assault weapons, three measures that in no way assaulted the Second Amendment anymore than libel and defamation laws assault the First.

President Obama called it a “shameful day.” Given the week’s context, it was an understatement as dissonant as the celebration that followed the capture of the second alleged Boston bomber was jubilant. But the triumph buried the shame.

In the strictest sense, there’s no connection between the Boston bombing and the Senate votes. One is a matter of terrorism. The other is a matter of gun control. Or gun rights, if you prefer. At least that’s the conventional assumption.

But the two cannot be separated except by deceptive rationales that absolve a gun culture of the bloodletting it tolerates day in and day out while the rarest of terrorist event is treated as a national emergency.

The latest effort to get some gun control legislation passed was the result of December’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary school. Under any definition, Adam Lanza, the Newtown murderer, was a terrorist, his attack no less an act of terrorism than that of Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who massacred 77 people in July 2011. That Lanza had no connection to white supremacists or Islamists or Chechen separatists in no way diminishes the terror he inflicted, and that his assault weapon—an AR-15 style rifle—made more efficiently lethal (just as it had been for James Holmes when he killed 12 people in the Aurora, Colo., shooting in July).

But Aurora and Sandy Hook were only extremes of an aberrant norm that falsely evades the definition of terrorism. Let’s review. In the four months since Sandy Hook, at least 3,530 Americans have been killed by firearm. That’s 500 more than died in the 9/11 attacks, and 1,300 more than the total number of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 12 years. In Florida alone, at least 226 people have been killed by firearm in that span, including at least 23 children, three more than the number of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary.

For all that, the Florida Legislature did the U.S. Congress one better. It did not even seriously consider any gun-control legislation, preferring to stick with Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam’s boast, the same week as Sandy Hook, that Florida had logged its millionth concealed weapon permit.

Colleen Conklin, the Flagler County School Board member, seems to think that the Sandy Hook shooting changed the way we think of school security forever, and that that’s one of the reasons local voters may be eager to approve an extra levy in June, since the levy will beef up school security and ensure the presence of armed cops on all campuses. Voters should approve that levy. But if they do, it’ll have very little to do with security: the conversation about gun violence simply hasn’t changed enough to compel any political  response. Sandy Hook was a shock, not a shift. The Senate proved it last week. The Florida Legislature has been proving it all spring.

Because if the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible (and they are), and the majority of America’s 300 million guns aren’t used in crimes (they aren’t), the problem can be isolated: it’s the criminal. It’s the mentally ill. It’s the lax enforcement of laws. It’s the absence of armed guards in schools. It’s never the guns.

But the rampage carries on. By year’s end, we’ll have another 30,000 to 35,000 deaths by firearm. Many of those, like suicides and accidents, aren’t acts of terrorism. But to consider murder victims and their families—not to mention many of the 60,000-odd people injured by firearms every year—somehow outside the toll of terrorism requires a perverse cleansing of the term. It diminishes the impact of a murder on families and communities while disproportionately heightening the impact of terrorism of the sort we experienced in 2011 or in Boston last week.

Yet the likelihood that any of us will be the victim of an act of terrorism is incalculably remote. The likelihood that we’ll be the victim of gun violence this year is one in 3,000. The odds are grimmer over a lifetime, and grimmest in the South.

Last week’s enduring moral isn’t authorities’ swift and commendable ability to hunt down two amateur terrorists. It’s the shame of a nation that has perverted the meaning of violence. There is the unacceptable kind. That’s “terrorism.” And there is the acceptable kind. That’s the 30 daily murders by gun. The kind the Senate said there’s no need to do anything about. The kind we cannot allow to interfere with gun worship and the NRA’s five-times-a-day call to prayer.

Pierre Tristam is FlaglerLive’s editor. Reach him by email here. This column is syndicated through Florida Voices.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

83 Responses for “Gun Worship’s Perversion: Just Don’t Call 10,000 Murders a Year “Terrorism””

  1. Mel Bronson says:

    Tristam, you are a SHAMEFUL progressive leftist radical. You dishonor this website, you dishonor all readers. You are a perversion and a disgrace. Your attempt to link the madness, manlevolence and terrorism of these muslim radicals to gun control. You are totally off base and illuminate your progressive HATE, bigotry and stupidity.
    Criminals do NOT care about laws. There are thousands of gun control laws on the books already. You cannot punish lawful gun owning Americans in your misguided sick efforts to control crime. It is a human problem and not a hardware problem.

    Besides, the progressive left radicals want to disarm Americans not because of guns but because they (and you!) want TOTAL control and power over Americans. It is all about total power and don’t deny it. You are clearly a misguided radical and you use this website to spread your ignorance, hate and foul socialist dogma.

    • The Truth says:

      So if someone disagrees with the current gun culture of our country they are “progressive left radicals”. Did Sean Hannity give you that line?

      • nodiotsneedapply says:

        Gun nuts attitudes must stem from long-term lead poisoning. No other scientific explanation exists. They feel empowered to threaten because they have guns. They feel that if they don’t get their way, they’ll shoot their way in. They are violent to the core, because they believe that their government is coming to get them, or their neighbor is out to shoot them, or some urban kid in a city 150 miles away is coming to rob their houses. They appear to be uniformly mentally ill, suffering from paranoid delusions. They are a very sad lot.

    • Pierre Tristam says:

      Thanks Mel. The dishonor is all mine. Just don’t tell the editors.

    • Bunnell Resident says:


      How can Pierre disgrace his own web site? I am politically opposed to 90% of his opinions, however, at least he has the courage to state them articulately and stand by his beliefs. Having a different opinion does not make the other person a bad person. I would add however that his logic is faulty. We all know that drunk drivers kill more people than guns but no one is calling for a ban on alcohol. A few observations of my own: in virtually every gun shooting in recent memory, all the shooters were registered Democrats. This leads me to believe that guns don’t kill people, Democrats do! :-). Just kidding of course but you get the point. Now that we know what death and destruction can be brought about by pressure cookers, I propose that no one can own or purchase more than one pressure cooker. Also,, the capacity should be no more than say 1/2 gallon. we should also have registration of all pressure cookers as well as complete background checks. Now, to the point, the Senate proposal would not prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms nor would it be unconstitutional. If Congress passes a law that is not Constitutional the Supreme Court should strike it down. We have millions of Constitutional Scholars” in this country who have never even read the Constitution. I forgot to mention we should also ban alcohol and also automobiles because they are misused and tend to kill people. Ask any mother her lost her child to a drunk driver and she will surely say it was terrorism at least to her. Congress is not trying to take control of our lives as you suggest, it is simply trying to do something, anything to stop all the senseless shootings. I applaud Pierre for his opinion, partially agree in this case, and strongly disagree with almost everything else he stands for. It is time for us as a society to disagree in a civil manner, look past our disagreements today so we can work together tomorrow, and remember we are and always will be the best nation on earth. I encourage anyone who feelsnthey can make a real difference to run for office. Lets all be respectful of our differing opinions, make rational arguments supporting what we believe, and respect the democratic process. Hope everyone has a nice day. “Bunnell Resident”.

  2. Karma says:

    Why won’t this administration start doing it’s job. Enforce the gun laws on the books. The proof is right here. If these laws are not enforced, how can they say they need more laws. Look who enforced the laws and who did not. Was George Bush anti gun or did he just do his job?

  3. Matt B says:

    If gun control works so well why are so many people being killed by guns in the most restrictive areas( Chicago, NYC)? It seems to me that gun control only works on law abiding citizens since criminals don’t follow the laws any ways. Why don’t the politicians and public focus on the real problems of keeping guns out of the hands of felons, enforcing our current gun laws, and more help for the mentally unstable. The argument that “assault rifles” only belong in the hands of the military is a argument that could be had. Only issue is the little thing called the 2nd Amendment. Now you can also say that it only protects hunting rifles. In that case the 1st Amendment only protects newspapers and not the internet. The fact of the matter is evil people will commit evil no matter what. The only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    • Anonymous says:

      time to outlaw pressure cookers too!!!!

      • The Truth says:

        Except there’s one difference:

        1. These terrorists took many different items and create a bomb using guides and people to help them.

        2. An AR-15 (which is capable of just as much if not more damage) can be purchased in a matter of minutes at any gun shop in America.

        • just saying says:

          To purchase any firearm from a store (gun show or not), you must fill out ATF form 4473 and the dealer must call in to the instant background check company and record the back ground check receipt number on the form.
          Which is very similar to going to the car dealer and them running your credit or checking with their manager before completing the sale. However, you don’t have have a license or registration to use the vehicle on private property only. County ordinances may require current tags, but that is code enforcement to keep people from stock piling junk cars.

        • Anonymous says:

          What ar-15 can cause more damage than a bomb or IED..

      • matt B says:

        Not all pressure cookers. Just the high capacity ones.

        • Matt B says:

          Actually there is a 3 day wait after a FBI background check, if you don’t already have a concealed carry lisc. I thought that a AR-15 was a civilian version of a military weapon. SInce the 2nd Amendment allows Americans to own firearms to protect against the government should it become tyranical I dont think a simple semi auto version is to much to ask for. Its not like Im asking for a tank, cruise missles, nukes or any other weapon the military owns. Just remember what Freud said about fear of inanimate objects.

  4. biker says:

    There is a very simple, fix minimum mandatory sentencing for any crime involving a firearm. Take the decisions away from the liberal judges and prosecutors and enforce the gun laws already on the books.

    • The Truth says:

      Why is it that anyone who disagrees with your conservative viewpoints must be a liberal? I’m so tired of hearing the Fox News viewers slam every other media organization as a “liberal” organization just because they don’t share the same viewpoints. Apparently, disagreeing with a conservative is not allowed and quickly labels you as a “liberal”.

    • Nancy N. says:

      Florida already does have very strict mandatory penalties in place for committing a crime while in possession of a weapon. And it doesn’t even have to be a firearm – the definition of a “weapon” is very broad…commit a petty burglary while in possession of a screwdriver and you will find yourself facing decades in prison for “armed home invasion”.

    • nodiotsneedapply says:

      biker: Great. Let’s close the barn door after the horse escapes. What about prevention? What about making the crime almost impossible to begin with? This law-and-order crap after someone’s dead is meaningless.

      The Truth: Gun nuts attitudes must stem from long-term lead poisoning. No other scientific explanation exists. They feel empowered to threaten because they have guns. They feel that if they don’t get their way, they’ll shoot their way in. They are violent to the core, because they believe that their government is coming to get them, or their neighbor is out to shoot them, or some urban kid in a city 150 miles away is coming to rob their houses. They appear to be uniformly mentally ill, suffering from paranoid delusions. They are a very sad lot.

      Magnolia: Where did you get the Germany thing? Oh, right. The Blaze or some other source that cannot support its argument. Try this for the truth.

      “That’s right: Hitler and pro-gun advocates want the same thing. The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law in Germany, superseded a 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law, gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”

      What right are you protecting? The rights of the Boston terrorists to amass an arsenal? Because that’s exactly what happened with those “rights” you tout. Where is your sense of “responsibility”? You have more responsibilities than rights. But you are clearly not concerned about your responsibilities as a citizen. You only care about feeding your paranoid, baseless fears that a government elected by the people will somehow come and take away your toys. Trust me. If your government wanted to take away your toys, they aren’t gonna be stopped by you and your wimpy little arsenal.

      Alfred E. Newman: Government you wanted wasn’t elected, so you’ll shoot your way into power.

      FRANK DILBERTO: Denying facts does not make you smart or reasonable.

      Shery Eppley: Thank you, Sherry. I’ve just donated significant funds to four different groups that are out to get these people out of office. They are shameful excuses for Americans.

  5. ANONYMOUSAY says:

    @Mel Bronson. How long will it take YOU current law abiding gun owners to become terrorist if the US government decides to limit or strip you of your guns??? You’ll go from Mel Bronson to Charles Bronson “gun vigilante” in a heartbeat.

  6. IMO says:

    Tristam you really have to keep up with what the American people are thinking and saying.

    April 19, 2013

    ABC Poll: Americans Believe Guns Make Homes Safer

    By a margin of 51 to 29, Americans believe having a gun in the house makes the house safer.

    When the question was asked to those with guns in their houses, the affirmative response jumped to 75.

    The percentage of Republicans who believe a gun makes the house safer was 71, while among Democrats the percentage was 34.

    Moreover, the poll found that those who believe a gun in the house makes the house safer “prioritize gun rights over new gun control laws by a 2 to 1 margin.”

    These responses represent a complete reversal from the same poll taken in 2000, in which people responded 35 to 51–giving the edge to the position that a gun in the house made the house less safe.

    • The Truth says:

      IMO: Perhaps you should keep up with what the American people are saying as well:

      (Reuters) – More than 90 percent of U.S. voters supported background checks for all gun buyers, while much smaller majorities were for stricter gun control laws such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, said a poll released on Thursday.

      • IMO says:

        Truth…every firearm I have ever purchased has been through a licensed gun store with a background check.

        But a national gun registry? No thank you. This is not Nazi Germany.

    • nodiotsneedapply says:

      Too bad people are ignorant of the facts. Homes with guns are more likely to end in the death of a family member or guest than that of any criminal. Of course, we cannot confuse “information” for “paranoia,” so people will continue to believe this nonsense. “The evidence suggests that on average, having a gun actually increases the likelihood that a person will be injured or killed, rather than that it will be used to protect that individual from harm. If you own a gun, the most likely person you are to shoot is yourself. The next most likely person you are to shoot is a close family member. Homes with guns are a dozen times more likely to have household members or guests killed or injured by the weapon than by an intruder.The odds are much greater that the gun will be used against you or a loved one than that it will be used against an armed assailant or an intruder. Firearms are more often discharged in a homicide, suicide or an accident, than in self-defense.”

  7. Anon says:

    Good article.
    Your articles have a way of bringing them out of the woodwork, and foaming at the mouth.

    Based on these responses and likes one would think that these people are beneficiaries of the munitions manufacturers lobbyists. In other words they too have been bought off just like those in Congress.

  8. Clint says:

    Pierre you article shows your radical left agenda. It STINKS ! You and your progressive cronies WILL NEVER take our 2nd Amendment rights away from the law-abiding citizens. And if it ever got to a point where government where called in to take guns from the citizens, you would then see TRUE AMERICANS stand up for their rights, protection, and their country ! Tyranny of our government WILL NOT stand.

    • The Truth says:

      Apparently, since I do not own a gun I’m not a “true American”. Since my views on this differ from yours, I must have a radical left agenda. No one is threatening to take your 2nd amendment rights. We have the right to freedom of speech, but we can’t simply walk around saying we are going to kill people. It’s the same concept.

      I’m so tired of people claiming if you aren’t a gun lover you aren’t a true American. Get over yourself.

  9. Edman says:

    Gun control has two major problems; one the irrational fear of an imaginary “slippery slope”. We all get drivers licenses and car insurance without a fear of having our cars taken away but uninformed people rant about their guns being taken away. Second, we have a political structure that is too beholding to donors than the people they represent. When the majority of NRA members are in support of universal background checks but the NRA leadership feeds lies to everyone to support the gun manufacturers and put fear into politicians who want the manufacturers and NRA’s money we have lost true representation of the people. The pro gun posts here illustrate what i am suggesting.

    • The Truth says:

      You hit the nail on the head. The NRA runs this country and that is a very sad situation for us. We are unable to get anything done because the NRA keeps robo calling it’s members claiming “our rights are under attack” and that we need to fight. Perhaps if people would start thinking with their brain and not with their gun we could actually get someplace. Of course, that will never happen because gun enthusiasts are too concerned with the government taking away their guns.

    • johnny taxpayer says:

      Regarding your first point, the slippery slope argument is not all that irrational. Just look at smokers, they went from being asked to use the smoking section of a restaurant, to being told to stand outside, to being told they must be 100ft away from the entrance, to now being told in some Cities they can’t smoke in public at all and they have to pay $7+ in “sin tax” for every pack of smokes they buy. (not at all endorsing smoking, just pointing out how slippery the slope really is…)

      To your second point, “beholding to donors instead of the people they represent”, what you really mean is politicians should agree with you, and not me. Like it or not there are a great many individuals in this country that don’t think additional gun control measures will do a damn thing to make us “safer”. The NRA is powerful because it represents a lot of individuals. Individuals who vote, individuals who are more politically aware and involved than the average citizen, so when politicians “listen” to the NRA, they’re listening to voters, you just don’t like what those voters are saying so you try to write them off and discredit them. And frankly the NRA represents a lot of people who aren’t all that invested in guns, but become members because they want a powerful group to stand up for the constitution.

      • nodiotsneedapply says:

        Smokers harm others. Period. Smoking bans save money that I, and others who buy insurance, do not want to spend on your lung cancer, keeping you alive from a disease you brought on yourself.

        • johnny taxpayer says:

          You obviously missed the point, I’m not a smoker, I’m simply using a real life example to point out what happens when you start giving an inch, it very quickly becomes a mile.

      • another voice says:

        Regarding the NRA’s membership–the vast majority of THEM also support sensible restrictions. Politicians aren’t listening to the rank-and-file NRA membership, they’re listening to gun manufacturers raking in record profits, manufacturers supported by the leadership of the NRA.

        Regarding that slippery slope argument? That’s really not a good comparison–the vast majority of people who die from smoking are…smokers. You want me to go outside? I don’t have a problem with that, even when it’s cold–it’s my choice to smoke. I was smoking before it was banned in most public places, and I can assure you, none of that really applies to gun rights slippery slopes. To begin with, the Constitution doesn’t really reference smokers rights like it does gun owners rights.

    • Rollbamtide says:

      Obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege, to keep and bear arms is a right, granted by the US constitution.

  10. Gia says:

    Mr. Pierre………If you have to isolate the mentally ill, you’ll have to lock up half of this country. Besides it’s money talk.

  11. The Truth says:

    It seems to me, the thought process for those against all of these measures is: “If it doesn’t fix everything immediately, it’s not worth doing.” That is shameful and pathetic. We have a gun culture problem in this country. Gun enthusiasts will blame everything but guns themselves. Sure, I realize that guns do not kill people. However, the fact that a weapon used to kill can be purchased via the internet without any type of background check is absurd and ridiculous. I understand that Adam Lanza took the guns from his mother, who was a ‘law abiding citizing’, but we need to look at the big picture. The big picture is that anyone — including mentally ill — can decide they want a gun and purchase one in less than an hour from just about anywhere in this country.

    I believe we can still protect the 2nd amendment but at the same time protect this great country of ours. Many of those ‘gun enthusiasts’ that I speak to are concerned with one thing — the government taking their guns. Their reasoning on being against background checks? The government wants to create a database to keep track of all gun owners.

    Personally, I see no need for the sale of a military style weapon like an AR-15. In my opinion, there is no need for a weapon like this. Not one gun enthusiast can give me a logical explanation as to why a weapon like this is needed other than: “It’s our right.”

    This gun debate will never get anywhere because the NRA and other gun lobbyists are too involved in our political system. They send millions of dollars each year to ensure that nothing like this happens. Of course, their answer is to place an armed guard/police officer at every school. Someone should tell the NRA that there was an armed guard at Columbine as well as Sandy Hook.

    There is no solution that will solve this problem completely. What we need to do (both sides) is to look at the situation and work TOGETHER on this to try and come up with a solution. I’ve heard no solutions from the pro-gun people other than: blame Hollywood. I feel the blame is passed around to many, including us as everyday American’s.

    God bless the USA.

    • Clint says:

      Excuse me while I make a HEFTY donation to the NRA. After reading your comments I decided to send MORE money to the NRA to protect our RIGHTS !!!!! Its liberal progressive zombies like you who would give up their own FREEDOM to become part of a “collective hive” of diseased insects.

      • The Truth says:

        If you really believe the NRA is after protecting your rights then you are sadly mistaken. The NRA is a business. All they care about is making $$ off of the gun industry and thanks to schmucks like you, they make loads of it. Whether you are a gun lover or not, the NRA is the definition of corruption in this country.

        Most republicans I speak to are NRA members, and all they talk about is how corrupt our political system is with the lobbying and such. When the NRA is mentioned they glow about them, not realizing that the NRA is actually one of the biggest lobbying organizations in Washington.

    • Rollbamtide says:

      We should ban swimming pools, because they are the #1 killer of children ages 2 and under.


    Pierre, I can not believe you took this road in your article,,,,,,,,,,,,,,shameful.

  13. Magnolia says:

    This administration seems to be following the model of Nazi Germany…….first, disarm them all in the name of safety; second, turn them against one another.

    The plan is working quite well, isn’t it? The Great Uniter? I think not. This is the most divisive president in the history of this nation. I did not think it was possible, but I am witnessing it.

    • another voice says:

      What divides us is propaganda and ignorance. This country has been systematically divided on purpose since the latter part of the first Nixon administration. State-like (read: consistent and coordinated) propaganda made giant leaps forward during the second Clinton administration, when the Telecomm Act was essentially gutted and regulation was lifted on who could own how many news outlets in the same market.

      That paved the way for your Clear Channels and Time-Warners and other monopolies on what you see, hear and read in terms of “news” and other public information. The stream of nonsense, “opinion” masquerading as “news” and outright BS has become a constant, the rule rather than exception. So please, don’t kid yourself–this is something you cannot blame on the scary Other who is the current Chief Executive. We were divided LONG before he took office….

  14. Alfred E. Newman says:

    Looking at how hopelessly corrupt our government is – I plan to always keep my guns.

  15. ANONYMOUSAY says:

    Race cars have a purpose but not everyone should own one. Prescription drugs have a purpose but not everyone should use them. Guns have a purpose but felons and the mentally aren’t the only ones that shouldn’t have them, judging from these comments, you are just going to start shooting each other just because it’s your so-called right. How about putting all that energy into not hurting people.

    • Clint says:

      Maybe we can all sit around a campfire and sing “Kumbaya” & “We are the World” while buiding community teepees and send all our money to a few “elite” politician who want to CONTROL YOU ! What the hell is wrong with you people ?

  16. James Lewis says:

    Wow! This article provoked many absurd comments from the usual ignorant complainers
    who scream about their rights but offer no solutions to stop the carnage caused by guns.
    If 30,000+ gun deaths occur each year, just think of the tragedy in the lives of those that
    are left to go on after loosing someone to gun related deaths. When will these shallow
    complainers stop whining about their rights and start feeling compassion and love
    for those who are left with the grief that was caused by too many guns in our society?
    Great editorial.

    • johnny taxpayer says:

      The real absurdity are the comments from people who think making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns, will somehow decrease the number of gun deaths (which the article puts at 10k per year, but you triple for some reason).

      • FlaglerLive says:

        The total number of gun deaths in the United States runs between 30,000 and 35,000 a year, but the majority of that (some 20,000 of the 30,000 gun deaths in 2010) are due to suicide (which are effective 85 percent of the time when using a gun, as opposed to 2 percent of the time when the means chosen is, say, pills). The nation averages around 10,000 murders a year committed with guns.

      • The Truth says:

        How are enforcing background checks at gun shows and online sales making it more difficult for law abiding gun owners? I’m so sick of hearing this excuse. If you do not have a history, it’s not going to take any longer for you to get your precious firearm.

    • Rollbamtide says:

      40,000-plus deaths due to automobiles per year. Let’s ban those terrible vehicles!

  17. Sherry Epley says:

    Excellent article and “right on” with 90% of all the citizens in the USA! Not to confuse anyone with FACTS. . . each and every poll (regardless of the source) show that between 86 and 90 percent of the people in the USA are in favor of universal background checks for gun purchases.

    The radical conservatives in Florida have passionate comments, but they do not represent the reasonable majority. Do you read the NRA “talking points” being repeated again and again in these comments?

    We have reached the “tipping point” where the money of the NRA has purchased the votes of enough members of the Senate that they voted against the overwhelming majority of US citizens. There is now no doubt that they have been bought and paid for, and should most certainly should be voted out of office.

    We should not continue to think that we should allow members of Congress to vote against the will of the majority of people who live in our country. If we do not speak out now, we may never have another chance!

    The following people should be on our WALL OF SHAME:

    We should start with calls to Marco Rubio (407)254-2573. And at a minimum to those Democratic Senators who are traitors to their party and to the safety of our nation:

    1. Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota (202)224-2043
    2. Senator Begich of Alaska (202)224-3004
    3. Senator Baucus of Montana (202)224-2651
    4. Senator Pryor of Arkansas (202)224-2353
    5. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (202)224-3542

    To the Senators of other states you could say that although you may not be currently living in their state, but their vote against gun safety in our country has made you and your family less safe, and that they should be ashamed to vote according to the desires of special interests and against the will of 90% of the people in our nation. NOW IS THE TIME TO HOLD OUR POLITICANS ACCOUNTABLE!

    • Bunnell Resident says:

      Sherry, trying to blacllist Senators for voting a certain way is what has gotten this country in its current state. Let our elected officials debate with facts, let them vote how thye choose, and let them stand on their voting record. It would truely be refreshing if a Republican could occasionally vote with Democrats if they felt it was the right thing to do without being called a RINO. It would be equally refreshing to see Democrats occasionally cross their party line and vote with Republicans. Our Congress only votes out of fear which makes them less than honorable in my book. Vote your heart, vote what is right, and if that means not getting re-elected then so be it. Blacklisting our Senators perpetuates the fear of doing what is right.

  18. Magnolia says:

    90% Sherry? I don’t think so. The only people I want to see on a wall of shame is ANYONE trying to eliminate our rights. Radicals? I think you’d better include yourself in that category.

    it is not up to you or the government to undermine my rights. i am not a racist, a bigot, or gun worshipping. I’m sure you’ll find a name for me…..that seems to be the new politics of the progressives…..harrass and bully.

    I can back up my facts, Sherry.

    • Pierre Tristam says:

      Magnolia, once again you go all pot name-calling the kettle(s) black on us. First off, and as usual, you are wrong on the facts. Sherry is right: the latest Gallup poll has 91 percent of Americans favoring universal background checks. If it’s not too much trouble, edge your clicker on that link for verification. Your attempt to “back up” your facts is a Red Lobster-quality red herring: you found an entirely different number to support one of a myriad angles Sherry was not addressing. She referred specifically to universal background checks. You brandish the 51 percent who feel a gun in their home makes them feel safer. Great. But don’t then use your mischaracterization of Sherry’s facts to lay into her. Talk about malicious misinformation. Also, Sherry did not attack you personally. Her comment was directed where it ought to be: at lawmakers. Why harass and bully her, then insult progressives by displaying the very same inelegance you accuse them of? You can pick on me all you like (between kisses of course). No need to target commenters.

  19. mw says:

    How about gun control by zip code? If you have a zip code with say 10 murders a month no-one in that zip code can own a firearm and you could put in cameras on every corner. Also the police could double their presence in those areas. Maybe put up a wall and have random check points. That way violent zip codes will get the protection and legislation that they need and non- violent zip codes will get the freedom they deserve.

  20. Alfred E. Newman says:

    “You can pick on me all you like (between kisses of course).”

    I gotta tell that to my wife.

  21. we the people says:

    Going by your views guns are nothing there is even greater weapon os mass destruction, 30000 deaths a year so what, there’s one that cause 5.6 million deaths a year, its called a car and by your standards we should blame the car not the driver. What you forget to mention is in that tally of gun violence it also includes legal gun use by home owners who were defending there property and family. And were is the chart that give a percentage of illigal gun violence to legal? Your article is based on feelings not facts.

  22. nodiotsneedapply says:

    Amazing. These gun nuts are such liars. Had background checks been in place before the Boston terrorist incident, the older brother would never have been able to amass the arsenal that is being reported this morning. Why? Because he’d been interviewed by the FBI AND had his citizenship denied based on credible threats he posed, including an assault charge. If he had had to submit to checks for every gun and ammo purchased, he would not have had a gun to kill the MIT officer. He would not have had a gun to hold more than 30 cops at bay from an SUV. His little brother would not have had guns to keep the entire city of Boston on lockdown for two days. When are the gun idiots going to figure out that they are the problem? And this ranting about government coming to take away their weapons, and making absolutely false, demonstrably ficitious statements about Nazi Germany any guns (notice that not one of them ever checks on the facts, but repeats whatever horseshit The Blaze throws at them?), and other ideas that show how remarkably poorly educated, poorly read, and poorly thinking they are. Just more proof that the nation’s guns are in the hands of paranoid, uneducated, ill-thinking morons.

    • anon says:

      What weapons did he a amass.Common things used every day used in a evil way.The media to nite said there was only one hand gun found.So all them rounds fired were probably law enforcement.So tell me what arsenal did they have????????????????

  23. Karma says:

    Funny how the Columbine school shooting never comes up in these stories. All these bans you speak of were in place at the time. Look how many laws have been created since 9/11 yet two young kids can plan and BOMB innocent people just watching a race. So who will all these laws restrict? The 99% of law abiding citizens who own guns. And who will still have assault weapons and 10 or more round magazines. The 1% of criminals or terrorist as you call them.

  24. Tina jeffe says:

    Pierre, Thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking article about an issue that needs to be addressed. It worries me that the people without guns are somewhat calmly looking for solutions to an epidemic of violence, while the people with guns are violently trying to suppress a solution.

    • Magnolia says:

      Tina: Violently? I thought we were having a difference of opinion. And just because there is disagreement does not mean we all have guns.

  25. Um... says:

    Current gun culture? I think it is more accurate to say the founding culture of the United States. Is it not guns (and small pox) that defeated the Native Americans? It is not the more advanced guns of the states that defeated the British in the Revolution? And was there not a division of firepower between the North and the South regarding their firearms? Our nation, our wars for freedom, our battles for unification, were led with a muzzle first, words came later. Guns are not current and neither is gun violence. I recently watched a documentary that listed the amount of people killed in Los Angeles during the 70s and 80s by guns and the numbers were staggering, more people were killed by someone using a gun per day during that time frame than in per-day in present-time Chicago. The issue with guns I don’t think is with the weapons itself but rather with the owners and the non-owners. Both sides view each other as radicals. If I own a gun, I am a perverse individual that loves bloodshed and violence. If I do not own a gun, I am a freedom-hating, constitution-bashing, flag-waving liberal. It is how preconceived stereotypes of people on both sides of the fence cannot listen to each other because the only way people can talk is with increasing volume not with an interest to understand why each side feels the way they do. It is, I am right and you are wrong, I don’t need to explain or justify anything, it is just because I say so. When did people stop talking and trying to understand the why on both sides?

    • Magnolia says:

      Um: In mentioning those deaths in LA, it is important to note that most are gang related, taking place in areas like South Central LA.

      Guns are illegal in Chicago and DC. I don’t think it is the honest gun owners doing all the killing in those cities while the Mayors stand idly by watching America’s youth, mostly black, shot on a daily basis. You don’t suppose they don’t enforce the gun laws for politics, do you? Sad commentary.

  26. Deep South says:

    Most people look and think about guns in the wrong perspective. I guess it has a jot to do with your attitude and where you grew up. I for one who grew up here in Florida think about guns in use of the sport of hunting,
    and target shooting. Most of us who have guns for this reason received plenty of training from our parents before we were even allow to own our first gun. That’s why we are the safest gun owners, we know the true meaning of owning a gun.

  27. Alfred E. Newman says:

    It’s interesting that the people proposing bans, and or revisions to the law know NOTHING about guns.

    That by itself brings contempt by gun afficionados. You just can’t ban certain firearm categories because they look scary. Like them or not, guns are a part of our culture.

    Some guy in NYC (a teacher?) had an old, old black powder rifle and the mayor (Bloomberg) was heard to say that such a rifle could bring down an airliner. They put the rifle owner through hell.

    Any new laws are going to be ridiculous and unfair.

  28. WE THE PEOPLE says:

    We should pass a new law were its illegal to own a firearm ILLEGALLY ! You can not purchase a firearm without getting a background check already, the only time you can sell a firearm without a background check is through a private sale but even then you are supposed to check if the buyer is a felon.

  29. KD says:

    As a law abiding citizen it is my right to protect my family from harm. Remember it takes 5-10 minutes for a LEO to respond to your screams for help.

  30. Stevie says:

    Gun sales surge again after the Boston Bombing. Maybe the folks didn’t like the Rambo cops banging down doors and violating the 4th Amendment to look for a dork 19 year old coward in a boat.

  31. Sherry Epley says:

    The huge flaw in implementing and enforcing responsible “Gun Safety Laws” at a state or even more local level is that we actually live in a very fluid country. Gun shows where many guns can be purchased “on the spot” are held everywhere. Currently, if a criminal or terrorist wants to purchase a weapon of mass destruction (AKA assault weapon) and hundreds of rounds of bullets that are specifically designed to rip apart human flesh and bone, all they need to do is jump in a car and drive to where the laws are least restrictive. . . OR just sit at a lap top and buy them on the internet and Fed Ex will deliver them on a silver platter. Therefore, our current “Gun Safety Laws” will never, ever work. We must have “Gun Safety Laws” enacted and enforced at a FEDERAL level if we are ever going to stem this tide of violence.

    Responsible gun owners have no problems undergoing background checks. . . simply because they are “responsible” citizens. They only hunt “in season”, they only take enough game to feed their families, they store their guns in a way that children cannot access them. My Grandpa was one of those. He taught me to shoot a 22 when I was about 7 years old. It never entered his consciousness that a gun would be used against a human being. When he had a disagreement with someone, he politely had his say and then listened quietly to the other person’s point of view. Then, he normally would find a way to “meet in the middle”.

    Yes, we need to address the huge problems with mental illness in our state. . . but we only currently have 1 mental institution that support less than half of the counties in Florida. That facility in McClenny only has something like 633 beds and they are often 100% full. . . with a turnover of more than half released back into society in less than a year. The pressure to CUT taxes for any kind of health care is powerful and our legislators are moving in that direction. Bottom line, we want mental illness gone, but we don’t want to pay for it.

    Yes, our society has become much more violent, in general. I personally feel that violent video games, movies and television programs have greatly contributed to this disturbing change in our culture. BUT, we live in a free, capitalistic society. . . one that strongly upholds our “rights” to free expression. We shout down any attempts at censorship. Therein lies the dilemma. We, time and time again, hold our rights sacred, UNTIL we have a personal objection to another’s expression or way of exercising “their” rights, under our common constitution.

    I personally absolutely refuse allow violent movies or television in my home or in my life, BUT, I wonder how many of those who insist on no “Gun Safety Laws” get their thrills by watching such perversion themselves. . . and allowing their children to do the same.

    • Mel Bronson says:

      Sherry: Open your eyes. You argument is specious and ungrounded. There already IS background checks for each and every gun or rifle purchase made through any gun store or dealer.

      The danger of the federal database is that the progressive left is desperate to get every gun owner and every owned gun recorded in their giant database. The leftist big government space cadets want this so they know who owns and where ever gun is located to make confiscation easier. Don’t scoff. That is exactly what their agenda and plan is. When America is disarmed, it is only the first of constitutional rights to be stolen. The progressive left spits on the constitution and sneers at the bill of rights. They are only interested in creating a socialist or facist democracy in which THEY run and control and have authority over YOU! This is a fact!

      Every single socialist or communist government has failed. That is a fact of history. These collectivist and statist governments only work until they run out of other people’s money.

  32. Mel Bronson says:

    Gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about the progressive left controlling us.

    Experts agree! Just ask Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Idi Amin, Castro and now the little potus. First disarm the population and you can take complete control of the people!

  33. Karma says:

    You can NOT order a gun on the internet and have it delivered to your house. The gun must be sent to a Federal Firearm Licensed dealer who than calls in the gun to FDLE. There are even certain parts of the gun that must be shipped to the FFL.
    Also, Please do a little research on the history of the NRA, you may be surprised who they have helped and why they became an organization.

  34. Anon says:

    Its amazing the miss information you get here.According some of the post here.The 2 bombers were armed to the max automatic weapons ready to shoot every thing and any one.Today we are hearing they only had 1 handgun and a bb gun. and the kid found in the boat had no weapon.So who was firing a them rounds.I heard 200 plus.I guess it was law enforcement.My problem with that is what were they shooting and where were the rounds hitting.Another thing some here mentioned if the background check was in place they would of never had the gun.I am from Mass they had one of the counties strictest gun laws for one magazine capacity is limited to 10 unless you have a permit for a larger capacity.You also need a permit for the handgun.Which is not easy you need to know some one.From what I read neither had any permit.Which means the gun they had was not legal..So any back ground check was never done.Imagine that a terrorist did not abide by the law.

  35. One way to show your beliefs are superior from others is to criticize and insult them.
    Way to go by categorizing everyone who doesn’t fall under the Republican umbrella as “Progressive, Radical, Liberals.”

  36. Alfred E. Newman says:

    Imagine the armed segment of the US population warring with the anti-gun segment…….
    Who do you think would win?

    Easy one huh?

  37. Pcmommy says:

    Wow. That is about what sums up your ignorance of firearms an the Constitution. Gun worship? Perhaps you haven’t read the Constitution in its entirety. If you enjoy posting your unAmerican rants of misinformation and your personal views on this forum, you had probably thank our Constitution which grants you that right. Men and women have died to ensure our freedoms, does your cranial matter comprehend that statement or have you left it for pliable mush by those who seek to take away Constitutional freedoms one step at a time?

    Your empty statistics and radical beliefs about the definition of terrorism have some holes. For instance, how many of those firearm-related deaths were from legal-gun owners? “Let’s just outlaw guns to save a life”, you say, “get them off the street”. Well, while you’re at it, why don’t you make meth, marajuana and cocaine illegal so “no one” is hurt or injured from them? After all, they are only designed to hurt people and if we wright a law, criminals will turn them in too, right? Oh wait, we forgot that criminals don’t follow laws, oops. Now we know honest, law-abidng homeowners in PC are defenseless to intruders.

    “well it causes death and we want to save a life”, you say. Have you ever researched how many times a gun has been used in self defense and has saved a life?

    With your skewed logic, you might as well make aspirin, beer, wine, liquor, cars, kitchen knives and blunt objects illegal too, since they are more “dangerous” an “terrorizing” by your standards, than firearms since they cause more deaths per day. I look forward to the day we Americans are walking around with airline-allowed items, pass the the plastic ware please!

    Obviously we need to look beyond the blanket statistical numbers and look at the fact a humans are responsible for the deaths, not the weapon themselves.

    You are free to speak your opinion, but that opinion can’t take away my second amendment right as a lawful citizen. I suggest you read the Constitution and thank men and women (with guns) for your freedoms.

Leave a Reply

FlaglerLive's forum, as noted in our comment policy, is for debate and conversation that adds light and perspective to articles. Please be courteous, don't attack fellow-commenters or make personal attacks against individuals in stories, and try to stick to the subject. All comments are moderated.

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

FlaglerLive Email Alerts

Enter your email address to get alerts.


suppert flaglerlive flagler live palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam florida
fcir florida center for investigative reporting
FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in