Tragedy and Control

Many people here in Utah oppose gun control. For many the right to carry weapons is a sacrosanct part of the constitution while others enjoy hunting and shooting. In other cases, people simply don't want the government to tell what to do. Fortunately, I don't know anyone who has suffered from a loss due to gun violence.

Religion plays a big role in my life. When bad times come my way, I view it as a way for me to progress and grow. In my view, God allows us to suffer to grow stronger. If we follow His teachings, He'll take care of us even if that involves blessings in the next life.

Sent by Steve Petersen | 4:51 PM ET | 03-15-2007

My father was murdered by his brother--a handgun collector--in 1997. My uncle committed suicide after shooting my father. Ten years later, I am still ambivalent on the issue of gun control. While having many guns at his disposal made it easier for Uncle to kill my dad (much more difficult to strangle or beat someone to death), I also believe that the gun-happy, hyper-masculine way my uncle was raised, along with his mental illness and alcoholism, had a lot to do with what he did. And I also know that if someone wants to take another person's life badly enough, they'll do it with or without a gun.

As funny as it sounds to many people, I still am unsure of where I stand on gun control. I was glad to hear these moms' stories, and wish them peace, happiness, and justice.

Sent by Rachael | 9:02 PM ET | 03-15-2007

Valencia Mohammed???s arguments make no logical sense. She seems to be suggesting that some White conspiracy has prohibited African Americans in the District from owning guns. The 1976 DC Council that passed the District???s strict gun laws was elected directly by the people, in a public wave of enthusiasm after DC Home Rule was obtained three years earlier. This council was directly elected by a city that was (heavily) majority African American.

She???s introducing these conspiracy theories about a White Illuminati disarming African Americans while simultaneously trumpeting the propaganda of the NRA, a predominantly White male extreme right-wing organization. That???s the NRA whose Board member Jeff Cooper once said in commenting about homicide in Los Angeles: "the consensus is that no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society ??? It would seem a valid social service to keep them well supplied with ammunition."

Then she wants a gun because of the Constitution, but doesn???t know if she???s going to get it?? This woman has lost her own flesh and blood to gun violence in the home. It just doesn???t make sense.

Bottom line is that this is another historic violation of Home Rule by the gun lobby and an ultra-conservative court. The Senior Judge who wrote the decision, Silberman, is a close Cheney friend with a history of partisan political activity, including as an attack dog on Clinton (WHILE he sat on the bench). They???re exploiting the fact that we don???t have voting representation in Congress (meaning we can???t vote on legislation affecting our city and have no Senator so we have zero input into justices??? confirmations to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit).

Sent by Free DC | 9:54 PM ET | 03-15-2007

Wow! Talk about firecrackers. I think the gun control segment was completely out of control. I could barely make out the arguments over the guests' out-shouting one another. Michel did her best to give each side ample time, but the guests were too heated. I know the issue is an emotional one (especially for those who have lost loved ones), but order must be maintained in order for this to be informative. Great topic. Bad guests.

Didn't like the faith segment that much either. We seem to go through this every time there is a tragedy. I know people want to "understand", but the very nature of this world is inexplicable. And when you bring in religion it gets even messier. I like the out-of-the-box topics that aren't covered in the mainstream. You know, the breathe of fresh air you've been giving us.

Sent by Tameika Jackson | 11:13 AM ET | 03-16-2007

I really realy really dislike shouting match radio and TV, which is why I don't listen to talk radio or watch most political TV. I have definetly heard worse, though.

I also don't see how the gun ban is racial issue. It is a Constitutional issue. I think arguing it is a racial issue is playing the race card.

I've also noticed a lack of discussion about how D.C. has the highest murder rate even WITH a gun ban. That seems to be illogical based on the argument that guns should be banned.

As for the Faith and Tragedy segment, it appears to be several different schools of thought about it, and it was nice to hear three different ideas, although I guess it could confusing for some people.

Sent by Scott K | 1:17 PM ET | 03-19-2007

Michel,

On such a divisive issue, it would pay huge dividends to have people who can speak more eloquently to the topic on both sides. Neither side really got to the practical or legal heart of the matter. Furthermore, prefacing the gun issue with the loss of children, precludes an honest debate. That said, my hat is off to you for finding a mother who blames her child's murderer, not that person's chosen implement.

There is so much dishonesty in the gun debate. BOTH sides rhetorically cheat to win. I heard a lot of that in your piece. I would have loved to hear an interview where the pro-gun debater pleads for more responsiblity on the part of gun owners to lock their weapons away from kids and teens. And an admission that every homicide, accidental discharge, or suicide by a kid with an adult's gun is the result of a gun owner's irresponsibility.

I wanted to hear the anti-gun debater plead for more education for all kids about gun safety. To say that gun safety should be taught in school much the same way that sex education is. In other words: "it's not (guns aren't) dirty and abstinence (not having one)is not the only intelligent choice. Here's how you manage the risk (ten commandments of firearm safety) to stay safe."

In the interest of full disclosure my view is that the DC handgun ban put law abiding folks at the mercy of armed scofflaws. The court has rendered relief to those who obeyed the law rather than consider their own safety. Guns in the homes of moral, law abiding, salt of the earth folks (whom I presume to be the vast majority of the citizens of our capital to be) can't be a bad thing. Those people will secure them from children, handle them responsibly, and employ them lawfully. The thugs who have been running the streets have now been given fair warning that the police response time may be several minutes, but the law is the law right now. Part of the solution to unlawful violence is the threat of a lawful civilian response.

Anyway, thanks for the segment on this hot button issue. Kudos for trying your best to be fair.

Sent by Edward | 4:17 PM ET | 03-19-2007

I am a married father of two and I often worry about my current options if an armed intruder enters my home. On the other hand, I worry about what could happen if I choose to arm myself with a handgun to protect my family.

I prefer the opportunity to make my own choice on the matter. Hopefully the Distict's legitimate gun owners will be forced to regularly qualify themselves via owner licensing, gun registration and continuing education.

As for the interview... there was plenty of irony in Valencia's and Shanda's differing points of view but their heated banter made me nervous. Though this may have been the intent since the presentation of honest, unfiltered, contrasting opinions often have that effect.

Sent by plw | 4:33 PM ET | 03-19-2007

I enjoyed the discussion by the religious leaders, especially the candor of the rabbi who said we really don't know the meaning of such events, but that the best we can do is to be kind to one another.

That gun control discussion was muy caliente! A little bit rough and tumble and it was tough to follow with the two speakers talking over one another, but strangely it was probably an outgrowth of the two women being friends. Nice job of calming things down at the end.

When's this baby (the show) gonna go on the air?

Sent by Stanley | 11:38 AM ET | 03-22-2007

The comment by former NRA Board member Jeff Cooper who was quoted (by Free DC) as saying "the consensus is that no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well supplied with ammunition."

His comments were directed at a study published in the Feb. 3, 1994 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine by Hutson and Range, "Adolescents and children injured or killed in drive-by shootings in Los Angeles". You can find it on the web. One of the findings was that "80% of children and teens injured by gunfire were found to be documented members of gangs." Sadly, Cooper's comments are supported by some unpleasant facts. And there are several other studies by independent researchers across the nation with similar findings. While there are WAAAAY to many innocent victims, it seems that the vast majority of US homicides involve criminals killing other criminals.

Sent by Dave in DC | 9:50 PM ET | 03-25-2007

Edward, I don't think you'll ever find a rational gun owner who doesn't agree that it's their responsibility to attempt to secure their firearms from unauthorized persons. (Children, Teens, and Adults). This is one of the first things taught in the NRA Basic Firearm safety course.

I believe the "trigger lock" debate gets framed this way, but in reality the debate is over laws that REQUIRE firearms to be locked up as is the case in DC.

I absolutely agree that it is the owner's responsibility, however let me also say that it's not fair to hold the owners accountable for the actions of others.

We all have a responsibility to secure our vehicles, but if our car is stolen by a 15 year old kid who kills somebody in a crosswalk, we can't transfer the blame to the owner of the car.

Afterall, locks generally keep honest people honest.

Sent by Justin | 10:39 AM ET | 03-26-2007

The irony here is the Second Amendment is a civil right. And if that right is upheld and localities/states try to infringe further on that right, then the 14th Amendment (which prohibits states from infringing on the rights of U.S. citizens) will come to play and prevent local actions which infringe on "2A." It should be noted that the 14th Amendment was the workhorse of civil rights for the last 50 years, and was passed (1868) in large measure to prevent white supremacists in the Reconstruction South from disarming blacks, thereby violating their Second Amendment rights. So much irony, so little time.

Sent by Stephen W. McGuire | 7:08 PM ET | 03-26-2007

I have a problem with the idea that the NRA is a white male conservative group. The NRA was started by a 20,000.00 grant from Congress by UNION officers to teach markmanship to ALL citizens. The NRA also helped arm blacks in the South during Jim Crow. And yes gun control does have racist roots. The South instituted all kinds of gun control laws after the Civil War meant to target Blacks. The Sullivan law in NY was to target "Swarmey Immigrants". The 2nd amendment is not liberal or conservative. While the left goes around screaming POLICE STATE they have convinced Africian Americans to disarem and only the POLICE and MILITARY should have firearms. What does that sound like to you?? Also CA passed gun control laws aganist the armed Black Panthers. Those on the left need to READ and not listen to their betters on all matters. No side is correct all the time on all things.

Sent by Kim Graves, M.D. | 11:26 PM ET | 03-27-2007