Sunday, July 12, 2015

Your Cheery Sunday Morning: FBI Director Says Gun Laws Failed In Charleston Massacre

In an ironic twist in the tragic and exasperating Charleston-Roof case, the background check laws aimed at preventing gun sales to convicted felons just plain failed, allowing convicted felon Dylann Roof to buy a powerful handgun more suited to use as a law enforcement officer's sidearm. So says FBI Director James Comey, and surely we can always believe him, right? [/sarcasm] (Everytown for Gun Safety says in a broadcast email that it was "because of an NRA-backed loophole in the law" but we all know the NRA would never do anything that would result in harm to anyone, ever, right? right?? [/extreme‑sarcasm])

Glock 41
Nine people died because Dylann Roof, a convicted felon, was able to buy a powerful handgun (reportedly a Glock 41 semiautomatic) in South Carolina back in April, which he used two months later to murder nine members of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, NC... just because they were Black. Roof even had the unmitigated nerve to attend their Bible study for an hour before he slaughtered them; apparently, though, the message "love one another" didn't take hold in him.

People generally had one reaction, no matter their political or religious outlook: horror, sorrow, a deep sense of loss. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on the other hand, saw the event as an opportunity to proselytize for the gun lobby and for keeping the gun laws just the way they are now:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement: "It's disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws. The American people, and especially the victims' families, deserve better."
Yeah, Chuck, it sure as hell is "disastrous." Far be it from me to point any fingers of blame, of course; we're all at fault because a doubtless perfect law did not function perfectly when it was needed most. There is of course no need... never any need... to improve the law. Right, Chuck?

I shall not live to see these terrible tragedies— rather, this one huge ongoing tragedy— come to an end. And that's true even if I don't encounter a convicted felon packing heat who was able to purchase his piece illegally. [/sigh] This is the 21st century, not the 18th; surely there is some way the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted that does not result in widespread criminal ownership and use of firearms. There's gotta be a way.


  1. So, not only do with have a terrible tragedy, but we can't even use it as a basis to do something about gun laws.

    Sigh.... Not that anyone's ever doing anything about guns anyway.

    1. Good to see you on the threads, Mad! The thing I find most difficult to get past is the possibly legitimate difference in outlook between city-dwellers like you and me, and country folk like my maternal grandparents. To the latter, firearms are tools, necessary for daily life in an environment in which direct contact with food animals (either hunted or farmed) that must be killed, sick or injured animals that must be destroyed, dangerous critters like rattlesnakes or hogs gone wild (there's a reason for the expression "hog wild," and my farmer ancestors could tell you all about it from firsthand experience) that must be dispatched, etc. is inevitable. To the former, to us city folk, the list of gun users is a lot shorter: cops, criminals, gun nuts, and homeowners intent on providing any robber on their premises with a weapon he can use.

      It is no surprise that these broad classes of people have different and strong opinions on guns: for me (and probably for you), the fewer encounters I have with guns, the better; for my granddad, matters were quite different.

      I know of no resolution of this difference that does not leave one or the other class mad as hell. Got any solutions? Call 'em "magic bullets," I suppose... %-)>

    2. I meant to mention that the list of city-dwelling gun users most certainly does include individuals who are members of more than one kind, e.g., "cop" and "criminal." I'm still contemplating whether "gun-toting white racist" should be defined as a separate kind or not. [/shudder]



• Click here to view existing comments.
• Or enter your new rhyme or reason
in the new comment box here.
• Or click the first Reply link below an existing
comment or reply and type in the
new reply box provided.
• Scrolling manually up and down the page
is also OK.

Static Pages (About, Quotes, etc.)

No Police Like H•lmes