Town Crier: Time to imagine reasonable gun control
by Brian Williams
Aug 03, 2012 | 5370 views | 43 43 comments | 19 19 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Close your eyes for a few moments. Imagine yourself in the soothing darkness with a box of $6 popcorn and an overpriced soda. You are watching the almost endless advertisements and futile reminders to turn off your cell phones, patiently waiting for your movie to start. Anticipation builds as you ready yourself for the long-awaited movie you have been planning to see.

With a thunderous start, your favorite superhero appears on the massive screen. You haven’t seen him in years and have eagerly awaited his dramatic return. At this moment, nothing could be better.

Moments later, smoke fills your lungs, your eyes are burning, and deafening explosions fill the room. Is this a prank? You wonder as a man dressed in black shoots into the ceiling. Your brain can’t comprehend what you are seeing. Is this really happening?

Suddenly, a pain you have never imagined rips through your shoulder. Screams surround you — people are running madly. A 6-year-old girl lies lifeless next to you. The companion of a pregnant woman falls to the ground.

The man in the theater opens fire with his semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle. Bullets spew out at an unimaginable rate.

One after another, people begin to fall.

A 26-year-old father of two little children is cut down; a 51-year-old father falls in front of his teenage children. More began to fall. Screams continue in the darkness as the man mows moviegoers down one by one.

Twelve dead and 58 injured. Hundreds of bullets and lives forever torn. In just minutes, in Aurora, Colo., an apparently disturbed young man ended and damaged the lives of so very many.

Imagine if you will, how different it could be if disturbed 24-year-olds were unable to go out and easily purchase an assault rifle that holds 100 rounds of bullets designed to tear through human flesh and kill.

Imagine those two young children running up to their front door to greet their dad upon his return home. Imagine the 51-year-old father, watching his children graduate from college. Imagine the mother experiencing childbirth.

Sadly, our imagination in this horrible case will not bring back these fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. Those innocent children will never embrace their dad upon his return from work. That father will never see his kids graduate and move on with their lives. The parents of the 6-year-old killed in that theater will never see their baby girl again.

While the Second Amendment will forever allow us to bear our arms, should the Second Amendment allow us to outfit ourselves in military-grade weaponry and open fire in a crowded theater?

America is free, and guns will always ensure our freedom, but it is time we demand reasonable gun control, as our individual future relies upon it.

Now open your eyes and ask yourself, what do you see?

• Brian Williams first moved to Tracy in 1993 and returned to town in 2012 after a brief hiatus in Dublin. He can be reached at. Briansbrain2010@gmail.com.

Comments
(43)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Firemedic_not_Tracy
|
August 13, 2012
What do I see?... In my world, I see myself pulling out my concealed 9mm HK pistol and shooting him in the head. If more LAW abiding citizens carried guns, we the people could defend ourselves against the crazy minded killers. There would be less violent crimes if the CRIMINALS had to wonder ..... who else here has a gun besides me? the Grandpa over there, the dad, the lady with the big purse.. We need to put more guns in the hands of people who don't mind using them to stop the crazies.
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
August 09, 2012
Curious to know if the author knew there are over 900 laws already on the books when he wrote this letter?

Or if this was just an attempt to ask questions to see what people think.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 09, 2012
RHCPeppers, there is no such thing as reasonable gun control because it comes mainly from liberals and top liberals define reasonable gun control as no guns in America in the long run because that is what they want to see period. I guess a reasonable question would be what kind of fight they would be up against with taking guns away from criminals, thugs, streetgangs, racist groups. Of course us lawfull Americans who want to hunt, target practice, collect and use guns for defending ourselves and freedom. We aren't the violent sector of armed civilization but the gun laws effect us the most uneccesarily and not the criminals or insane because they don't give a damm about any gun laws and only crazy ahole nutjobs go out and shoot up a theater full of innocent people. But because we fight these idiotic gun laws with the help of the NRA we are labeled radical or militant. What is reasonable and how is it defined by the anti gun sector? What would be the next reasonable law after the last reasonable law and the next reasonable.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 07, 2012
You need to start thinking who you will be voting for also. In November Obama will have four more worry free years to take the guns away from us. Go google the ATT gun ban, Agenda 21 and Nato who will have power over our 2nd ammendments.

I'll be voting for Romney because the liberals and liberal media does not like guns in america but we get to keep the street gangs.
doors17
|
August 07, 2012
It’ll never happen, LINTN. The NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in DC. The Democrats are cowards to stand up against them, and the R’s will never do anything to cross their cash cow for the fear of losing political contributions.

The assault rifle ban from 1994 to 04 came about because of the shooting that occurred in Stockton in 1989 when that nut shot up and killed the kids at that elementary school, and the gun AK-47 entered our vocabulary.

After the two shootings that have taken place in Wisconsin and Colorado in the past couple of weeks, the only winners are gun manufactures from sales from fear that this will mean the taking of guns, and fundraising that the NRA gives scaring its members that the government will take away their guns. It’s not about freedom, only money.

Nothing is going to change. We’re no longer shocked when we experience these types of killings. Only the number of victim’s killed gets our attention. The Wisconsin story will fade after the funeral services since the shooter is now dead, but the Colorado story will remain in the headlines when the trial begins.

RedHotChilliPeppers
|
August 09, 2012
I completely disagree where you said we are no longer shocked. I think, if you poll Americans you will find they are concerned about these things happening.

In fact, one of the arguments they make is that they want to be able to protect themselves if it happens. I'm not advocating either way, but I do think you missed the points they made.

If we are going to make headway on these conversations, eewcertainly need to learn to listen better all around.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 07, 2012
Criminals will still have guns no matter what and they will plan it where the police departments are over-worked on the twenty, thirty or fifty plus calls on one side of town by diversions but real shootings and take advantage of the neighborhoods that are not going to be protected just like the criminals planned. This method will be done over and over again until society finds a means of re arming themselves to protect their lives and families. ADT can't even protect you.

Now, we live through this scenario above and now we get our guns back from the authorities and start shooting back to protect our property and familys.

Street gangs and bands of thugs figure out that they are getting shot up by law abiding homeowners and they decide to stay home and leave the home invasions of the now to the real bad criminals or the very stupid criminals but for the most part as we know society today is we actually agree a armed society by lawfull gun owners is actually a safer society.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 07, 2012
@briandub, go live in a very bad part of a rough town, any town full of thugs. You'll see they won't be very quiet when they break into your house to robb you. They will keep coming back until you either move, get a gun or run out of stuff to take from you or you are dead from them.

Take away guns and all of the above will still apply in the all nicer neighborhoods like BelAir in L.A. or Quail Lakes and everyplace in cities like Tracy because the cops will be so over saturated with 911 calls at one time because criminals are not stupid and they would plan it that way.

Like drug turf gangs and thugs will divide up a city and roam from neighborhood to neighborhood robbing, raping and killing like it was a eight hour work day because there was nobody there to stop them and no homeowners with guns because they were all taken away. Now we call in the National Guard but the Guard members have families and want to protect them but they can't unless they are one of the luvky ones who get stationed at the city they live in and neighborhood they live at.

Call in the regular military? How long do you think society will funtion? You see, a armed society IS a safer society.
backinblack
|
August 07, 2012
briandub writes: "I think that one just has to look at the inner-city to see how well that works where so many are armed and with the slightest provocation, guns are used instead of words and fists."

Dude, not a very good example. Do you really think the current shootings in Chicago are being carried out by law abiding citizens? Granted some innocents are getting killed in the cross fire which of course is tragic but I'll bet the perps are all miscreants going after other miscreants.

You really seem to be missing the point others are making, guns are fine in the hands of law abiding citizens so making a reference to what goes on in the inner cities is a bit absurd.

You want to fix a lot of the problems we face as a country? Let's get some laws in place which keep the uneducated and uninformed from voting, that would be a good start. Note: I'm not implying you fall into either category.

Next, dump the department of education which helps churn out a bunch of dummies, stop accepting the idea that going through life uninformed, stupid, and out of shape is ok, and lets step up our game. A well informed, educated, and civil populace would solve a lot of problems.
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
August 07, 2012
briandub,

Here's a question:

Gun control --> bring back the death penalty?
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
August 06, 2012
briandub,

You are proposing two new laws.

The first law you proposed was gun control.

Then you proposed the govermnment makes all the nut jobs take a personality test.

I think the reason you keep striking out is because you have not addressed the fundamental problem in America.

The liberals keep trying to replace morality, in America, with more laws.

As was pointed out, we have laws, and they failed.

Everytime a liberal wants to get voted into office, he or she, skirts past what needs to be done, and instead says, "let's add more gun laws that won't work. The voters will eat this stuff up."

I hope you're able to see that?
briandub
|
August 06, 2012
I really just ask you the questions and you debate.

Is it troubling that it's easier to buy an assault weapon than get a job or legally drive a car? An employer runs a background check, to include calling previous employers, verifying education, and requiring a personality assessment before you are hired. Legally driving requires, school, practice and testing.

An assault rifle requires a small waiting period and simple background check for previous felony convictions.

In addition, does anyone really believe an armed society is safer than an unarmed or limited armed society? I think that one just has to look at the inner-city to see how well that works where so many are armed and with the slightest provocation, guns are used instead of words and fists.

Igohntn
|
August 07, 2012
Brian, it is extremely apparent that you tend to make statements without doing one ioda of reasurch. Furthermore for you to ask a question " does anyone really believe that an armed society is safer than an unarmed society or limited armed society" blows my mind. Your kind of thinking is what will turn this country into a Police State. It seems to me that you would be ok with that. I along with the majority of this country am not. Your freedom is fought daily to provide for that. One of two things are taking place here, a) you are just steering a debate or b) you are not putting much thought into what you write. You should do more reasurch before you make statements in print. It is very clear that states which have adopted right to carry laws have found a drop in crime rate. It is also clear that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the worlds deadly instruments being irelivent. My true hope here is that you just enjoying the firestorm. Last, if your home is invaded, let me know how your fists work out!
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
August 07, 2012
briandub,

Everybody is asking questions. It's very sad what happened.

I tried to meet in the middle and help folks find the answers.

Read what others are saying, I mean, this clown was making bombs.

Are bombs legal?

So, the question people have, here, for those who choose to legislate morality, is this.

How many laws should we write before we realize the social experiment is not working?
princesaportuguese
|
August 06, 2012
NO MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN CONTROL LAWS!!!!! We already have over 900 UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun control laws in California alone! What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

If you don't want to carry a gun (anytype of gun) DON'T but how dare you infringe upon MY RIGHT to. Imagine if there were more people carrying....these shooters would be dropped LONG before 71 shots were fired. LONG before 50 people were shot. Gun control doesnt stop CRIMINALS WHO DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW TO BEGIN WITH! All it does is put law obiding citizens in danger! Instead of gun control, how about CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY?!?!?!!? An armed society is a polite society.
briandub
|
August 05, 2012
I have a couple of follow up points.

The most common lines used in the gun control debate is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." and this is indeed true as guns don't simply walk off the shelf, drive to the theater and begin killing people at random.

People just use the guns as a tool to complete their task.

So guns do not kill people, they just make it very convenient for people to quickly kill lots of people.

A point was made to compare deaths by firearms to deaths in vehicles. And this is also true as it is known vehicles kill far more people than firearms. But its odd that you need multiple classes, training and testing to drive. Yet all you need is background check to buy an assault rifle.

This young man was clearly not mentally well when he was allowed to purchase an assault rifle, two handguns and a shotgun. He also purchased an extended clip and over a thousand rounds of ammo in addition to body armor.

I think we need to talk about the need for assault rifles to be legally purchased and how it may be a red flag when someone makes a purchase like he did. Maybe a personality assessment check along with the background where we could look for signs of mental illne
briandub
|
August 05, 2012
continue-

mental illness?

These guns get out to the criminals, drug dealers, and even to Mexico as drug lords come to America to buy the guns they use to go to war across the border killing hundreds every year with legally purchased guns in America.

Igohntn
|
August 05, 2012
I am all for that concept! I would have no problem with detailed testing, classes, a mental state evaluation. I, as well as many others who appose gun control laws feel this way. The only problem is the guy that is a wack job won't bother with this type of effort. It kind of goes back to the old saying, locks are only used to keep honest people honest. If some nut case wants to go out and commit a heinous crime, he or she will find a way. Just as the person that does a drive by shooting, for $50.00 bucks they will pick one up off the street. My gripe is the blaim being placed on the word assault rifle. California law allows the sale of these weapons. The difference from pre 1994 to now is only the fact that the clip can only hold five rounds and does not have a "quick clip eject", you need to push in on a pin which is inset on the eject button. A large magazine defeats the whole purpose of this. There's our law makers for you. That said, I don't know what the answer to the problem is. All I do know is we have a bunch of idiots trying to take away more of our freedom. If some had their way, we would not be allowed to own any gun. And that my friend would be dangerous!
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 06, 2012
Gun law don't work any more than requiring drivers licenses. It just keeps honest people honest!
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 06, 2012
Fer some reason th last of my statement didn't come through.

These laws keep honest people honest, fer certain but they also provide a revenue stream ta th government.

Fer example, does it really cost all that money ta register yer car every year? An why do we have ta carry that registration an proof of insurance when it's all computerized so every officer can easily retrieve it?

Oh wait, it must be so th bad guys can watch yer family attend a blockbuster movie that's gonna keep ya occupied so they can break inta yer car, look at yer registration an proof of insurance, get th address an then drive over ta yer house with over an hour ta browse through yer house uninterrupted.
Igohntn
|
August 04, 2012
Ok, I'm getting a bit tiered of this subject and will finally voice my opinion. Let's try to put this into perspective. Since the ban on assault weapons in 1994, there have been 122 deaths related to "mass shootings, five or more in any given situation". Any hand gun is capable of that near twice over. In the same amount of time, 18 years, we have lost approximately 250,000 people in alcohal related accidents. There are approximately 250 million cars in America which would equate to around 1 in every 16,000 cars someone will die in an accident associated to alcohal. Your time chasing a ban on these weapons would be far greater spent removing the right to own an automobile. Or the right to consume alcohal. Or smoking, or drugs, or gangs or any other large number of deaths associated to some of these natures rather than chasing something that restricts our constitutional rights. The government has enough control over society as it is. Before long there will be regulation as to how many sheets of toilet paper we use to wipe our ass. If your ok with that, continue your fight. If you would feel safer in a country with tighter gun control, call me, I'll help you pack!
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 04, 2012
Good responce, and if you need help with packing them folks up I'll be happy to help you.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 03, 2012
Brian I appreciate your letter but it is all we can do but immagine bad people not having acess to weaponry that will kill several innocent people in a moment like that ahole did in colorado. You'll hear arguments like 'only if there were armed citezens' at the time he opened fire it may have turned out less bad off. Overall america is good meaning maybe few and far between on these masacures. I'm very pro gun and I also see a need to keep guns out of the wrong hands BUT. Most of your violence is coming from gang members and ex-felons who do the driveby shootings or killing for drugs or get shot by cops because they run because. So bottom line is I guess, the liberals in america clammer for tighter gun laws but the BS laws they come up with "only effect" us law abiding americans because criminals and felons "do not give a rattsass about gun laws" and only if they get caught and go to jail if in possession. We have enough laws and its time for the legal systems to start using sand-paper on these loosers who don't care about me or you.

I've never heard of a gangbanger worried about passing a backgrounds check to get a gun so he could do his driveby shooting. They don't care period.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 03, 2012
But the most important issue is the 2nd ammendment, our founding fathers were all for freedom, limited government and freedom from "Tyranny". If you have forgot the war of 1812 you need to brush up on this and the reasons for why we have a 2nd ammendment. We didn't have many home invasions back then but we do now and we do have the right to protect ourselves but Hillary Clinton is busy at the UN trying to push Obamas ban on firearms, using the United Nations to circumvent out 2nd ammendment.

*In common usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of an oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 03, 2012
Actually we did have home invasions by th British government under orders frum th King of England.

It's why we have search an seizure laws as well as quartering laws incorporated in th Constitution.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 03, 2012
Close your eyes for a few moments. Imagine yourself in the soothing darkness with the company of your family in your home and watching a movie on the wide screen TV set. Close your eyes for a few moments. Imagine yourself in the soothing darkness with the thought that only good law abiding people who respected the law only had guns.

Imagine yourself in the soothing darkness with your family in the family room and all of a sudden your front door explodes by one, two or three masked home invaders wanting that TV and money you have and look at your wife or daughter as their next crime to do by raping and kill you after.

How can this happen when only good citezens are the only ones who can legally own guns? And how can this happen when we have a police department just minutes away to save you if you have enough time to dial 911?

Well what the government is working towards is a total ban on all gun and needless to say the only people who would have guns would be the criminals and police. After all, it is the police VS the criminals right? And since we are lawful citezens we depend on them because we don't have any right to own a gun to protect our family and the police will save us?

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 03, 2012
Unfortunately it's a member of th coroners office that carries out yer lifeless corpse while th police take th reports an attempt ta find th guy that made ya that way, hopefully before he does it again ta someone else.

It takes a couple of seconds ta kill someone with a gun. How long does it take th police ta respond when they finally get th message?
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
August 03, 2012
So, Brian,

What if they (theoretically) imposed gun control laws and took all the legal ones away...

What would happen to all the illegal ones?

Who would get them?

You don't think he would have found a way?

Just trying to deduce if we should follow your logic and where it might end up if we did.

Thanks in advance!
tramp
|
August 03, 2012
And by the way,the shooter in Co. had a semi-automatic RIFLE, not an assualt rifle, but that doesn't sell news.
LuckyInTracyNot
|
August 03, 2012
I think what Brian is saying is this, imagine IF everybody could be pleased with reasonable gun law control and stayed in the safety zone of his letter not to be blasted by us gun owners and peo constitutionalists. The bottom line here is this, water will find it's own level, meaning if a gun is not availiable the individual will find any way he or she can to kill or murder people.

In this day and age I think an unarmed America is a more dangerouse America because of the terrorists sleeping in their cells across our country, they are just waiting for the call of idiot leaders who are just as bad as the killer in Colorado was.

There are enough gun laws in our country to float a battleship but these law makers want to keep cranking out stupid gun laws thinking it will make us safer. Can we say SB249 Senator YEE? What is the best way to rally liberals in a voting year but to attack gun owners.

Can we say the ATT Gun Ban that gives NATO full power to circumvent our 2nd ammendment rights as Americans?

Criminals DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS, NEVER WILL CARE. Guns will always be in the hands of criminals because they are criminals preying on me and you. Guns also keep us free!
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 03, 2012
If a frog had wings perhaps he wouldn't bump his butt as he jumped across th ground.

Ya can play th what if scenarios until yer blue in th face but in th end yer still gaspin fer breath.

First of all no gun control law would have prevented this and if ya thank fer a second bannin guns is gonna solve th problem yer delusional.

Th criminally insane will always find a way ta kill.

Whair I grew up they would make what was called a zip gun in th high school machine shop an then use it against a teacher, students, rival gangs an or private citizens.

Th point bein made here is th deranged mind will go to every length ta satisfy it's ego an derangement.

GUNS, in an of themselves, DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. People do.

It's already against th law for a mentally unstable person or a person who has a history of violence, both th same mentality, ta own a gun or have a gun he can easily an illegally access to feed his warped mentality.

Restrictin law abidin citizens th right ta keep an bear arms, under th 2nd Amendment of th Constitution ain't gonna make ya any safer because, understand this, CRIMINALS, CRAZY PEOPLE, DON'T OBEY THE LAW AN ALL YA HAVE DONE IS MAKE IT EASIER FER EM.
tramp
|
August 03, 2012
I think it stinks that the Media is always in such a rush to sesationalize these tragedies and demonize guns. Guns are a tool, YOU are the weapon! Just a week before the theatre shooting in Aurora,C., there was another, not published by mainstream media. A deranged ex-felon, Kiarron Parker, out of jail 1 week, goes to a church armed with a pistol and rifle,and opens fire, killing only one before he was shot down and killed by an armed parishioner. This church was NOT a "gun-free zone", as was the theatre. This armed HERO stopped what cuold have been a scenario just like at the theatre. As Ben Franklin said " those who would give up basic freedoms in order to be more secure, are neither free nor secure". As stated before, criminals don't obey laws, guns or otherwise.
dcose
|
August 03, 2012
...should the Second Amendment allow us to outfit ourselves in military-grade weaponry and open fire in a crowded theater?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
August 03, 2012
Not actually but if it's necessary, yes.

Th point is definin when it's necessary.

Betcha th cops showed up with fully automatic weapons an would have used em if necessary.

Bet if thair was one law abidin citizen that had a military grade weapon in th theater an that citizen had th opportunity ta use it th killer wouldn't have been as successful as he was durin his murderous rampage an a whole lot of people would be alive taday.

But that's a what if game that's really don't answer anythang.

I know yer question was leadin an beggin fer discussion.


We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.