Posted by rogerhollander in Children, Gun Control/Violence, Humor.
Tags: andy borowitz, gun control, political humor, political satire, roger hollander, second amendment
Roger’s note: Last week a nine year old girl from New Jersey was on vacation with her family in Arizona where she was taken to a gun range (the Last Stop shooting range) by her parents where she was given a Uzi sub-machine gun to fire at a target. Something went wrong, probably with the weapon’s recoil, and she occidentally shot and killed the instructor at her side. Unlike the article below, I am not making this up.
AUGUST 28, 2014
BY ANDY BOROWITZ
CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/GETTY
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Across the United States on Wednesday, a heated national debate began on the extremely complex issue of children firing military weapons.
“Every now and then, the nation debates an issue that is so complicated and tricky it defies easy answers,” says pollster Davis Logsdon. “Letting small children fire automatic weapons is such an issue.”
Logsdon says that the thorny controversy is reminiscent of another ongoing national debate, about whether it is a good idea to load a car with dynamite and drive it into a tree.
“Many Americans think it’s a terrible idea, but others believe that with the correct supervision, it’s perfectly fine,” he says. “Who’s to say who’s right?”
Similar, he says, is the national debate about using a flamethrower indoors. “There has been a long and contentious national conversation about this,” he says. “It’s another tough one.”
Much like the long-running national debates about jumping off a roof, licking electrical sockets, and gargling with thumbtacks, the vexing question of whether children should fire military weapons does not appear headed for a swift resolution.
“Like the issue of whether you should sneak up behind a bear and jab it with a hot poker, this won’t be settled any time soon,” he says.
Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: abby zimet, bodyguard blanket, bullet proof, bulletproof blanket, childrens safety, gun control, roger hollander, safety, violence
Roger’s note: I am reminded of the drop drills we had when I was in elementary school in the immediate post WWII years. In case of atomic attack, the teacher would yell “DROP!” and we would dive under our desks. This surely would have protected us from an atomic blast. Security is not a matter of weapons or bullet proof accessories, but rather a just social and economic system. Of course, fear mongering is good and profitable for enterprising capitalists such as the one described here. So, hurry, get your bullet proof blanket today, supplies are limited! And pick up your automatic weapon and rounds while you’re at it!
When will they ever learn?
06.10.14 – 11:13 AM, Common Dreams
An Oklahoma podiatrist has designed the Bodyguard Blanket, a bulletproof pad offering “an extra layer of protection” against “90% of all weapons that have been used in school shootings in the United States.” In their soft-focus, schmaltzy-music-festooned video, kids romp on “just an ordinary day” until – dark music for “when seconds count” – they dutifully strap on their blankets and hunch on the floor under some capitalist’s wet dream of a money-making scheme because that’s all the kids will have thanks to gutless politicians who’ve failed to do anything else to protect them against our national lunacy, and no this is not The Onion.
Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence, Women.
Tags: campus sexual violence, jocelyn hollander, roger hollander, self-defense, self-defense classes, sexual assault, sexual assault prevention
By Jocelyn Hollander
Published: 12:00 a.m., May 5, The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon
Two weeks ago, an undergraduate woman at the University of Oregon was sexually assaulted. She wasn’t the only one: Statistically, on a campus of 20,000 students, it’s likely that at least 10 women were sexually assaulted that week, and 2,175 of the women currently enrolled will have been assaulted before graduation.
They are assaulted by friends they trusted, by acquaintances, by classmates, by partners, and, rarely, by strangers. Most of these assaults are not reported to any authority, and most perpetrators suffer no penalties.
In January, President Obama appointed a task force to begin to address the problem of campus sexual violence, and the task force released their report last week. The report highlights four action items: collecting better data on the extent of the problem, evidence-based prevention programs such as bystander intervention, improved institutional responses, and more effective enforcement. These are all excellent and much-needed steps.
However, the task force’s suggestions leave out an important prevention strategy, and I believe that by doing so they do women a grave disservice. Here is the problem: What is a woman to do when her friend, acquaintance, date or partner begins to assault her? Is she to sit and wait for a bystander to intervene, or for data to be collected? Or is there something she can do in that moment, or perhaps even earlier, to prevent the assault?
There actually is something she can do, and it is very effective: She could learn basic skills to prevent and respond to assault. Self-defense classes have been taught in the United States since the 1970s, developed by feminists who saw rape and other forms of violence against women as a key source of social inequality. The best classes are holistic, teaching awareness and verbal self-defense as well as physical self-defense.
Emerging research on self-defense training is finding that these classes are very effective in preventing sexual assault. They don’t just teach women how to stop assault once they happen — they actually prevent assaults from happening in the first place. In addition to reducing women’s risk of violence, these classes are also extraordinarily empowering, increasing women’s self-confidence and decreasing their fear throughout their lives. Self-defense training may also have mental health benefits, such as decreasing depression and anxiety.
So why not include self-defense training in our portfolio of prevention strategies? Some people simply don’t believe that women can be strong enough to effectively fight back against violence. However, women defend themselves from violence all the time, even without self-defense training, and their resistance often stops assault.
One recent study found that when women used physical resistance strategies during an attack, there was an 85 percent decrease in the odds of being raped.
Other critics argue that advocating self-defense implies that women bear responsibility for stopping assault. But regardless of whether they defend themselves or not, victims are never responsible for assault. Indeed, every self-defense teacher I’ve ever seen has taken great pains to make clear that the only ones responsible for violence are perpetrators, and that women should not be blamed if they choose not to resist or if they are unsuccessful in doing so.
In addition to the important strategies suggested by the task force, college campuses should make self-defense training available to all women. Learning self-defense doesn’t replace these other strategies — but it ensures that until the other strategies begin to work, women have the backup skills to protect themselves, rather than waiting for someone else to intervene.
We know that learning self-defense reduces women’s risk of assault. To leave this important strategy out of our college sexual assault plan is to deny women access to information that may protect them from assault — right now, not at some vague time in the future.
Jocelyn Hollander is an associate professor and head of the Department of Sociology at the University of Oregon.
Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence, Racism, Religion.
Tags: christmas, christmas 2013, Claremont United Methodist Church, gun control, guns, Nativity, nra, racism, Religion News, roger hollander, trayvon martin, Trayvon Martin Case, Trayvon Martin Nativity, Umc, United Methodist Church, violence, zimmerman
Roger’s note: I am not that big on organized Christianity or the nativity myth, but there are some few who call themselves Christian who actually do reflect the ethic of love and peace. And I am big on remembering Trayvon Martin and the institutionalized racism and gun industry that were responsible for his murder as much as the fool Zimmerman.
Trayvon Martin hasn’t been forgotten at Claremont United Methodist Church in Claremont, Cali.– in fact, he appears front and center in their Nativity display. He serves as a bloody and tragic reminder of the dangers of gun violence and racial privilege in today’s America, reports David Allen of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
Amongst the traditional holy family, Martin sits hunched over in his iconic black hoodie, blood pouring from his chest and pooling at his feet, reports Patch.com. The title of the scene, “A Child is Born, a Son is Given,” is outlined within the blood and evokes themes of both Christmas and Easter, according to artist John Zachary, who has been creating thought-provoking displays since 2007.
Zachary told Allen in an interview that the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who fatally shot the unarmed teenager in 2012, “struck him as a worthy subject for Christmas comment.”
“There is no better time to reflect on gun violence than advent, when we celebrate the birth of Jesus,” says a sign at the church.. “Jesus was born into a state of total vulnerability as an innocent, unarmed child during a time of great violence much like Trayvon Martin.”
As families gather together at Christmas to celebrate, Zachary hopes to get them to think long and hard about their own blessings and privileges. He told Allen that many Christmas traditions of gifts reflect “privilege, and there’s a lot of people who don’t have that privilege. Maybe I should do something that’s provocative, that’s more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.”
Artist John Zachary
This isn’t the first time that the church has used the Nativity as an opportunity to remind people about issues of social justice and inequality, which probably would have been of great concern to Jesus himself. Past displays have included Jesus and Mary as a homeless couple struggling to feed their newborn child, as Iraqi refugees next to U.S. soldiers, as immigrants from Mexico stopped by the wall at the border, among others. In 2011, Zachary’s Nativity display was of the outlines of three couples, two of them same-sex, gathering under the banner “Christ Is Born.”
Sharon Rhodes-Wickett, lead pastor at the church, told Allen that she finds this year’s scene difficult to look at, due to its violence. “It’s hard to look at a young man who’s shot and bleeding to death,” she said. “But even though I’m uncomfortable, that’s the point. We have to take a look at the violence.”
Response to the display has been surprisingly muted. “I thought this would be more controversial, but I come to find out people don’t really like people getting shot,” Zachary told Allen. “They may not agree what to do about it, but they agree it’s a bad thing.”
Rhodes-Wickett said that her congregation is progressive, and that “Most people like something that makes us think and makes us search our hearts.”
Also on HuffPost:
Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: abby zimet, d.c.navy yard, gun control, guns, Mass Shootings, navy yard, roger hollander
One more time: A guy – an unstable veteran who drank alot, suffered from anger management and other ill-defined mental issues, and “had a gun at all times” – killed at least 12 people at a D.C. Navy yard. There have been so many mass shootings in this country, and this country alone, that there are currently several battling definitions for mass shootings. If one uses the FBI definition - a spree in which four or more people are killed in one location – there have been six mass shootings in the past nine months and 20 during Obama’s presidency. If you broaden the definition to include people killed or wounded in the spree, as the folks at the database Guns Are Cool have reasonably done, the number comes to 250 in 2013, or almost one a day. Yes. Almost one a day. You can scroll down them. Scroll and scroll. While details are still emerging on this latest travesty, we do know a few things: that gun freaks should shut up already with their crap about how none of this would have happened if there had been more guns at the Navy yard – a notion Chris Hayes obliterates right quick – and that the body count in this country is well past obscene. Obama called the shooting “a cowardly act.” You wanna see a cowardly act? Congress persistently, unfathomably, unconscionably failing to halt the bloodshed.
“Guns don’t kill people. Nothing kills people. People don’t die. Stop saying words.” – spoof NRA tweet.
Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: Adolphus Busch IV, Adolphus Busch IV NRA, Background Checks, Busch Nra, David Keene, gun control, Gun Control Vote, Gun Violence, National Rifle Association, nra, NRA Busch, Obama Senate Gun Defeat, Politics News, roger hollander, Senate Gun Bill, video
Roger’s note: this article makes it crystal clear that it is the arms and munition manufacturers who are behind the sleazebag LaPierre and the blood-tainted US Senators who enable the massacres we now witness on a regular basis.
WASHINGTON — Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, “I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable.”
The resignation, first reported by KSDK, came a day after the Senate rejected a series of amendments to a gun control bill, including a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for gun sales. The NRA had vigorously opposed all those measures.
“The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established,” wrote Busch. “Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.”
Reached for comment on Busch’s resignation, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told The Huffington Post, “We disagree with his characterization, but we wish him all the best.”
Busch joined the pro-gun organization in 1975 and has spoken before of his love of hunting. But the NRA has moved in a direction that Busch would not follow. “One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners,” he wrote.
Busch told Keene, “It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA.” He singled out the gun lobby’s reversal of its 1999 position in favor of universal background checks, as well as its opposition to an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. “I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision,” he wrote.
“Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as ‘reasonable’?” Busch wrote, referring to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.
At that time, LaPierre said the NRA believed that universal background checks were a “reasonable” choice. The group even took out ads in major newspapers that read, “We believe it’s reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops.”
One week after that hearing, LaPierre rolled out the same argument that he would use 14 years later to attack President Barack Obama’s gun safety proposals — namely, that until the government prosecutes more background check violations, there is no point in expanding them.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated incorrectly that Adolphus Busch IV had resigned his membership on the NRA board. Busch was not a member of the board.
Posted by rogerhollander in Democracy, Gun Control/Violence.
Tags: gabrielle giffords, gun control, nra, nra lobby, roger hollander, sandy hook, senate
By GABRIELLE GIFFORDS
SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.
On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.
Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.
I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.
Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo — desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation — to go on.
I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated. I am asking for mothers to stop these lawmakers at the grocery store and tell them: You’ve lost my vote. I am asking activists to unsubscribe from these senators’ e-mail lists and to stop giving them money. I’m asking citizens to go to their offices and say: You’ve disappointed me, and there will be consequences.
People have told me that I’m courageous, but I have seen greater courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we dedicated a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot in the head and saw the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran toward me as I lay bleeding. Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot him, and then Gabe died. His body lay on the pavement in front of the Safeway for hours.
I have thought a lot about why Gabe ran toward me when he could have run away. Service was part of his life, but it was also his job. The senators who voted against background checks for online and gun-show sales, and those who voted against checks to screen out would-be gun buyers with mental illness, failed to do their job.
They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby — and brought shame on themselves and our government itself by choosing to do nothing.
They will try to hide their decision behind grand talk, behind willfully false accounts of what the bill might have done — trust me, I know how politicians talk when they want to distract you — but their decision was based on a misplaced sense of self-interest. I say misplaced, because to preserve their dignity and their legacy, they should have heeded the voices of their constituents. They should have honored the legacy of the thousands of victims of gun violence and their families, who have begged for action, not because it would bring their loved ones back, but so that others might be spared their agony.
This defeat is only the latest chapter of what I’ve always known would be a long, hard haul. Our democracy’s history is littered with names we neither remember nor celebrate — people who stood in the way of progress while protecting the powerful. On Wednesday, a number of senators voted to join that list.
Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way.
Posted by rogerhollander in Gun Control/Violence, Health, Right Wing, Women.
Tags: abby zimet, abortion, gun control, right to life, roger hollander, steve stockman
Once again – why does this week’s news all sound like it comes from The Onion? – this is real. The above is the new campaign
bumper sticker for one Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas). He recently threatened
to impeach Obama for daring to consider gun control measures, invited
gun owners feeling “unwanted” and “persecuted” to move to Texas, and argues
that “the right to life is the great civil rights struggle of our age – no little boy or little girl should be subjected to violence because the government has declared them less than human,” which he says is Just Like slavery. We can’t think of much in the way of response, except that Costa Rica is looking better and better.