What Would Waylon Do About School Shootings?
Waylon Jennings has been a long time gone, passing away on February 13th, 2002, but his wisdom is still as relevant as the music that he made, and can even help us navigate some of the most politically-charged issues that divide us today.
While being interviewed on Prime Time Country on TNN in 1999 shortly after the Columbine High School massacre, Waylon was asked what he would do about the issue of gun control and school shootings. Though Waylon first pointed out that since it was already illegal for the Columbine perpetrators to possess the guns that passing more laws probably wouldn’t help, what he said next exemplifies that there are many universal things that could be done to stem gun violence that don’t fall within the polarizing realm of either wanting to make all guns illegal, or allowing there to be no gun regulation at all. Waylon instead focused on how the media and society make demi-heroes out of mass killers by giving them the glory they crave.
That’s a serious question, and I do have a serious answer. It’s not the guns. You know because those boys were not supposed to have those guns to start with. That’s against the law. So you can make all the laws you want to forever, you know, and anybody whose going to shoot somebody don’t worry about the laws.
I’ll tell you who’s to blame. You know when you can get your picture on the front of Time Magazine, and when the television shows your face and tell them what your name is. England stopped that on time. England did not do that. I don’t know if they still not do it or not. But if you don’t give them that 15 minutes of glory, and that’s exactly what they’re looking for, they’ll be a lot less of it.
I appreciate you asking me that, I’ve wanted to say that for a long time. I believe that, we’ve just got to quit giving them people publicity.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:29 pm
wise man
February 2, 2013 @ 3:31 pm
I think what Waylon says also speaks to why these mass shootings always seem to happen in groups. Deranged people see all the media attention one gets, and they decide it would be a cool way to go.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:37 pm
THE ONLY REASON THESE BASTARD CHILDREN GET PUBLICITY IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE “ANTI GUN AGENDA”,…pardon the capitals…I’am just too tired of this “rut” to gut…what I’ve done posted!
February 2, 2013 @ 4:14 pm
“THE ONLY REASON THESE BASTARD CHILDREN GET PUBLICITY IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE “ANTI GUN AGENDA”
Actually, I think you’ll find the reason ‘these bastard children get publicity” is because news agencies have ratings/readers to attract and shareholders to appease.
February 2, 2013 @ 4:45 pm
I’m against gun control, but last I checked, Fox News ran tons of stories on all these shootings too.
These networks are partially motivated by ideology, but they are more motivated by profits, and when most people hear about 30 kids being killed, they want to know more.
Most people I know will complain about HOW the media covers these shootings (either they should have not used it to push for gun control, they should have pushed for more gun control, etc.), but few have said they shouldn’t cover them at all.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:39 pm
Making the issue of guns about anything other than guns is silly and a cop out. At what point will people start to think that a country with 300 million guns – and millions of high capacity semi-automatic, AR-15 type guns – is an issue all by itself.
Diversion like this make it more difficult to have a very necessary conversation about guns. Guns, nothing else – guns. Because that is actually a stand alone issue.
February 2, 2013 @ 4:58 pm
Most guns are semi-automatic, meaning it shoots one bullet per trigger pull as opposed to continuous fire while the trigger is pulled (automatics, which are illegal) and manual-load guns like revolvers where you have to load and cock each individual bullet. Similarly, no gun is ‘high capacity’ – there are supposed ‘high capacity’ magazines, but there is no such thing as a ‘high capacity gun’. If you want to bash guns, at least get the terminology right.
And no, it isn’t a cop-out. Guns are not the only, or even the main, issue. We have a broken mental health system, a society that recognizes criminals, and a lot of crazy people. We also have a crapload of gangs making places like Chicago (which has the strictest gun laws in the country and is already over 50 murders for the year) warzones, mainly because the culture kids are exposed to is horrible and gangster rap glorifies it.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:08 pm
You don’t have to school me on guns. I was pretty specific there, about semi-auto, high-capacity, AR-15 type guns.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:10 pm
Oh for fuck’s sake. I didn’t say “semi-auto AR-15-type rifles rigged with high-capacity mags.”
Fuck, people like you are tiring.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:17 pm
If you actually knew anything about guns you would know there is no such thing as a “high capacity semi-automatic, AR-15 type gun”. There ARE semi-automatic rifles, and there ARE ‘high capacity’ MAGAZINES. But guns are not in and of themselves ‘high capacity’. If you want to argue for gun control, at least know the terminology of guns – not only does it make it easier for people who disagree to understand what you oppose, it also makes it easier for you to not come off as uninformed to people that understand guns.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:24 pm
Oh fuck off. You knew exactly what I meant. You’re playing an idiot’s game.
February 3, 2013 @ 12:03 pm
Whoa you are worse than the other Eric.
February 2, 2013 @ 6:14 pm
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
In 2012, there were 12,664 murders, 8,583 of which were committed with a firearm.
Of those murders 6,220 were committed with a handgun and only 323 were used with a rifle. And of course, not every type of rifle is an “AR-15 type gun”
Granted there are 1,587 murders that were committed by “Firearms, type not stated”, some of which could have been used by “AR-15 type gun”, but most likely the reason why they were not listed was either the murder weapon was never find and they did not use a ballistic analysis or that they were lazy in their reporting. Regardless it is unlikely that the unknown firearms that used “AR-15 type guns” would be any more likely. So of the 6996 gun murders where the type of gun used was reported, less than 5% involved rifles, as I said, not all of those were “assault rifles” or whatever you want to call them. In contrast, 89% of these involved hand guns.
Moreover, if you look at how many murders there are each year, it looks like the number of murders committed with rifles is declining each year
The reason gun control advocates are going crazy over “AR 15 type gun” is that less people own them (so they assume there will be less political resistance) and they happened to be the gun used by a few crazy people in some high profile tragedies.
They know there absolutely no political will to get rid of handguns, so they just go over the guns.
The only thing that makes AR 15 type guns more deadly than handguns is that if you are skilled marksman, you can aim them more accurately, and they can have a higher capacity. Even in the limited cases of mass shootings, as far as I can tell from the news reports, none of the killers were skilled shooters. If you just had two hand guns and a bunch of clips, I don’t think the capacity issue would make any difference.
So yes, the media is going crazy about AR 15’s but, even if you support gun control and want gun control, it seems like they should not be your focus.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:14 pm
And wanting sensible gun legislation is Not “bashing guns.” Fucking hell.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:18 pm
‘Sensible gun regulation’ means many different things to different people. It, like many terms such as ‘assault weapon’, has no actual meaning.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:17 pm
No such thing as “high-capacity”?
This super-pro-gun seller of “high-capacity” magazines things you’re silly.
http://www.surefire.com/tactical-equipment/high-capacity-magazines.html
February 2, 2013 @ 5:21 pm
‘High capacity’ is a term. It has no meaning. Is it 7 rounds (like in New York)? 10 rounds? 15 rounds? 20 rounds? 25 rounds? 30 rounds? The number varies depending on which gun control advocate you talk to.
February 2, 2013 @ 7:01 pm
He didn’t say there was no such thing as “high capacity,” he said there was no such thing as a “high capacity” magazine. And yes, an AR 15 can have a 100 bullet magazine. I am not a gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t currently own a gun, and I’ve never owned anything other than a shotgun. I have probably used a handgun a dozen times, and I can sill reload a clip in a couple of seconds. With some practice, you can do it in a split second (see this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT7uYhppY2k )
So I really don’t see how banning guns that can hold high capacity magazines, is going to do anything to reduce violent crime, even if you assume that we could successfully keep the bad guys from getting those guns.
February 3, 2013 @ 12:10 pm
But what is the purpose of a high capacity mag? There is no need for people to have high capacity magazines or semi auto rifles other than they are badass and fun to shoot. All (or at least most) of he recent mass killings used guns that serve no purpose to civilians and should be only used by military personnel in combat and training.
February 3, 2013 @ 12:56 pm
No, assault rifles are just used in the mass shootings that the media makes a stink about.
Even the pro- gun control groups admit this. Here’s a study that just came out by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/f8/9/1098/1/mass_shootings_2009-13_-_jan_29_12pm.pdf
According to the study, “assault rifles” were used in just 28% of the mass shootings.
More importantly, the study noted that mass shootings (which they defined as shootings with more than 4 victims) only accounted for less than 1% of all murders in the country.
I admit the times someone needs an AR 15 are relatively limited, though they do exist (My uncle, for example owns a ranch near the Mexican border where large groups of smugglers and drug dealers come through. It is also 15 miles to the sheriffs office. During the LA Riots Korean storeowners used AR 15s to defend themselves etc.) However, just as the majority of people do not need these guns for self defense, the vast vast vast majority of murders do not involve those types of weapons.
February 3, 2013 @ 9:41 pm
I still generally disagree but you bring up interesting points. I appreciate that you aren’t following the general forum trend and just saying I’m a dumbass.
February 4, 2013 @ 9:24 am
You also do not “need” a car that drives over a 100 mph. However, it is not illegal (to the best of my knowledge) to own a car that has the capability to drive over a 100 mph. I own a lot of guns, and 2 of which are the AR-style assault rifles. Although, I can assure you my “assault” rifles will never be used as such, only as “defense” and target rifles.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:40 pm
CORRECTION: “BASTARD CHILDREN” REFERS TO THE “agenda”…NOT THE SUPPOSED “INNOCENTS”…that were…”harmed”!
February 2, 2013 @ 3:42 pm
See what you get, Triggerman? “Supposed innocents.”
Wow.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:48 pm
Please folks, the point of this post was to illustrate that there’s other solutions that can be agreed on universally except for the hardline stances of heavily regulating guns or not regulating them at all. And if those universal measures were taken, it could possibly stop some of the violence.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:41 pm
“20 little kids get shot. Well, just shut up media.”
So fucked up.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:43 pm
And what he says about England is very likely just wrong.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:53 pm
I don’t care if what he said about England is historically correct or not. Nobody is saying that the media is the ONLY problem, or that the media should STOP covering mass shootings. This is the type of reactionary stance taking that has led to nothing being done to stop these violent acts. Waylon is simply pointing out that if you stop glorifying this behavior, it’s likely to decrease in frequency. And since mass shooting almost always happen in groups, I think it is a fair point to think about.
Think about how they used to handle people who ran out on the field during sporting events. Now that they don’t show them on TV, it doesn’t happen anymore because their behavior wasn’t rewarded with attention. If the media stops making such a big deal about mass shootings but nothing else is done, will this completely end gun violence? Of course not, but maybe it would be a smart step, and it is at least a smart thing to think about.
February 2, 2013 @ 4:15 pm
Did you just call my post a “reactionary stance”?
And you don’t care if someone gets something factually incorrect?
Look – this is not happening in a vacuum. And it’s not the first time someone said it. The “stop glorifying the behavior!” schtick IS THE NRA’S. If they didn’t outright come up with it themselves, they sure co-opted it, because it does what they want – it takes the focus off guns. Just like the “Oh, it’s about the mentally ill! It’s not about guns!” What do all these things have in common? They don’t do a single thing about gun violence.
And equating the sports thing with gun deaths is really obtuse. A relatively small group of people in executive positions in specific sports could get together and do that – fine. Are we supposed to believe that an entire country’s media will do that? When there’s *money to be made*? It’s just so much nonsense, and on an honest second look clearly not a serious effort to stop an actual problem.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:02 pm
I agree it’s stupid to say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and end the discussion there. Guns make it easier for people kill people, and certainly much easier for them to kill a lot of people.
That being said, Guns are a means to commit violence. It takes a criminal to use the gun to commit the violence So discussions about the media, mental health etc. factor into the issue of stopping gun violence.
I am against gun control, but even if I were for it, I’d admit that if I wanted to stop gun violence, I would be concerned about these things in addition to gun control.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:13 pm
That’s fine. But in our big national conversation on guns – especially when the NRA is involved – it is never used simply in addition to the issue of guns, it is ALWAYS used as a *diversion*. You have to agree with this.
And thank you for saying that about the “tons don’t kill people” stupidity. Far too few people on your side of this EVER say that.
February 2, 2013 @ 6:43 pm
If you admit that there are other things that can be done other than gun control that will reduce crime, how is pointing them out a “diversion.”
As for the NRA, they happen to believe that gun control will not reduce violent crime. They happen to also believe that there are other causes for violent crime(e.g. video games, mental health etc.)
When the media and various politicians implicitly and at times explicitly said that the NRA was responsible for the Sandy Hook tragedy, I don’t see how offering an alternate explanation and proposed solution is a “diversion.”
What do you propose they do when they are accused of all these horrible things? Apologize and renounce their most cherished views?
February 2, 2013 @ 5:23 pm
I don’t care if Waylon got the England point factually correct or not because he wasn’t on this program as a pundit to disseminate facts to back up his stance, he’s a musician on a music program who got the question out of left field, and did the best he could with it. He yammered through the England part to let everyone know what he was saying shouldn’t be taken as concrete fact. His focusing was on the bigger point he was trying to make.
And maybe media coverage is a point being made by the NRA, but it is a point being made by many other folks too, which means there’s a consensus, so maybe this is one of the things that could be addressed to stem the violence.
The reason I posted this video is because I think that it is very interesting that a man that has been dead for 11 years was asked the same question people are asking today, about an issue that is still around and hasn’t been solved whatsoever. I think that you could make a case that political polarization kills people, seeing how it’s the reason not one law or change in regulation or anything has happened since the Columbine shootings. The United States Congress hasn’t passed a budget in 6 years. Pragmatism is what is needed. Does anybody think there is a serious chance sweeping gun regulations are going to pass when the Senate president Harry Reid has already said it’s a dead issue? So how about we try to find some things that we can do? And the great thing about the point Waylon made is it wouldn’t take an act of Congress to do it. Sure, you can’t control all the media, but nobody wants to. Just don’t put the killer’s face on the front of all the major media outlets, and maybe, MAYBE it will make a difference. Maybe it won’t, but does it hurt to try? Does it hurt to talk about if it might work? Waylon didn’t say don’t cover the stories, he said don’t give the killer the face time. I agree, it is a form of glorification and idolatry.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:29 pm
“about an issue that is still around and hasn”™t been solved whatsoever.”
Kinda my point, Trig.
February 2, 2013 @ 3:49 pm
“GUN CONTROL IS A DEMOCRATIC, ”
agenda”. More lives have been saved by “legal” gun posession..than have been “highlighted” in the NEWS!
February 2, 2013 @ 4:32 pm
I somewhat agree. This was probably true with Columbine. It was certainly true with the Virginia Tech shooting (the killer sent a video to the media). However people like Loughner seemed to be motivated by his paranoia rather than a desire for fame.
Whatever the truth to that statement may be, I don’t think there is any real solution. It’s clearly unconstitutional and absurdto say “no media organizations can report on school shootings.” Back when there were just four networks, there could be some sort of gentleman’s agreement about how to cover these things for the public interest, but that’s not going to work with half the country getting their news from the internet.
That pretty much leaves it in the hands of the American people to collectively decide not to pay attention to this news, which I doubt will happen.
February 2, 2013 @ 4:37 pm
Which, I think, leaves us to say This isn’t really a solution at all, and we still really should do something. These dead kids most of all deserve our honest attention and intention on this.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:31 pm
The specific point I think Waylon was making was not about media coverage generally, but about the face time specifically; putting the killer’s face at the front of every TV broadcast, plastering it on the front of newspapers and magazines. I think that’s a form of glorification and idolatry, and I can see how that type of attention would appeal to a mentally deranged person. Like Bon Jovi says (hehe) “Going down in a blaze of glory.”
And yes, you can’t control every media outlet, but the major networks and Time Magazine etc. could come to a consensus. But you may be right, the money would probably not make this possible. Large outlets could not sit idly by what smaller outlets sensationalize the story and steal the traffic.
February 2, 2013 @ 6:28 pm
I don’t know if you’ve heard of Herostratus, but he burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (one of the Seven wonders of the Ancient World). He admitted he committed the deed, and he did it to gain immortal fame.
The Ephesian government not only executed him, but executed anyone who mentioned his name. And well, I’m still talking about him nearly 2500 years later.
If that didn’t work, I don’t know what we can do.
February 2, 2013 @ 4:38 pm
Hey, listen now. Guns have been around and available for a long, long time. Before the Columbine type stuff that all started taking place in the 90’s….how often was it heard of? Since however, it’s gone up and up and up. The Media and all the hype and attention they get…was the same with crackpots who wanted to be famous for killing a celebrity (before school shooting type events came into vogue). They’re sick people who will break laws, PERIOD. With 300 million guns legally owned or whatever the hell the quote was above, if it was just guns and the people who owned them that was the problem, you’d have a massive shootout on every street corner, intersection and school on a damn near daily basis. Just because you’re all hung up on “guns kill people” and “guns are scary and bad”, don’t go punishing law abiding folks for what some crackpot scumbag did. It’s like having the town drunk take out a family in a car crash and then talking about it for weeks and weeks and then talking about banning booze and if that doesn’t work, well hell if they’re going to drink then we’ll make sure they can’t drive so now the cars need to go. I mean get a grip. Paranoia and ridiculous, irrational knee jerk solutions are not any kind of answer.
February 2, 2013 @ 4:46 pm
My point is only…to try to control hand guns or weapons for self protection would be the same as taking cars from people that have a beer or a drink after work, times one statistic by the other and guess how many people get away with murder…not condoning just stating…How many are responsible? Consider the equation before you jump on A “band wagon”!
February 2, 2013 @ 5:26 pm
LT February 2, 2013 at 5:24 pm
“Oh fuck off. You knew exactly what I meant. You”™re playing an idiot”™s game.”
I know what you said. I have no clue if you know what you are talking about when you can’t get basic terminology correct.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:35 pm
No, you can, you just want to win on a stupid game. I already acknowledged that I should have said high-capacity mag, not “high capacity semi-automatic, AR-15 type guns.” I wasn’t trying to be scientific about it, I was just writing quickly on teh internet.
But you know that.
My point still stands, if you have the capacity to engage it.
February 2, 2013 @ 10:57 pm
Is this Piers Morgan’s troll account? Who the hell is going to decide what arbitrary number constitutes “high capacity?” The Glock 17 was *designed* to hold seventeen rounds. Doesn’t that make a seventeen round magazine a STANDARD capacity magazine? And a ten round magazine would be a diminished capacity magazine. Stop blaming inanimate objects for trouble people cause.
February 2, 2013 @ 5:57 pm
Don’t empty the swimming pool because hundreds of kids drown every year. What it all boils down to is…Ban idiots not guns!
February 4, 2013 @ 2:47 pm
i know you think your little analogy is clever but comparing a swimming pool to guns is the most ridiculous thing i’ve read in a long time
February 2, 2013 @ 5:59 pm
Diving boards!…yeah, that’s what I meant…;)
February 2, 2013 @ 6:06 pm
Complete hacks like Piers Morgan is getting that 15 minutes as well.
February 2, 2013 @ 6:11 pm
Is he against diving boards as well…?
…if it aint the diving board I’m sure it’s the evil mermaids…in the gene pool…just thinking…
February 2, 2013 @ 7:51 pm
They need to ban gasoline, Adam Lanza could’ve killed alot more kids more quickly by dumping some gas in a classroom and frying the kids up. The gun-grabbing people would have applauded that too. After all, they don’t care about the kids anyway, they’re just scared of guns.
February 2, 2013 @ 11:01 pm
Meanwhile, Willie Nelson was on Piers Morgan showing his true colors. I’ve lost ALL respect for him and I’m taking it kind of hard. “I don’t know what I would do with a gun that would shoot 100 times,” Nelson tells the “Piers Morgan Tonight” host. “I don’t agree with that. I think it should be more regulated. I think a lot of guns – there’s no need for civilians to own those. Those are for military.”
February 3, 2013 @ 2:23 am
Trig
Here you go. This is the spawn. Even Willie. Even fucking Willie.
February 3, 2013 @ 12:15 pm
Willie was right.
February 3, 2013 @ 5:02 pm
Thank you (and Willie) for showing your ignorance and fundamental misunderstanding of The Second Amendment. Go to some other country if you’ve got a problem with it.
February 3, 2013 @ 6:38 pm
You an anarchist or something? There are still fucking rules and prohibited items/substances with the second amendment. Im not anti gun im just pro regulations on things that are clearly dangerous and need to be regulated.
February 3, 2013 @ 6:40 pm
And guns are already more regulated than you people who have no clue will ever know. And you still don’t understand The Second Amendment, apparently.
February 4, 2013 @ 8:16 am
Spoony, please explain the 2nd amendment. Since you seem to have the understanding of it.
February 4, 2013 @ 4:47 am
Oh, you’ve lost all respect for Willie, just because he don’t share you views…..isn’t that a litlle bit silly…?
February 3, 2013 @ 2:25 am
“Chris Kyle, military’s deadliest sniper, is killed on Texas gun range”
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/chris-kyle-military-s-deadliest-sniper-is-killed-on-texas-gun-range-1.206312
February 3, 2013 @ 9:52 am
I couldn’t agree with him more. Why do people think that taking all guns away will help anything? Criminals don’t pay attention to laws! And even if all the guns would magically disappear, if someone is that mentally unstable and has it planned out to kill as many people as possible, they don’t need a gun to do it. People can make their own bombs! And they will they will use anything they can get their hands on and turn it into an assault weapon. And they’ll do it, because one guy sees another guy on TV and thinks its his turn, so he goes and kills a bunch of people. Then its the next guys turn. They are either too crazy to know any different, or they think they will become celebrities. Video games are another problem too.
February 3, 2013 @ 12:16 pm
This is my favorite; “ASSAULT RIFLE” This is a blatant liberal term created and echoed by every single media type. Who wouldn’t want to ban a rifle made specifically for assault?? This insinuates – by convenient definition – manufacturers & buyers produce & purchase AR 15s because they want a rile for “ASSAULT” Baseball bats are used for murder, should they now be called assault bats. How about a machete?? A steak knife could get the job done. Machetes are gigantic oversized steak knives. Why not call machetes ASSAULT knives?? How about assault cars, assault golf clubs, assault candlesticks, assault ice picks, assault power tools, assault rope, etc… It’s strange how handguns are utilized for assault dramatically more frequent than “ASSAULT” rifles??? How can this be? The problem with anyone who wants any type of gun control is that they actually want to control your guns. All of them. But I bet they enjoy skeet shooting from time to time..
February 3, 2013 @ 9:46 pm
I blame the mass media.
February 4, 2013 @ 3:30 am
Police needs guns, soldiers needs guns and hunters with a hunters license needs guns…..all others NO…!
February 4, 2013 @ 6:40 am
Here’s some commentary from James McMurtry that I thought was pretty thoughtful.
http://blurt-online.com/features/view/1309/
February 4, 2013 @ 8:12 am
Good article, I agree with him on every point.
February 4, 2013 @ 8:15 am
Paul February 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm
“But what is the purpose of a high capacity mag? There is no need for people to have high capacity magazines or semi auto rifles other than they are badass and fun to shoot. All (or at least most) of he recent mass killings used guns that serve no purpose to civilians and should be only used by military personnel in combat and training.”
Paul, that is one of the DUMBEST things a gun-control advocate can say. There are plenty of scenarios where a ‘high-capacity’ magazine or semi-automatic are needed.
Let’s imagine you are in your house when you hear some glass shatter downstairs. You grab your six-round capacity revolver (semi-automatics are banned now in this experiment) and go to investigate. You see three masked men with guns trying to get your TV, and so you cock the gun and fire at one of them. You hit him but the other two quickly grab their semi-automatic pistols with 20-round magazines and shoot and kill you before you can fire another shot. They then proceed to kidnap, rape, and brutally murder your daughter.
Now, you may be saying “wait a minute, gun laws outlawed those guns and magazines! How can criminals have them?”. Well, the answer is just that – they are criminals. Criminals don’t follow the law, so they have no real obligation to get rid of their semi-autos or ‘high-capacity magazines’. You, on the other hand, as a law-abiding citizen would actually follow the new gun law and would thus be limited to non-semi autos such as muskets and revolvers, which suffer from much slower loading and firing times in comparison to the semi-automatic guns. Thus, you are immediately at a disadvantage to the criminals.
February 4, 2013 @ 9:59 am
Thats a little sensationalistic with the fucking daughter rape but whatever. I am not like a hardcore gun control advocate and i definately do not know all the facts or have all the answers. I didnt really think much about gun control before Sandy Hook.
I understand your point about the semi-automatics how some people will still aquire them illegally or will have bought them legally before a ban but you still have to draw a line somewhere. Honestly i bet the fact that criminals will have these guns has caused lots of people to buy them where they wouldn’t have otherwise. Maybe not even banning them but increasing the regulation where a registration has to be renewed periodically and you have to take gun safety courses before initially purchasing your first gun. i know here in RI you need a safety course for your hunting licence but not to buy the gun itself. I think background checks are good too – maybe not necessary for all guns but whenever a gun meets a certain spec you can still buy it but you have to have a background check.
i cant debate with you much because i admittedly dont know enough and am not as passionate either way about guns but i think that there could be more done to make guns safer. Maybe i’m wrong. Read the article Jack Williams posted though, I share James McMurtry’s sentiments and he seems to be a well informed guy.
February 4, 2013 @ 10:04 am
I don’t think any sane person thinks mandatory gun safety courses are a bad idea – people need to know how to operate their guns. A gun safety video was the first thing we were shown my first time at a shooting range, covering safe ways to load and hold a gun, deal with misfires, etc. But the fact of the matter is the majority of guns are semi-automatics and there is nothing wrong with a semi-automatic gun.
February 4, 2013 @ 2:12 pm
I admit that Paul has a point here. Namely that for 99% of self defense needs, a shotgun or a handgun will suffice. So yes, Tim’s hypothetical is extremely extremely rare. But so are shootings with “assault rifles.”
On top of that, as I pointed out elsewhere, I think that the additional firepower and capacity of these guns is not that significant. According to the Mayors against illegal guns study that I pointed out to (and I’d want to confirm the data before I said this authoratively), http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/f8/9/1098/1/mass_shootings_2009-13_-_jan_29_12pm.pdf
when someone goes on a shooting rampage with an “assault rifle”, they kill on average 2.9 more people than when someone uses handguns or other firearms. (I would want someone more neutral to double check their data, also, they define “mass shooting” of any shooting where 4 or more people were killied. It’s possible that more of the “mass shootings with handguns were not as indiscriminate as the ones with assault rifles, but for the sake of argument, I’ll assume that’s true) According to the study, there are on average 12 mass shootings. Of those shootings, 28% used assault rifles. I think we can all agree that if you just want to kill one or two people, using an assault rifle does not make much of a difference. Thus we are talking about 3.4 shootings a year where an average 2.9 people die.
That is less than 10 deaths a year caused by the added firepower of assault rifles. Yes, every death is terrible, but there are over 12,000 murders in this country every year.
There are various definitions of assault rifles, and I have heard anything from there being 1.5-3 million in the US. Besides the constitutional and fiscal concerns, I bet that if the government actually tried to confiscate all of those weapons, more than 10 a year would be killed (and I’m not talking about by militia members with “pry this gun from my cold dead hands” bumper stickers, I’m talking about by criminals who would be running the black market in guns.)
February 4, 2013 @ 8:26 am
Anyone have a true story where they actually used their gun as all these gun advocates suggest. The home invasion, guy breaks in, you grab your gun of choice cause you have the 2nd amendment, and gun him down saving your family (and TV).
I honestly can’t think of a moment in my life where I “NEED” a gun. Going to the shopping mall…I don’t NEED a gun. If some nut pulls out a gun and starts shooting, that is his issue…I don’t NEED a gun to go shopping.
When I go to sleep at night with my family, I don’t “NEED” a gun. Somebody breaks in my house and wants my TV, or to kidnap someone…me having a gun isn’t gonig to gaurantee I win the fight…and agian, the act of going to sleep with my family doesn’t require a gun.
Sending my kids to school, I don’t “NEED” a gun.
Everyone wants the government to stay out of their business, and they step in where they shouldn’t sometimes, but how everyone take a step back and determine how much you “NEED” these guns that are made for warfare.
You hunt, get a deer rifle or shotgun.
You want a gun in the home, get a hand gun, chances of you hitting anything with any handgun is slim to none (that is a fact).
You collect guns, fine, you don’t need the ammunition to collect them.
You like to shoot skeet, go to the range, rent a gun.
Take some self responsibility and think if you really NEED a weapon of warfare. Yes, you have the right, but some people can’t self regulate, so now the gov. has to and they suck at regulation.
February 4, 2013 @ 9:30 am
I would rather have something and not need it. Than need something and not have it.
February 4, 2013 @ 9:31 am
I will admit, if someone ever challenges me to a draw, then I guess I would NEED a gun, and in that case, we both only need one shot.
So my point is self regulation and reason would always trump gov. intervention. Gov. steps in when they don’t think people can handle it or because people just flat out don’t handle it. We will never stop a crazy, but how can anyone make the jump from banning warfare weapons to “they are going to take all the guns”.
February 4, 2013 @ 10:08 am
So we can stop constitutionally-protected rights because you don’t NEED them? Okay, so we should ban abortions except if the mother NEEDS them. We should take away your right to free speech unless you NEED it. We should take away due process for criminals because they don’t NEED it. We should take away people’s land if they don’t NEED it. See how that works? It doesn’t. It’s not up to you to decide what other people need, it is up to THEM.
February 4, 2013 @ 10:42 am
I’m not deciding what you need and don’t need, but unless people start to think a bit differently, the gov. is going to decide for you.
and the stories you put up are great. good examples. I don’t think any of them used a warfare weapon did they? So you have your guns and shoot them too. I just asked that we consider things and not jump to “we should ban guns” or “we shouldn’t ban any guns”.
It is tough to break old ways. I’m yet to hear from a Sandy Hook parent that wishes the school was armed up for this? There might be a story out there, but I’ve heard the parents talk about getting rid of guns.
Eric, I assume your are full on 2nd amendment (and I support it too) but why is it that everytime someone offers something that limits weapons, some gun supporters can’t fathom it or can’t seem to discuss it without absolutes? There is no need for warfare weapons. There is a need for shotguns. You see the difference?
February 4, 2013 @ 11:05 am
Where did I suggest taking away “constitutionally-protected rights”? I suggested people start to think differently and really ask what they need or the gov. will decide. You have the right to bare arms. Do you need to own a weapon of war such as semi-auto or fully auto guns? Yea, fully auto guns are banned, that didn’t ruin anyones life did it?
You can’t blanket everything. Stick to the topic…guns made solely for killing people. We have the right to own them currently. Do we “need” them? Self regulate. It is a very big process and takes time. It is a gun culture from movies to video games to the reality of Sandy Hook. Mental illness plays a part. There are many factors, but I think it boils down to each person and not the gov. or a “right”.
You want to keep a gun, that is fine, but don’t jam down my throat that the gov. is going to take your rights. 20 kids just go killed, it’s time to maybe consider a bit differently about things.
February 4, 2013 @ 4:25 pm
“I”™m not deciding what you need and don”™t need, but unless people start to think a bit differently, the gov. is going to decide for you.”
Yes, you are by definition. You say people don’t need guns and you want to ban ones you don’t think people need.
“and the stories you put up are great. good examples. I don”™t think any of them used a warfare weapon did they? So you have your guns and shoot them too. I just asked that we consider things and not jump to “we should ban guns” or “we shouldn”™t ban any guns”.
‘Warfare weapon’? WTF are you talking about? If you went out with a semi-automatic weapon in a warzone you’d probably get gunned down by automatic fire. If you actually read them you would know that three were about AR-15s, two about .22 caliber rifles, and one about a shotgun.
“It is tough to break old ways. I”™m yet to hear from a Sandy Hook parent that wishes the school was armed up for this? There might be a story out there, but I”™ve heard the parents talk about getting rid of guns.”
There was a school shooting in Atlanta just recently that was thwarted by an armed guard. Interestingly, the media hasn’t covered it.
“Eric, I assume your are full on 2nd amendment (and I support it too) but why is it that everytime someone offers something that limits weapons, some gun supporters can”™t fathom it or can”™t seem to discuss it without absolutes? There is no need for warfare weapons. There is a need for shotguns. You see the difference?”
There is no such thing as ‘full on 2nd amendment’. The 2nd amendment is very clear that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means if you can bear arms (ie. carry them and use them), that’s your right. So weapons you can’t carry (like an RPG launcher) are outlawed, and from original intent weapons that serve no self-defense purpose (like a nuke, RPG, armed tank, bomb, etc.) are outlawed as well.
“Where did I suggest taking away “constitutionally-protected rights”? I suggested people start to think differently and really ask what they need or the gov. will decide. You have the right to bare arms. Do you need to own a weapon of war such as semi-auto or fully auto guns? Yea, fully auto guns are banned, that didn”™t ruin anyones life did it?”
Weapon of war means nothing. The term is made up and fake. Now, is your ability to stop people who will harm you realistically impeded by not having a full-auto gun? No – a semi-auto can serve the same purpose. Is it significantly impeded by not being able to have a semi-automatic? Yes, because the other types are much slower to shoot and reload. That’s the difference – a weapon that provides no benefit to law-abiding citizens and much benefit to criminals.
“You can”™t blanket everything. Stick to the topic”¦guns made solely for killing people. We have the right to own them currently. Do we “need” them? Self regulate. It is a very big process and takes time. It is a gun culture from movies to video games to the reality of Sandy Hook. Mental illness plays a part. There are many factors, but I think it boils down to each person and not the gov. or a “right”.”
Yes, we need guns. You can’t decide who needs what. The right to keep and bear arms is a right as defined by our Constitution, but evidently you only like certain parts of the Constitution.
“You want to keep a gun, that is fine, but don”™t jam down my throat that the gov. is going to take your rights. 20 kids just go killed, it”™s time to maybe consider a bit differently about things.”
I’m not jamming anything down your throat, people like you are jamming YOUR opinion down those of every gun owner in the country and trying to make take away their rights because you don’t agree with them. To even suggest that the gun rights movement is jamming anything down your throat is ridiculous.
February 4, 2013 @ 10:11 am
Here’s some stories on how guns save lives
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=162514
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/11-year-old-boy-shoots-home-invaders-defends-mother-in-tx-2010/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/14-year-old-trap-shooter-scares-off-two-armed-home-invaders-with-shotgun/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/11-year-old-girl-defends-home-with-22-rifle/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/
http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=90813
But of course they don’t NEED these guns and it wouldn’t help them anyway, better to let them die because some insane person shot up a school/
February 4, 2013 @ 12:32 pm
alternately, i wonder if there are any stories about guns killing people…
February 5, 2013 @ 11:44 am
Alternatively, I wonder if there are any stories about drunk drivers killing people…
So, should we outlaw drinking because of the select few that “choose” to get behind the wheel?
Abortions, also, kill children like the unfortunate incident at Sandy Hook; however they are legal. The government says that is the mother’s “choice.”
Things happen as a result of people’s choices. A choice is chosen by a person, not by a gun.
February 6, 2013 @ 7:01 am
Yes drunk driving kills people and drunk driving is illegal. Similar to drinking i dont think that guns should be outlawed, just that certain things (i.e. high cap mags, safety classes, etc.) should be more heavily regulated. Both are legal but with certain rules. you’re making my point.
February 4, 2013 @ 10:14 am
Laws never will work, never have. Waylon’s point is a good one. The story itself could and even should be reported. However, without any mention of the killers name or showing of there faces. Won’t stop all of it but may stop some of it. RIP Waylon you are missed in many ways sir.
February 4, 2013 @ 10:47 am
Jeeze I wonder what sage words Ol’ Waylon might have about for cocaine use, cigarette smoking, and diet?
February 4, 2013 @ 10:52 am
I’m not sure if you’re trying to be sarcastic or not, but I think there’s a lot of wisdom to be garnered from Waylon discussing his cocaine use and his quitting. They’re some of the most compelling and enlightening parts of his autobiography. It is also the quitting of cocaine and cigarettes that he gives credit to leading to his diabetes and eventual death.
February 4, 2013 @ 11:08 am
I agree with Trig on this one. I think Waylon would say “don’t do drugs, you’re not me, my body could do drugs.”
February 4, 2013 @ 11:04 am
1. I usually go to this site to get AWAY from these types of arguments.
2. I think it’s batshit insane to say “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and then turn around and blame video games. Cognitive Dissonance at its finest.
3. I hear a lot of comparisons between guns and cars. Well, to legally operate a car, I have to have a license that is tested periodically, register my vehicle with the state and keep it registered, and maintain insurance on the vehicle.
4. We do need to treat Mental Health with the same dignity that we treat other types of health. As bad as our Healthcare system is, our Mental Healthcare system is a joke.
5. I think it would be nice to know if the local gun store were required to inform the police in the event of having stolen merchandise (they are not). Fast Food restaurants require a count on their burgers every night. You would hope they would do the same at gun stores with their firearms. It’d help keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals.
February 4, 2013 @ 11:43 am
I was really hoping this discussion would focus more on Waylon’s comments, and his comments specifically on how the media giving mass murders “publicity” may feed the violence cycle, NOT the constitutionality of high capacity magazines etc. etc. None of those problems will be solved here, and maybe I should have anticipated how quickly the conversation would have veered off course. But I still think Waylon’s words were important ones. Unfortunately people are too wrapped up in their own reactionary stances to listen to anyone but themselves, including Waylon. It truly is a shame.
February 4, 2013 @ 11:45 am
I was really hoping this discussion would focus more on Waylon”™s comments, and his comments specifically on how the media giving mass murders “publicity” may feed the violence cycle, NOT the constitutionality of high capacity magazines etc. etc. None of those problems will be solved here, and maybe I should have anticipated how quickly the conversation would have veered off course. But I still think Waylon”™s words were important ones. Unfortunately people are too wrapped up in their own reactionary stances to listen to anyone but themselves, including Waylon. It truly is a shame.
February 4, 2013 @ 6:24 pm
Understand your frustration, but this is the internet. If you post something anyway related to guns and school shootings, you’re going to get people arguing about gun control. I’d say this has been relatively civil and on topic (I tried to respond t your point, but also gave my $.02 elsewhere).
February 4, 2013 @ 11:20 am
Nothing squashes the appetite like coke and cigs. Most folks when the get clean gain weight dang near 100%. Ain’t nobady perfect me, you Waylon, nobody. To quote a line from a Larry Joe Taylor song. “Gotta get out of my own way.” “Everybody’s got their own Demons so I ain’t throwin’ no stones”. Wisdom always comes from folks who sometimes don’t always display very much wisdom in every area of their lives.
February 4, 2013 @ 12:45 pm
The point about the media is an important one. What these people, many of them young people, are looking for is help. They don’t know how to ask for help so they lash out at society. It’s like the kids I went to high school with who dressed in the huge baggy jeans, wore chains, and black clothes. They made themselves into a dark charactor in order to grab attention. They see themselves as dark people who need help so they match their outside to their insides. It says to the outside world, I need help. I have issues. But generally, they are either ignored, shunned, or picked on to varying degrees- sometimes to the point that they push back. Often with a weapon. As a society we a really good at telling ourselves we care about one another but generally we are most concerned about ourselves. We live busier and busier lives and push ourselves to the max. This does not leave time to worry about the kid down the street who paints his face like a sadistic clown. We think as long as we avoid him he won’t bother us. Sometimes he proves us wrong.
As long as the bad guys carry guns the good guys have to carry them too. And I’m not just talking about the police. If one is serious about protecting his family he needs to have a firearm in the house. I won’t be caught empty handed when some a-hole kicks my door in and points a gun at me. I’ll at least be on equal terms with him.
February 4, 2013 @ 1:13 pm
Barry, I agree with your comments.
I do get a bit concerned with the attitude, and I don’t know you so you may not fall into this, but those that have similar thoughts of “I won”™t be caught empty handed when some a-hole kicks my door in and points a gun at me. I”™ll at least be on equal terms with him.”
Again, not directed at you personally (perhaps you are fully aware of the end game of a gun), but I don’t think the a-hole kicking in the door or the home owner wanting to defend has a f-ing clue what it is like to stand down with someone gun to gun. It isn’t a video game, it isn’t cry for help time, it is reality and the consequence of that reality I don’t believe our culture fully understands, and I fear the attitude of “I need a gun to fully defend myself” sends an inaccurate message.
Guns aren’t to defend yourself, they are to kill. There is not reset button, there is no second take, there is not ‘you kind of shot me’, it is a real ending.
Sometimes kids and adults I think seem to believe the gun is a scare tactic or just something to equal the field in a robbery so when he pulls his and I pull mine we are equal…yea, but then someone shoots (generally someone with little to zero experience face to face with another human and a gun)
Military vets have this experience but in a warzone. Police are given our trust to handle this experience.
Guns have absolute/final consequences. The culutre as a whole needs to consider that rather than continue to think that guns are just ways to fight, like fists, guns are ways to kill life..forever.
February 4, 2013 @ 4:08 pm
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. They have no obligation to protect and, given how long it takes to just get on 9/11 in most cities, there is nothing close to a guarantee of action.
February 4, 2013 @ 4:32 pm
The point wasn’t who handles it, it is the idea that people believe they are ready to shoot someone, and most people have no clue about a situation and the consequence of firing a gun at another person.
February 4, 2013 @ 6:47 pm
I think most people realize by now that if you shoot someone, they could die. It would be very hard to find a single person of decent age in the US who hasn’t seen a movie, tv show, or game where someone is shot and, as a result, dies.
February 5, 2013 @ 12:42 pm
thank you for just proving my point…
” It would be very hard to find a single person of decent age in the US who hasn”™t seen a movie, tv show, or game where someone is shot and, as a result, dies.”
If you missed it, the point is that people don’t really know the situation of shooting someone, all they are exposed to is movies, tv shows, games. And all of those are fake. All of those don’t really have a consequence do they? You just turn the channel, hit reset or rent another movie…and life goes on. That isn’t exactly the case when you shoot someone dead in real life…not to mention a whole lot of other things that go into being able to pull a trigger and shoot another human. It is a bit more intense than a movie.
February 4, 2013 @ 3:35 pm
The overall point was missed here by the SAME people who miss the point every other time it is illustrated. Gun laws are never going to solve the issues we face. I posted this video to my youtube secondary page “waylonvids” becauswe I felt that it was just as timely today as it was in 1999. Regardless of whether he was correct about England and the way they reported the news is irrelevant. He saw this as plain and simple common sense. I see it the exact same way. No amount of laws or gun control will keep a person who wants to break the law from getting a gun and doing something evil. The more it is flashed on TV and sensationalized, the more copy-cats you get and the problem just keeps multiplying.
February 4, 2013 @ 8:05 pm
First off, thanks for posting the video. When I first saw it I had the same reaction, how timely it was and how his words mean just as much today as they did in 1999. Waylon did what many people can’t when it comes to this issue, he simplified it.
February 5, 2013 @ 7:34 am
He JD I just checked out your website, that’s some excellent music you’re making. I can’t believe Trigger hasn’t wrote about you on here. You’re guitar playing breaks alot of new ground, yet the music over all still sounds like classic country.
February 5, 2013 @ 5:50 pm
Thanks PB! I’ll have a new album out end of this year, maybe beginning of next year produced by Robby Turner (the multi-instrumentalist/steel guitar master/ mastermind behind Waylon’s last album “Goin’ Down Rockin”). Hopefully The Triggerman will review the music when it’s released! -JD
February 5, 2013 @ 8:41 pm
Have you ever submitted music to me before JD? (Sorry, getting about 2 submission/day at this point, hard to keep up). Make sure you get me a copy of the new one.
February 5, 2013 @ 11:12 pm
No, I”™ve not submitted anything to you. My last official album was released in 2004. Once the album with Robby Turner is complete, you will be one of the first to have a copy. Thanks so much! I enjoy your site.
JD
February 5, 2013 @ 7:00 am
What a smart man, he would have my vote for President anyday (if he were still alive).
February 5, 2013 @ 1:03 pm
Where were all the rights advocates when the Gov. outlawed certain fertilizers after OK City bombing? They enacted some legislation after that and well, there hasn’t been similar, now all the crazies are just grabbing a gun…cause they can.
February 6, 2013 @ 9:55 am
The right to keep and bear fertilizer in not enshrined in the Constitution or any state Constitution, that’s why.
February 6, 2013 @ 11:21 am
You can’t use that as an argument. They already ban some weapons from citizens, so the 2nd amendment has been compromised because of progress, as it should. The founding fathers couldn’t foresee all that developes in the future, so amendments are the foundation, but they aren’t absolute, they can’t be, because you can’t see into the future.
Further more, do you know what the 2nd admendment was intended for? I mean, do you really know? That is a legit question. I wasn’t for self defense.
So you can’t use 2nd amendment literally for one argument but then say “well it is ok to bend it a bit so long as you don’t take the gun I want.”
February 6, 2013 @ 11:52 am
Folks, let’s move on from these arguments, they’re getting very tiresome. Post something germane to the specific comments of Waylon or the scenario surrounding it, or move on. Please and thank you.
February 6, 2013 @ 9:57 am
Tim
February 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm
thank you for just proving my point”¦
” It would be very hard to find a single person of decent age in the US who hasn”™t seen a movie, tv show, or game where someone is shot and, as a result, dies.”
If you missed it, the point is that people don”™t really know the situation of shooting someone, all they are exposed to is movies, tv shows, games. And all of those are fake. All of those don”™t really have a consequence do they? You just turn the channel, hit reset or rent another movie”¦and life goes on. That isn”™t exactly the case when you shoot someone dead in real life”¦not to mention a whole lot of other things that go into being able to pull a trigger and shoot another human. It is a bit more intense than a movie.
————-
I think most people realize when you shoot other things, they die. That’s pretty basic right there.
February 6, 2013 @ 11:15 am
You’ve never stood across from someone holding a gun at you ready to kill you have you? Oh, wait, you have seen movies and played some video games though right? Or put bambi in your sights? Or if you have a gun, then you’re prepared for it right?
I’m not arguing the right to own a gun, I’m pointing out that people think the right to own a gun means it is just like a fist fight if you get in a confrontation. “Hell, if a bad guy has a gun, I’ll just shoot him with mine and it will be over.”
Or that these nuts that go on shooting rampages don’t really grasp that it is not a movie to play out. Real things happen. People die, you die, etc…
Ask military guys how they feel after their first combat or first kill? They have the best training in the world, and it isn’t as simple as the movies.
February 9, 2013 @ 12:09 pm
Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns. Isn’t it time we as a nation have an honest discussion about hammer and club control? What reasonable person would object to sensible hammer control?
Sorry, had to do it. I think Waylon is spot on. Trig, you’re reasoning for posting, that there are other alternatives is too true. It would be nice if we could have a civilized discussion about ANY political issues nowadays. Unfortunately, politicians have learned that the surest way to continue their stranglehold on this country and the best way to amass more power is to keep the country polarized and fighting amongst ourselves.
I don’t think anyone really cares if their neighbor has a gun, the concern is what someone might do with that gun. I would encourage anyone who is on the fence to do some research on what has happened to violent crime rates in countries that have banned guns (UK, Australia), severely limit guns (Canada), and countries that require all citizens be armed (Switzerland) I also recommend that you look at our own government’s statistics and conclusions on the 1994 “Assault” weapons ban, they admitted it had no impact on violent crime rates.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/
July 17, 2013 @ 8:45 am
of course. this is exactly true. I been telling everyone, people need to watch the movie the assassination of Jesse james, where if you killed someone cowardly back then, people would shame them to the point of suicide. Now we glorify/vilify mass shootings where people think they will finally get the attention they deserve. And this is not a gun debate. Im all pro gun and people were back in the days too. The problem Waylon is talking about is Sensationalizing cowardliness.
October 1, 2015 @ 8:43 pm
Wow there’s a lot of libs on here. 100% agree with you and Waylon though, trig. That kinda common sense approach is something that’s not common at all anymore.
I personally agree with allowing concealed carry everywhere as a deterrent to criminals.