Dr. David Criste: Don't blame weapons

Advertisement

Once again, we are confronted with the terror and horror of an attack on innocents.

My sympathies and prayers are with the victims and their families. Many of those injured in this attack face a very long, difficult and painful rehab.

Can we separate the perpetrator(s) of this evil deed from the weapons involved? Or will we be treated to another spectacle of lawmakers tripping over each other in their rush to ban something inanimate?

Will state Sen. John Morse, House Speaker Mark Ferrandino and Rep. Rhonda Fields again assume the Three Musketeers role and move for “sensible” control of improvised explosive devices?

Relentlessly cheered on by The Denver Post, can we expect to see a ban on the high-capacity (more than 1 quart) pressure cooker? Will there be background checks to buy the smaller ones?

Can we in Colorado show the rest of the U.S. how to accomplish “real solutions” that will make President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Michael Bloomberg proud?

Dr. David Criste

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

Evil exists. We can pass as many laws that we want banning whatever weapons we want. It doesn't matter. If an evil person wants to perpetrate a crime they will figure out a way to do so. Cain killed Abel. Unfortunately the weapon he used has not been disclosed (to the best of my knowledge which admittedly is limited). Had the weapon been disclosed, maybe it would have been banned. I doubt it was a pressure cooker.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

not skeptical of the pressure cooker reports regards Boston Marathon. Am saying i doubt Cain killed Abel using a pressure cooker

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

no worries - cheers to you. also - just moved here and like to make home made frijoles and bean soups. Am going to need a pressure cooker. will Ace, Walmart, Homesteader have to remove them from their shelves (-;

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

no kidding, tried soaking the pintos for 8 hours and then simmered for 3 more hours. Skins still tough. Where is Martha Stewart when you need her?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 8 months ago

"move for “sensible” control of improvised explosive devices"

They are already highly illegal. Go ahead, fill up any metal container with gunpowder and nails. Then call the ATF and tell them that you've just shown them that pressure cookers need to be regulated.

And tell us how that went.

Making a bomb with explosives that you say is harmless because you lack a triggering device is still a felony.

If you want to compare the highly illegal explosive devices that can kill many people to the legal ability to carry weapons that can also kill many people then you'd probably wonder why they can both be designed to kill many people and have military applications, but one is legal and the other is highly illegal.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 8 months ago

"They are already highly illegal."

So is walking into a school and killing 20 little kids...

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 8 months ago

Yeah, but explosives are illegal to POSSESS. They are not legal to carry into a crowd.

The more you discuss how strictly explosives are regulated the more you imply that guns should be regulated more tightly.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

sorry, couldn't resist

TWEET OF THE DAY... If you can’t trust your own citizens with 11 bullets, but trust Egypt’s Muslim Bros with $1.5B, a squadron of F16’s & 200 Tanks, You Might Be A ???, Liberal?…

0

Fred Duckels 1 year, 8 months ago

I would like to hear the do gooders explain their idea of logic, Anyone?

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 8 months ago

Wow. My pressure cooker is a 6qt model. Yours must be high capacity. You're fortunate to have passed the background check.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 8 months ago

A pressure cooker is not designed to be a bomb. It is designed to cook food.

When it is used as part of a bomb then it becomes a highly illegal device.

If you wish to compare pressure cookers to bombs that that is like comparing steel stock to guns. As a pressure cooker or as steel stock then it can be used for many things. When the pressure cooker is combined with explosives and shrapnel to become a bomb then it become highly illegal. When the stock steel is machined into a gun then it is still a legal device.

I'd like the gun lovers to explain their idea of logic on why bombs are illegal and guns are legal.

0

Matthew Stoddard 1 year, 8 months ago

Good luck with that, Scott. They're too busy making fun of the Boston bombing materials. Waiting for them to go shopping by grave robbing, they way they think it's so funny.

0

Don Thayer 1 year, 8 months ago

Lets outlaw cars, they've been used as bombs for decades. What do you say, Scott?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

So sorry Matthew that you feel so strongly that those who you disagree with are "making fun of the bombing materials". While I can't speak for the others I can say from my perspective that my concern is the continual need by the Dems to try to legislate our safety. Some have referred to it as "The Nanny State". As I have said before and will say again we (USA) can pass all the laws we want. It won't matter. We don't enforce the ones on the books currently. We even give guns to the bad guys - Fast and Furious. Evil exists. You cannot legislate away evil. Evil will find away - ie. using a common kitchen appliance to make a deadly bomb. Sorry that you can't identify mockery and sarcasm. PS: on another string you said (and I am not quoting you verbatim so my apologies if I don't get it quite right (oops sorry - correct)) that guns were made to kill and cars were made for transportation. So riddle me this - should we outlaw cars with 470 hp engines that can go faster then 150 mph. It seems like over kill - pardon the pun - for good old transportation. Actually, maybe we should ban any car that goes faster then the highest legal speed limit in the USA in the hopes that will cut down on auto related deaths All the best. Dan

0

Matthew Stoddard 1 year, 8 months ago

You're correct- I do feel strongly about ghouls. Joking about the materials used in the bombing is what mentally sick people do- you know- the ones all of you agree shouldn't have a weapon in the first place. Notice even late-night comedians aren't touching it? Says a whole lot about all of you.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 8 months ago

Keep trotting out the same pathetic straw man, Matthew. It's entertaining to watch, in a 'look at the village idiot' kind of way.

DHS proposed last year the regulation of any transfer of 25 pounds or more of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Not sure where that stands; and that's on top of the post-OKC Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act which mandates licensing of facilities and registration for buyers. If pressure cooker attacks were (or become) as prevalent here as they are in Pakistan & Afghanistan, I have no doubt the do-gooders among us would propose similar legislation re: such a demonstrably destructive component. And it would be just as useful as gun control; accomplishing nothing beyond making elitists feel better about themselves.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

Matthew, Didn't know personal attacks were part of your modus operandi. I guess when you don't have legitimate answers to questions that becomes your response? So now I am mentally sick. And you base your diagnosis on what? At no time in this post do I see that personally attacked you and your potential mental state but because i happen to disagree with you you chose to attack me. Sad. All the best, Dan

0

Matthew Stoddard 1 year, 8 months ago

I explained that I was sickened by people thinking joking about the materials used in the bombing is a great way to pass the time, which you joined in on by asking about Walmart etc. pulling them from the shelves. Do you consider that to be a normal response a tragedy like this? I don't. Hey- how about some fecal jokes at the expense of the Texas explosion?

And if you mean legitimate answers about the car analogy, it means nothing. Most cars can go above the speed limit. Limits fluctuate from state to state. It's intended use is transportation. A gun's intended use is to kill. I know that's hard to grasp, but I doubt anyone here bought their Smith & Wesson to use as a hammer for building a house or as a broom. As on the other thread, you are showing me that you will never understand. "Some people just don't get that they don't get it," was how part of it went, I believe.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

Matthew Thanks so much for the apology for implying that I may be mentally sick. Oh wait you didn't do that. No surprise there. No worries, I am coming to understand you. All the best, Dan PS: As I have recently moved to the mountains and need a pressure cooker do you have any recommendations.?

0

Matthew Stoddard 1 year, 8 months ago

Since you keep proving me correct in my analysis, why would I ever apologize. Hopefully, when you live a tragedy, we can all have a laugh at your expense, too. I'll lead the charge. It's what you would want.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 8 months ago

What's obscured by the haze to which Stoddard's self-righteous bleating contributes is that the pressure cooker technique is widely used in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and is rarely seen elsewhere. It was used in the train bombings in Mumbai, which the Pakistani Taliban took credit for and was ultimately traced back to them. It's also the method used in the failed Times Square attempt perpetrated by a Pakistani American. Credit was claimed by the Pakistani Taliban, and the bomber admitted he learned how to build it in their training camps.

It's a signature design and might point to the Pakistani Taliban. Or it could be a false flag to implicate & confuse. Law enforcement & the intelligence community have their work cut out for them. I wish them the best.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

Matthew, Your words

"Since you keep proving me correct in my analysis, why would I ever apologize. Hopefully, when you live a tragedy, we can all have a laugh at your expense, too. I'll lead the charge. It's what you would want."

You would wish on me a tragedy and then laugh at my expense.

All I can say is wow. I will say a prayer for you. all the best. Dan Hey Tom and Brian - Thanks for the reco on the pressure cooker. Tom, I guess it is live and learn for me regards Matthew. Does this mean I lost my Steamboattoday blog post virginity. To steal from Groucho Marx. Dan says," I didn't come here to be insulted" Groucho says " Oh no, where do you usually go"

1

Matthew Stoddard 1 year, 8 months ago

I see. Yuk it up at the Boston bombing, but if turned back on you...yes...you're in good company with the others like Willman, Kotowski, etc. Enjoy your time in Steamboat.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

Matthew, You just won't give it up. As I have said before, evil exists. Evil cannot be legislated out of our lives. I have fully come to realize it. Hopefully it will not enter yours and if it does I will not have a laugh at your expense Dan

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 8 months ago

Oh my. I've been singled out for derision by Stoddard. He joins a long line of holier-than-thou luminaries: seeuski, thalgard, Howard Roark... There's only one thing to do: Wear it like a badge!

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 8 months ago

So a whole lot of comments on Matthew's comment that I won't get an answer. Which turned out to be true for reasons other than he suggested.

Anyway, no one gave an answer to the original question:

I'd like the gun lovers to explain their idea of logic on why bombs are illegal and guns are legal.

There might have been a partial answer that guns are fun, but it is also fun to blow things up even from a safe distance. There is a reason that Mythbusters tries to blow something in each episode.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

Scott, here is an interesting read. http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/04/18/gun-control-advocates-are-playing-chess/ Hopefully you will refrain from the personal attacks that Matthew has chosen to use. All the best. Dan PS: I am still waiting from any of you who support tighter gun laws to comment on Fast and Furious - aka - giving guns to the bad guys

0

mark hartless 1 year, 8 months ago

I think the reason nobody is joking about the Texas explosion is that it was accidental, and that nobody on the far left is whacked enough to propose banning fertalizer... yet.

It's the question of having a mob of people who don't even know which end of the tube the round comes out of having a pow-wow about whether they have a right to usurp my rights that is comical to me.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 8 months ago

I wonder how many of those folks in Boston who are holed-up in their homes with an armed fugitive on the loose would like to have a gun this morning?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 8 months ago

Probably far fewer than you would think. Most people in Boston would not have barricaded their front door and want to have enough firepower to shoot whomever comes through their front door.

People in big cities are far more worried about people in their neighborhood that seem to be violent, and local punks that appear to be gang bangers.

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 8 months ago

Dan,

That is a nicely worded pile of logical crap. Same sort of argument could be made that some people want guns to kill people. And thus, the article's logic would argue, everyone owning a gun wants to kill people.

It is always very easy to find a few people that think something should be very much different than the present. Conservative economists such as Milton Freidman have made an economic argument for completely open borders and unlimited immigration. That doesn't mean that all conservatives believe that or have a secret long term plan for that.

Politically there is no way that guns will ever be banned because guns are simply too popular to support a total ban. But the public also doesn't think that the mentally ill or felons should so easily be able to buy guns. There is public support to make that illegal so people not allowed to own guns could be arrested for owning a gun.

Seems to me that the pro-gun side is making two big mistakes. They are arguing that guns make people safer which is clearly not true. They should be arguing that guns are enjoyable and make some people feel safer. That has the advantages of having more appeal and being true. The second mistake pro-gun is making is to be sounding like a bunch of anti-government terrorists in training. They keep making a silly argument that maybe a list could be generated of gun owners so that the authorities could know where to go to confiscate all guns. It is silly because if the authorities are going to confiscate all guns then they are not going to rely upon some list because they are going to search every house and check everyone.

0

Kevin Nerney 1 year, 8 months ago

Scott, one could argue that not all bombs are illegal everywhere. Here in Colorado fireworks (small bombs) are illegal if they leave the ground and make a report(go bang). Whereas numberous states sell all kinds of explosives, er, fireworks. I remember as a kid guys would brag about having M-80's (1/8 stick of dynamite?). Gun advocates just know which battles to fight. Give up bombs(fireworks) lose battle keep guns ( win war). PS Speaking of bombs riddle me this Batman er Scott--- why am I allowed to run my own gas to the stove and fireplace (a really big bomb potenially) without a plumbing license yet I need a licensed plumber to run a fart fan,( really really small bomb)?

0

Scott Wedel 1 year, 8 months ago

Kevin,

And BB guns and cap gun are legal as well.

But explosive capable of doing harm if used improperly are illegal. And guns capable of doing harm are legal.

Gun folks have made it clear that there can no compromise so they didn't give up their rights to use bombs for self defense or enjoyment as a tactical political decision. And bombs are certainly understood to be arms commonly used by militias when the Second Amendment was used.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

Scott, Here is another pile of logical crap for you to mock.

· REVIEW & OUTLOOK · Updated April 18, 2013, 7:35 p.m. ET The Gun Rights Consensus The real reasons the Senate trounced the Obama agenda. 'A pretty shameful day for Washington," President Obama called it, with "pretty" being the only remnant of his famous cool. In the Rose Garden, he blamed the failure of gun control in the Senate Wednesday on three causes: "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill." The Senators who voted against it are cowardly and had "no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics." And finally "a minority was able to block it from moving forward" through "this continuing distortion of Senate rules." The media are amplifying Mr. Obama's themes with less subtlety, amid a collective aneurysm in Washington and New York. Yet this combination of animus and overreach explains why the post-Newtown gun debate has been such a lost opportunity. The President might have forged a compromise from the political center out that reduced gun violence at the margins while respecting Second Amendment rights. Instead, liberals cleaned out their ideological cupboards in favor of gun restrictions that would have little practical effect but would have notched a symbolic victory over the National Rifle Association and those benighted rubes in the provinces. By so overreaching, Mr. Obama couldn't even steamroll moderate members of his own party.

A word, first, about that Senate "minority." Majority Leader Harry Reid was free to bring the deal struck by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey to the floor for an up-or-down vote, and this background-checks amendment might have passed. It did convince 54 Senators, including four Republicans. But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate. Majority rules would have also opened the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass. That would have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes. So Mr. Reid moved under "unanimous consent" to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold. The White House was right to worry. An amendment from John Cornyn of Texas that would have required all states to recognize every other state's concealed-carry permits earned 57 votes, 13 Democrats among them. The nearby table has the list. On Thursday, Wyoming's John Barrasso offered an amendment to protect gun ownership privacy that passed 67-30.

Editorial board member Joe Rago on why gun control legislation is likely dead in the Senate.

more to follow

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 year, 8 months ago

The media are attributing the demise of Manchin-Toomey to the clout of rural states, as if those voters don't count; or claiming it would have passed under a secret ballot, as if democratic accountability is bad. Our guess is the amendment would have received fewer votes in a secret ballot. Many red-state Democrats wanted to avoid handing Mr. Obama a larger defeat on a bill that was about to fail anyway, but more might have parted company once the specifics were scrutinized. Manchin-Toomey was rushed together on a political timetable, and a thorough scrub would have revealed that its finer legal points aren't as modest as liberals claim. Tellingly, the White House blew up earlier negotiations with Tom Coburn on background checks. The Oklahoma Republican favored more and better checks across secondary firearms markets like gun shows and online, but liberals insisted that federally licensed dealers had to keep records. In other words, keeping guns away from dangerous or unstable people was less important than defeating the NRA. The Senate GOP offered an alternative background-checks amendment that failed 52-48. Nine Democrats were in favor, but their colleagues voted en masse to block it from moving forward. How's that for incoherent? Mr. Obama is technically right that Manchin-Toomey would not create a federal firearms registry. Then again, its most clamorous supporters are also contemptuous of the Second Amendment, and they are explicitly hoping for a fifth Justice to overturn the Supreme Court's landmark gun-rights rulings. Manchin-Toomey opponents can be forgiven for worrying that gun controllers will attempt to build a registry from whatever records they get.


Meanwhile, political reporters are ignoring the disintegration of Mr. Obama's overall gun agenda. Restricting large capacity magazines went down 46-54, with 10 Democrats breaking with the President. Banning certain types of semiautomatic rifles failed 40-60 with 15 Democrats opposed. Those 15 or so Democrats, along with numerous Republicans, are the true mainstream on guns in America: open to reasonable compromises as long as they safeguard individual rights. People who cling to their guns, or merely to the Constitution, aren't part of the coalition that Mr. Obama believes re-elected him, and his mistake was thinking they would simply dissolve into history's rearview mirror in his new progressive era. Mr. Obama was routed this week because he tried to govern from the left and thus played into the hands of the NRA. If the Newtown families want someone to blame, they can start with the President. A version of this article appeared April 19, 2013, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Gun Rights Consensus.

0

mark hartless 1 year, 8 months ago

Rubber bullets???

Whoever heard of such a silly thing?

AP, API, APIT... they work WAY better than rubber.

Just remember... "When the enemy is in range, so are you."

And... Tracers work BOTH ways.

0

Brian Kotowski 1 year, 7 months ago

Gratifying to see educators cracking down on malignant 10-year olds taking Swiss Army Knives on school camping trips. Not only did they put him in solitary, they called the cops. Shoulda pelted him with rotten apples and jailed his parents. A Boston Marathon terrorist in the making. The stoolies who squealed on him will undoubtedly receive salutary commendations in their files. As well they should. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/boy-suspended-for-bringing-swiss-army-knife-on-school-camping-trip.html

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.