Slaughterhouse of Civilization


PDA






FRIZ
October 21, 2003, 02:17 PM
Here is an anti Second Amendment article.

The Los Angeles Times
October 20, 2003

Slaughterhouse of Civilization
By Richard North Patterson

For far too long, the United States has been subjected to staggering carnage, thanks to an entrenched gun lobby.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-patterson20oct20,1,486689.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

We Americans tend to think of gun violence in terms of some traumatic event: Columbine or Martin Luther King Jr. or Robert Kennedy, rather than as a daily fact of American life. All of us know that every assassination of an American president was committed with a gun. All of us who were alive remember the terrible day when John F. Kennedy was murdered. But too few of us know that, since that day, more Americans have died from gunshot wounds here at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century, the bloodiest 100 years in world history.

And as horrific as was the carnage at the World Trade Center, it would take Osama bin Laden nine more such attacks to equal what we Americans do to ourselves every year with guns.

By trade, I'm a fiction writer, a creator of the imaginary. But in my latest novel, I chose fiction to expose a real-life American tragedy: the state of law and politics that has allowed the gun lobby to turn our country into the slaughterhouse of the civilized world. That's not a rhetorical flourish I've invented to sell books; it's a truth we've tolerated for far too long.

The facts regarding guns and children are particularly appalling. Our passing shock at Columbine merely obscured an epidemic: 12 kids a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns.

Only in the United States do surgeons prepare for combat duty by training at urban hospitals. But then, only in the United States do we protect the right to make and own bullets designed solely to tear apart the internal organs of their victims.

The problem is not that Americans value children less than unfettered access to every conceivable weapon by virtually any adult. Fully 80% of us favor common-sense measures to make our country safer for our families and our children.

Nor is the Bill of Rights a bar: The notion that James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment — with its reference to a "well-regulated militia" — so that racists, sociopaths and madmen could access weapons undreamt of 200 years ago is, as the late chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, observed, "a fraud on the American public."

Rather, the problem is a well-funded gun lobby backed by a single-minded minority which has, through misinformation, stealth and political contributions, frustrated even minimal efforts to stem the tide of violence.

Let me be clear: I believe that every law-abiding adult has the right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, whether for sporting use or self-protection. No one I know wants to confiscate guns. The gun safety movement has two simple goals: First, to prevent murder and injuries by keeping violent criminals, spousal abusers, drug abusers and the mentally ill from buying weapons. Second, to prevent accidents and suicides by making guns safer.

That is simply common sense. And it is shared by millions of responsible gun owners across the nation. They are not to blame for the carnage. The problem is an extremist gun lobby that perpetuates its power by trumpeting a paranoid fantasy that a liberal elite is out to rip the weapons away from every gun owner in the United States.

In this debate, it is the National Rifle Assn. that is the true purveyor of fiction. In its paranoid world, any measure to make you safer is the first step on the slippery slope to taking away its members' rights: It supports the sale of assault weapons and "cop-killer" bullets. It opposes closing loopholes that allow criminals, wife-beaters, terrorists, drug addicts and the insane to acquire firearms. It has blocked the Consumer Safety Product Commission from regulating guns to make them safer, so the commission now can regulate only toy guns, not the real ones. It has opposed measures specifically designed to protect kids, including requiring safety locks or putting indicators on guns to signal that they're still loaded.

The NRA has claimed that all we need to do is enforce existing laws. But then it has riddled those laws with loopholes and gutted the agency charged with enforcing them, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

And it has fought to keep Americans from knowing the facts by barring the Centers for Disease Control from investigating the costs and causes of gun violence. Now it is very close to winning Senate passage of legislation that would ban the victims of the D.C. snipers from seeking civil recovery via lawsuits against the rifle manufacturer, whose weapons are so well suited to sniping, and the dealer who somehow allowed the alleged shooters — a spousal abuser and a juvenile — to acquire a deadly weapon they never should have had.

In return for all of this, the NRA has nothing to offer us but more tragedy and death. The supposed "solution" favored by the NRA — heavier sentences for those committing crimes with guns — will do little to save lives. Punishment is not the same as prevention; however we feel about capital punishment, it does not resurrect the victim.

In fiction and in life, the true essence of a tragedy is that it is preventable. This one is.

I believe that, someday, those who own guns and those who don't will unite to create a new reality: a country in which our grandchildren will hear of the deaths we suffer today with the disbelief and wonder we now preserve for fantasy.


Richard North Patterson's latest novel is "Balance of Power" (Ballantine, 2003). He is on the board of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

If you enjoyed reading about "Slaughterhouse of Civilization" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rock jock
October 21, 2003, 02:30 PM
it would take Osama bin Laden nine more such attacks to equal what we Americans do to ourselves every year with guns
"We?" All those THR members who murdered someone last year, raise your hand.

Thought so.

LawDog
October 21, 2003, 03:11 PM
Richard North Patterson's latest novel is "Balance of Power" (Ballantine, 2003). He is on the board of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Well, that pretty much says it all. No bias here, folks.

LawDog

geekWithA.45
October 21, 2003, 03:44 PM
By trade, I'm a fiction writer, a creator of the imaginary.
But in my latest novel, I chose fiction to expose a real-life American tragedy: the state of law and politics that has allowed the gun lobby to turn our country into the slaughterhouse of the civilized world. That's not a rhetorical flourish I've invented to sell books;....



I think that about says it all.

Dorrin79
October 21, 2003, 03:52 PM
polemic leftist liar... check
ties to gun-control organizations... check
call for disarmament in the name of the children... check

standard BS leftist editorial - move along, nothing to see here we haven't seen a thousand times before.

hillbilly
October 21, 2003, 03:52 PM
Good grief, not the "12 kids a day" thing.

This stat has been discredited so much that it's not even amusing to do so anymore.

There is no mathmatical way, based on the CDC numbers that "12 kids a day" are killed with firearms. 12 times 365 is 4380 dead kids.

The CDC numbers, no matter how you stretch the definition of "child" or "kid" just don't get that high.

Another thing to conisder is what ,"kids killed with guns" actually means. It means all "children" (even how the term is stretched and distorted by the Brady Bunch groups) who die due to firearms related injuries.

That would include the 17 year old gang banger shot to death by police during a raid on a crack house.

"Kids killed with guns" include the 19 year old rapist shot by his intended victim in her bedroom.

It would include an 18 year old who accidentally kills himself playing the with cool gun he just stole from a private home.

But then again, when it comes to pushing a specific agenda, all the Brady Bunch groups can play fast and loose with meanings and words, can't they?

hillbilly

Standing Wolf
October 21, 2003, 03:53 PM
No one I know wants to confiscate guns.

If I couldn't tell a better, more convincing lie than that, I'd quit.

buzz_knox
October 21, 2003, 04:01 PM
The notion that James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment — with its reference to a "well-regulated militia" — so that racists, sociopaths and madmen could access weapons undreamt of 200 years ago is, as the late chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, observed, "a fraud on the American public."

Notwithstanding his plea to emotion and deceptive argument, he is completely wrong, as indicated by the vast majority of scholarly research on the subject. Even anti-gunner Lawrence Tribe, one of the preeminent Constitutional scholars, agrees that the 2nd Amendment says what it says and guarantees an individual right.

But then again, I've read one of his books. He's long on drama and short on thought.

buzz_knox
October 21, 2003, 04:02 PM
But in my latest novel, I chose fiction to expose a real-life American tragedy: the state of law and politics that has allowed the gun lobby to turn our country into the slaughterhouse of the civilized world.

So, in effect, his editorial is nothing more than a commercial for his book. I wonder if he was charged anything or did they just give him the free advertising space.

Brian Dale
October 21, 2003, 04:21 PM
The Short Version of the Article: I'm a fiction writer, a creator of the imaginary. 'nuff said.

Werewolf
October 21, 2003, 04:35 PM
What's sad is that when the a'hole makes a bald faced lie like: more Americans have died from gunshot wounds here at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century, the bloodiest 100 years in world history. the sheeple believe it.

All the wars of the 20th century have killed around 150 million people worldwide. How could anyone with half a mind believe that more than 150 million Americans have died of gunshot wounds here at home. Unless he's talking about just Americans that died in wars of the 20th century - approximately 750,000. I'd still have a hard time believing that more than 750,000 civilians/police in the USA have died from gunshot wounds.

Does anyone know the real figures about how many Americans died from gunshot wounds in the USA in the 20th century?

Bill Hook
October 21, 2003, 04:53 PM
He's also a lawyer. I guess failed lawyers become writers.

Andrew Rothman
October 21, 2003, 05:59 PM
The facts regarding guns and children are particularly appalling. Our passing shock at Columbine merely obscured an epidemic: 12 kids a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns.

The CDC says that 1,544 people aged 0-17 died in 2000 of firearm injuries.
That's 4.23 per day.

537 suicides (1.5 per day)
819 homicide (2.25 per day)
15 shot by cops
150 accidents (4/10ths per day)
23 undetermined

See for yourself!
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html

Don Gwinn
October 21, 2003, 08:31 PM
The guy is on the board of an anti-gun organization whose officers are on the record as gun-banners, and he doesn't know anyone who wants to ban guns? He's never met Diane Feinstein, even though he's on the board of The Brady Bunch? Never met Schumer? Never met the Clintons? Never met Rosie O'Donnel? Never met Don Perata? Never met Rod Blagojevich?

Gimme a break.

longeyes
October 21, 2003, 08:38 PM
RNP is a soccer mom with a long name.

SoCalGeek
October 21, 2003, 08:41 PM
I like the bit where he singlehandedly lumped tens of millions of people he's never met into the group of "racists, sociopaths, and madmen" and i really enjoyed when he said that Bushmaster's products were "especially well suited for sniping". Yeah, that's pulitzer material right there, folks. :banghead:

benewton
October 21, 2003, 08:45 PM
"The Los Angeles Times"

And you read further because???

Waitone
October 21, 2003, 09:27 PM
Los Angeles Times is owned by the New York Times.

Has the gentlemen's work appeared in any reputable newspapers?

Consider the source and unbunch your drawers.

Chris Rhines
October 21, 2003, 10:05 PM
A dog yelps when you hit it. This one is particularly loud and strident. :D
I've never read any Richard North Patterson. If his fiction is as self-righteous and prissy as his editorializing, I doubt that I ever will.

- Chris

USAFA
October 21, 2003, 10:16 PM
Actually, instead of the 20th century you'll notice that he said:
All of us who were alive remember the terrible day when John F. Kennedy was murdered. But too few of us know that, since that day , more Americans have died from gunshot wounds here at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century, the bloodiest 100 years in world history.

Now, I would just LOVE to see his numbers to determine how more people died in this country in the last 40 years than in the entire world in the last hundred. But then... By trade, I'm a fiction writer, a creator of the imaginary.

And that's all I have to say about that.

ravinraven
October 21, 2003, 10:32 PM
The dunce that wrote the BS stats doesn't believe them himself. These anti-liberty types are talking to the low side of the IQ curve. That's where the bulk of the electorate is. They can be manipulated. They can be cajoled and terrified into voting liberty OUT.

The manipulators of the low IQ and low functional intellect masses have to be stopped. How can this be done? If they aren't stopped, we are doomed.

ravinraven

Sodbuster
October 21, 2003, 10:44 PM
Slaughterhouse of Civilization
I would have expected a story on the Conquistadors doing a number on the Aztec. Freedom certainly has a bad taste in some people's mouths. I won't feel badly for him when he loses his.

gburner
October 21, 2003, 11:03 PM
'all of us know that every assassination of an American president was committed with a gun.'

Would he feel any better if they had been bopped with a ball peen hammer?

BowStreetRunner
October 21, 2003, 11:05 PM
well i guess im not buying his book

7.62FullMetalJacket
October 21, 2003, 11:09 PM
You have to assume he willingly and knowingly falsified the claims. An author, particularly an attorney, will insist on checking facts since it is part of the research for writing books or opinions. Vetting the data. He failed. He has been debunked here on his major "emotional" points in a matter of minutes. Now if we can just get a rebuttal in the LA Slime!

I have not read any RNP, and now I know I will not.

Ryder
October 22, 2003, 02:32 AM
Why don't we hear anybody suggesting a ban on parents?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrel.gif

TXBera
October 22, 2003, 05:45 AM
And I would still like to know what FBI data was used for figuring :confused: the 1 in 5 quote, Here's a PDF at the FBI website that states:

Fact: 142 Law Enforcement Officials were slain in the line of duty in 2001.(Most Current Data Available)

Fact: 72 occured during 9-11, leaving 70 officers

Fact: 61 out of 70 were killed by firearms

Fact: the Breakdown of this data goes like this: Handguns 46; Rifles 11; Shotguns 4

Fact: The FBI does not classify LEO deaths by assault weapons or not, it just states the caliber used

Fact: The Brady Bunch IS twisting data for their own use.:fire: But we've known this for a while now.

And for any interested, here's the PDF used: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2001leoka.pdf

Dashunde
October 22, 2003, 11:51 AM
Clearly this guy is a born moron, even those who are "anti-gun" can see the vast amounts of sensationalism being spewed. Sadly, they are probably proud of him.


Second, to prevent accidents and suicides by making guns safer.

What brand of stupidity is that?
Guns are NOT "safe", they are only as safe as our own handling of them. Same could be said for just about anything.
And how on Earth can anyone prevent a suicide by making a gun "safer"? Since when do the guns make any decisions regarding whether or not it fires? I think I would want to try suicide the day that my new "safe" gun refuses to fire because it thinks I'm in a foul mood. :rolleyes:

How is crapola like that worthy of newsprint to begin with? :barf:

2dogs
October 22, 2003, 11:55 AM
The Left Angeles Times.:p

TheEgg
October 22, 2003, 12:00 PM
And I would still like to know what FBI data was used for figuring the 1 in 5 quote, Here's a PDF at the FBI website that states:

Yeah, I looked up the same data a few weeks ago when that statement about "1 in 5" started showing up in newpapers and other "news" sources. I think I finally figured out what is going on.

They are using a "new and improved" definition of what an assault weapon is that now includes handguns with a removable magazine(I think this new definition comes from the proposed new AWB). Thus, any cop killed by a handgun other than a revolver or single shot has now been killed by an "assault weapon".

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. This article exemplifies all three.

Mulliga
March 4, 2004, 03:18 PM
All of us know that every assassination of an American president was committed with a gun. All of us who were alive remember the terrible day when John F. Kennedy was murdered.

Murdered with a crappy bolt action rifle. Note that no American president has ever been assassinated by an "assault weapon" - only by pistols and regular rifles - by this idiot's logic, we should ban every hunting rifle and pistol in America, or at least give them a billion locks and safeties to make them "safe"...

ravinraven
March 4, 2004, 04:10 PM
First: Try the World Almanac for the numbers of people killed yealy by guns, knives, etc. I can't remember the numbers from my latest read.

Second: If 12 kids a day are killed by guns and 12 kids were killed that one day at Colombine wouldn't we have the same intense news coverage everyday that we had that black day?

Third: How many NRA members commit gun related crimes?

Fourth: How many gun related crimes are committed with registered guns?

And finally the language thing. We say such things as "gun-lobby," etc. Why not say "liberty lobby?" That's what it is. The liberty lobby and the anti-liberty lobby. I've p.o.ed a few with that terminology.

But, we are doomed, methinks. We are going to have to fight our way back to freedom at some future date. It just seems that that is the natural course of politics and history.

rr

Henry Bowman
March 4, 2004, 04:16 PM
Should be titled "Slaughterhouse of Freedom." How generous of him to be so willing to give away our liberty for his notion of peace.

BTW, in his defense, one of his stats is merely misleading. It literally says more Americans (in last 40 years) than _Americans_ killed in war in 20th century. I'll bet that it is also true that more Americans have died from all non-firearm related forms of murder, accident and suicide in the last 40 years than Americans in wars of the 20th century. So what.

BowStreetRunner
March 4, 2004, 11:22 PM
ok Richard North Patterson.....
:::::For far too long, the United States has been subjected to staggering carnage, thanks to an entrenched gun lobby:::::

oh, so it was the NRA that directed the psychos who committed the columbine murders and makes the gang bangers go out and shoot folks?
mmmmm thats a new one

and any first year law student can refute Warren Burger's opinion on the 2nd Amendment with 2 hours in a law library.....Burger's assertion is so thin i would use to wipe my @$$, lest i.....well you know
BSR

Don Gwinn
March 4, 2004, 11:46 PM
Mulliga, that's exactly what Patterson has been proposing for a long time.

I recently read RNP's abortion book, "protect and defend." It sucked. My wife bought it for a buck at the library because she figured it was political and I like politics. I love her, so I read it. Made it clear to me that I don't need to read any of the others, including the gun control.

I have in the past learned a great deal from reading or speaking to people on the opposite side of an issue. One of our state legislators, Barrack Obama, for example, is utterly opposed to my side of most issues, but he's a good man with an open mind.

Patterson is different. He's one of these guys who's keeping himself pretty busy patting himself on the back about how fair he is and how he digs beneath the surface of complex issues. In truth, he's only got three kinds of characters:

1. The honest, earnest liberal who really hates all this fuss but feels she has to step up and take one for America and apple pie. This is every liberal in the book.

2. The Bad Conservative. This is the manipulative, cynical conservative. He doesn't really believe in his causes, he only says that to keep the rubes inflamed. His real game is accumulating money and power.

3. The Good Conservative. This is the moderate, decent conservative. He used to believe in the cause he espouses, but he is beginning to have grave doubts. He suspects that the Good Liberals are right and he has been a fool all these years. The doubts eat away at him until he breaks away from the Bad Conservatives and joins the Good Liberals.


The Bad Conservatives are mad about that, but the enormous Silent Liberal Majority steps in and votes the Good Conservative/Liberal and the Good Liberals back into office, and the Bad Conservatives go to jail.

So, hey, at least all viewpoints are represented. :barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "Slaughterhouse of Civilization" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!