20 handprints added to gun-violence sign along the turnpike

Anti-gun sign in the Fenway

Jeff Tamagini photographed John Rosenthal's anti-gun sign in the Fenway with 20 fresh handprints, in memory of the students shot to death in Newtown, CT. See it larger.

See it being stenciled.

Earlier:
Newtown memorial at Jamaica Plain monument.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

hand prints for poor urban

By on

hand prints for poor urban children who have been killed by gun violence?

Thanks

I go past that billboard so often I don't give it so much as a glance.

Using the caskets of murdered

By on

Using the caskets of murdered children as a bully pulpit is really classy coming from a rich guy that can afford to live in a safe neighborhood, with private security, and private schools.

For someone so concerned with gun violence I don't recall John spending a dime to help victims families or assist police with resourced to crack down on gun offenders. I guess it is easier to run self promoting PR campaigns and ask other people to give up their money and freedoms than do something yourself.

How is a billboard

By on

How is a billboard encouraging action by our elected officials self-promoting?

Caskets?? -- just wait!

By on

Isn't it galling that an anon, of course a male, hides behind anonymity to post his response/comments. Sorry, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Stick around, buddy. We may have more than caskets once we get done deep-sixing that ludicrous 18th century hanger-on, the 2nd Amendment. It will be history, I predict sooner than most people can even dream. Just wait.

At least someone with a few bucks is promoting, doing something to stop the anarchy and legacy of early American hate. Wow the phantasies and delusions of so many 'men', of late?

Oh please

By on

How do you write stuff like that with a straight face? And where did your HATRED of males come from? People are suppose to take your post seriously after that rant?

I never even knew the guy's name ...

By on

... until it was cited in this post. And I wouldn't have learned any more about him if not for your comment.

This is from a HuffPo piece that I just googled:

John founded the Friends of Boston’s Homeless in 1987. The Friends is a partnership with the City of Boston, has raised over $20,000,000, serves 800 people every night and helps transition more than 150 formerly homeless men and women in Boston beyond shelter with housing and full-time jobs each year.

In October 1995, as a gun owner, recreational Trap Shooter and businessperson John founded Stop Handgun Violence. The organization has been symbolized by a large 252 feet long and 20 feet high biilboard that he built on the side of a parking garage

Sounds like a real rotter!

He helps homeless people and

By on

He helps homeless people and not victims of violence. The money raised isn't out of his own pocket. It is one giant racket for rich people to get tax write offs far in excess to what aid is rendered to the poor through the charity.

He is perfectly fine with privileged rich people in safe Lilly white suburbs owning guns for sport. But doesn't what any of those diverse folk in the city owning guns to potentially defend themselves. It might scare those suburbanites from coming into the city for dinner, shopping, or a show if urbanites were armed.

Mental Midgets

By on

First, can you please provide some numbers to back this up? Highly unlikely, especially with the active AG we have looking over charities' shoulders in this town:

It is one giant racket for rich people to get tax write offs far in excess to what aid is rendered to the poor through the charity

For your statement to be true it would need to mean that some 50% or more of the money goes to overhead rather than aid to the poor.

Second, when was the last time somebody defended themselves against a person with a gun in a Mass suburb(perhaps a cop or a storekeeper - but never heard of a homeowner). The stats are overwhelmingly against that moronic argument. If you have a gun in the house you are far more likely to shoot yourself accidentally, kill someone else or commit suicide. It's such a risk factor that the last time I went to the doctor one of the questions was whether I had a firearm in the house. Only mental midgets use the self defense argument - often with bogus, unsubstantiated stats from the NRA about thousands of cases of self defense with a gun - that nobody ever reads about in the papers or reports to the police.

AUTOMATIC weapons are

By on

AUTOMATIC weapons are essentially banned with very few exceptions in the U.S.., and there a legal owner needs additional license.

NONE of the spree or mass shootings that have occurred over say the past 30 odd years has involved an automatic weapon. Some GANGS and criminals do have them, such as fully auto AK47s, and have shot at police with them.

What the media, 'advocates', and the average person calls an 'assault' rifle is nothing more than a semi-auto [single shot] hunting and target practice rifle made to superficially look similar to a military grade fully automatic 'assault' rifle. The bushmaster used by Lanza for example functions exactly the same as a standard small caliber hunting rifle. He did use a deadly type of ammo, and perhaps this type of ammo should be banned.

I'M NOT A GUNG HO GUN enthusiast. That said, law abiding people should be allowed to buy firearms for WHATEVER REASON because our constitution enshrined this basic right. The people who wrote our constitution thought this right was so important, it came in at #2. The U.S. has had an OUT OF CONTROL violent crime problem, essentially primarily confined to our urban areas, for the past 40 odd years. It is this violent crime problem that is primarily responsible for the popularity of legal gun ownership. It's also responsible for the so-called 'white flight', urban decay, economic and social decline primarily of our urban areas. Our leaders of all political persuasions have done next to nothing to effectively combat this violent crime and social decay problem. In most parts of the U.S. well off people, those with 'connections' and so-on isolate themselves as best they can in certain neighborhoods and towns. In NYC pretty much the only people who can get a gun license are corporate executives, entertainers/celebrities, pro athletes, and of course politicians. These people also frequently have well armed body guards. When these people give up their firearms [which they'll claim they need for protection] and body guards, then we can consider demanding the average citizen do likewise. This sounds fair to me.

Cause and effect reversed?

You wrote:

It is this violent crime problem that is primarily responsible for the popularity of legal gun ownership.

But isn't the widespread legality of gun ownership primarily responsible for all of that violent crime?

No, it isn't

By on

Cultural, socioeconomic issues, and BAD government policies are primarily responsible.

If so ...

Then why don't other western democracies that have poverty, etc. have these problems.

The only major difference is that they don't allow civilian possession of guns that are designed for warfare and mass killing.

When did America's urban crime wave

By on

as we and the world know it begin? Mid-late 1960s, exploded in the 70s and 80s. As fare a as homicides, peaked late 80s-early 90s. BUT, homicides are only one gauge. Assaults with a deadly weapon [not just a gun] are high, and in fact are high in other comparable western nations. Non-violent crimes such as larcenies are epidemic.

What occurred especially over the past 30,40 plus years culturally, not just economically? Things such as the breakdown of the family unit [mom, dad, etc.,]. This occurred among one demographic much quicker and earlier than society as a whole: African Americans, whom now have an average out of wedlock single mom rate of in some places above 70+%. The white single mom rate is now above 30%, probably more like 40%. Hispanic is high also, not as high as African American though. There is a direct correlation between broken homes, single unskilled, uneducated moms collecting government benefits and dysfunction, violence and high crime rates. This is not open to dispute. Yet our official policies and social services actually encourage and enable this. They even deliberately marginalize males in the process. Many if not most social services are almost exclusively for unmarried women with children, and part of the way you get housing, food, healthcare, $, is you must be just that. It's very hard to break a multigenerational cycle of dysfunction.

So in answer to your question, yes, it's culture primarily. And yes, the U.S. has a culture problem. Other similar societies like the UK also have this problem. It may not be as well advertised here in the U.S., but it very much exist. They may not have as many homicides or gun related violence, but they do indeed have pretty high rates of violence and crime in general.

So tired of hearing about MUH GUN RIGHTS

By on

The constitution was written over 200 years ago by crusty old slaveowners with muskets who could never imagine the kind of firepower we have today. The argument that right wingers enjoy making, that the well armed populace is the only thing to keep the gub'ment in check is so insane it makes my head hurt. The government has NUCLEAR WEAPONS, TANKS, FIGHTER JETS, ETC ETC ETC. Your pathetic little non-assault rifle has no chance at all. Every single first world country that has curtailed gun ownership and gun rights has come out better for it. (See Japan, United Kingdom, Australia) Right wingers and gun nuts have to reach for third world dumps (Mexico, Guatemala), dictatorships (Soviet Union, China) and civil war ridden hellholes in order to back up their flimsy pro-gun arguments. The epidemic of violence in this country is destroying us, and it is enabled by GUNS. These massacres will KEEP HAPPENING. And no offense (actually no, maximum offense) but clearly your worthless guns aren't stopping the gub'ment from curtailing the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. Time to repeal the Second Amendment so we can actually save the rest. I prize my freedom of assembly and my right to a fair trial over my right to have a fucking gun.

You people are SICK.

I am not a 'right winger'

By on

and I posted one of the last posts defending gun ownership. Let me repeat I AM NOT A RIGHT WINGER. I'm not a left winger,either.I'M TIRED OF HEARING LEFT WING/RIGHT WING SHILLS AND TRUE BELIEVERS flip their wigs and scream 'right winger!' or 'leftist!'. People like you live in a FANTASY world.

*I believe financial services industry and other industries need to be highly regulated to try beet to prevent future disasters like Fall 2008 and emergence of so-called too big to fails, cabals, and monopolies.

*I believe Wall St white collar criminals need to be criminally prosecuted, not just slapped with a fine.

*I believe in a social safety net, but think our current system is a farce, and we shouldn't be importing millions of people to immediately put on the social safety net. I of course understand Dems like them because they become automatically dependent on 'progressive' politicians and the Dem party. I won't repeat the vulgar words LBJ used when referencing black people and the 1965 civil rights legislation. I also understand many so-called conservatives, Republicans and especially business interests love flooding the U.S. with cheap unskilled and semi skilled labor for obvious reasons.

*I have zero issue with gay rights, including gay marriage.

*I'm Agnostic and generally highly anti organized religion of any kind, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.,

*I believe our war on drugs is a joke and tragedy.

*I believe law abiding American citizens should have the right to own firearms. I think some should be banned and outlawed, as should some ammo. I think violations of firearm laws should be severely prosecuted, no pleading down. I COULD REALLY CARE LESS that the western Europeans, British, etc., do regarding firearm laws in their countries. Just because they do something doesn't make it sacrosanct. They are not superior to Americans, and we aren't superior to them, but we do have differences. Leftist in particular are OBSESSED with western Europe and the UK. Please move there if it appeals to you so much. My mom was born and raised in England. I've traveled extensively. I am not ignorant of the world, other cultures and have no illusions about theirs or ours.

What does the above make me? A 'Right Winger'? A leftist? There are MANY people like me, too. It's just the right/left fanatics make A LOT of noise.

AND AGAIN: Why don't celebrities, executives, politicians, pro-athletes, etc., disarm? Why don't they go without ARMED body guards? Why don't they send their kids to dangerous public schools? Why do many of them lecture the 'little people' about how evil guns are, how they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves with a firearm, how they should be celebrating diversity and send their kids to dangerous public schools, etc., etc., And I'm FAR from a gun fanatic.

Charity is Hypocrisy?

By on

The problem is you're painting every well off person who gives a significant amount of money to charity as a hypocrite. What would it take? Do they need to cast off their worldly goods and wear nothing but homespun?

So what if they live in a nice neighborhood and send their kids to a decent school? Every person in a not nice neighborhood with not nice schools would gladly move to a nice neighborhood with nice schools if they could. And maybe some will be able to with the assistance given by charities donated to by people like this man.
Or at the very least not have to bury their children after they are gunned down. It seems to me that this person is putting their money where their mouth is, trying to do something to improve peoples' lives.

Also in answer to the earlier post where someone claims that AR-15s are nowhere near a real assault rifle other than visually. They are only different from a full assault rifle in that you need to pull the trigger more than once to burst fire. That is not hard to do. What makes those weapons just as much assault rifles as anything the military uses is the caliber and clip size. In fact, M14s which are single shot rifles with a clip have made a come back into use by US forces due to their longer range accuracy and larger caliber bullet (7.62mm N vs 5.56mm N).

I am not sure if I support an assault rifle ban - I am still deciding. But I certainly support more stringent background and well being checks on gun owners, and getting rid of the gun show loopholes. And anyone who is preparing for the end of civilization is not sane enough to own a paring knife, let alone a gun.