 |
| A friend I taught to shoot. |
This mass shooting, as they all do, re-opened the questions about banning certain types of firearms and accessories. However, this time, the timing is a little different. We have a newly re-elected President Obama, who has in the past supported banning certain types of firearms, and we have a lame-duck congress with a lot of members not returning as they were defeated in the last election. Plus the fact that the majority of the victims in this case were 5 and 6 year old kids, makes the climate in Washington and the country different than it has been in the past. But, this fact remain the same. Banning the "assault rifle" will have no real effect on mass murders.
I really will not put a lot of data on this initial post, as I will respond to each comment I get with facts and my opinions. The only data I will list on the top page is this:
Newtown, Ct shooting 12-14-2012: Shooter used a Bushmaster rifle as the primary weapon, killed 26.
Binghamton, Ny shooting 4-3-2009: Shooter used pistol as his only weapon, 13 killed, 4 wounded.
Ft. Hood, Tx. shooting 11-5-2009: Shooter used FN Five Seven pistol, 13 killed, 29 wounded.
Killeen, Tx shooting 10-16-1991: Shooter used Glock 17 and Ruger P89 pistols, 23 killed and 20 wounded.
Of course I did not list all the mass murders, and I was selective in picking those murders committed with only handguns. The point is, the rifles have done no more killing in mass murders than handguns at any single event. The assault weapon ban, in my opinion, will do nothing to reduce mass murder.
PS, more people are killed in the United States each year by clubs, hands/feet, knives, and shotguns, than are killed by rifles. Facts are pesky are they not?
Now, please comment here, and let's start the discussion. Please be civil.
Here's a link to actual homicide statistics: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf
ReplyDeleteFirearms, from handguns to rifles, in total outnumber deaths by other means. That's a big problem. I don't know what type of bill Diane Feinstein is going to introduce in regards to banning assault weapons, but if you think we should do more about handguns, then I'm with you.
We can't take this cavalier attitude with guns by saying that people will kill other people by other methods. To that I say that it's much easier to kill MORE people at once with a gun, than it is with a baseball bat, or a knife.
Mass murder will occur like it did with Timothy McVeigh, or the 9/11 hijackers, but guns are still a problem. Bullets are a problem. We can't just sit back and shrug our shoulders and decide to do nothing.
Even if weapons bans take effect, gun deaths will happen, but can we just sit back and do nothing?
Why would someone want an assault weapon? I'm one of those tree huggers and grew up without any weapons around, so forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but I just don't see what productive useful purpose an assault weapon has in the hands of Joe (or Jane) normal American citizen? Enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteI promise you Keyrose, that whatever "new" laws or bans that are passed will not prevent these types of atrocities from happening. Why, because only rational, law abiding citizens follow the law.
ReplyDeleteI am not for passing laws just to feel good. That is my point.
Now, if what I read to day is true, and a "real" group is asked to study these types of events and look at honest root causes. I say good. Let's wait and get the real story and implement really effect legislation. The study should not be limited in scope to guns, but include mental health, and other issues that drive these sick individuals.
Lisa, you have framed your question in a way where there is no simple answer. To enlighten you on the shooting sports would take hours upon hours. Just know this, that there are over 200 million guns in this country that are owned legally. I, as well as law enforcement, have no idea how many are owned illegally.
ReplyDeleteMillions of people enjoy the shooting sports, from target shooting, to hunting, to just plain standing in a remote area shooting at cans and the like (plinking is the correct term.)
As far assault weapons go, they are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles. They ARE NOT what the military uses. Assault rifles come in many different calibers (size of bullet) and are utilized for many different purposes. Target shooting, hunting, and competition shooting. Do not believe those that say assault rifles are never used for hunting, as they are becoming more and more prevalent in the hunting sports.
As far as a "productive useful purpose," goes, I would say that owning firearms is no different than going out and having a few drinks of alcohol. Both can be dangerous if used in an abusive manner. Drinking and driving and shooting a human are both illegal.
The fact is that many more innocents die at the hands of drunk drivers than do firearms, let alone the few that die from assault rifles. Yet, where are the calls to ban alcohol? How about just banning shots, or at least undiluted alcohol, or limiting alcohol content to a small percent? Why, because bans do not work.
So, the real point comes home here, what risk are we prepared to accept as a nation when it comes to alcohol consumption, high speed limits, gun ownership, and many other deeds Americans partake in that can cause death or injury?
I know everyone is really upset over the shooting in Ct., as am I. However, one lesson I learned in managing people is that you do not make important decisions when you are mad or upset. They will never be the right decision and most of the time will cause more harm than good.