It's no surprise that gun control advocates seized the opportunity to state their case. Wasn't it Rahm Emanuel who said to "never let a serious crisis go to waste"? Because of the often tragic consequences of an abused firearm, the issue of gun control is a passionate issue for people on either side.
When anyone is senselessly killed as a result of a gunshot, it's easy to blame the gun itself. After all, it was indeed the instrument used to end a life. However, as tragic as these events are, the gun only becomes a deadly weapon when there is human intervention. So, therefore, I prefer blame the person who pulls the trigger rather than a piece of hardware.
Many gun control proponents would like to see all guns taken away from private citizens. I think we really need to careful here. Back in 1775, the British instructed General Thomas Gage to seize the military stores of American militias. The result? It kicked off the American Revolution. Even though this was a long time ago, it hasn't changed the fact that American gun owners are not happy about any government trying to take away their firearms.
In the latest attempt the tighten the nation's gun control laws, President Obama and other high-ranking Democrats are pushing for a ban on assault rifles and guns with high-capacity magazines. I would agree, that most gun owners would never really have the need for a AK-47. But there's also a push to ban "certain" types of semi-automatic weapons. A semi-automatic firearm is a gun that fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger, after which a new round is automatically loaded into the chamber. I'm no firearms expert, but I would think "semi-automatic" would describe almost every handgun in existence.
So would banning all firearms really save lives? They are certainly valid arguments on both sides. But there are plenty of studies that suggest that stricter gun control laws actually caused an increase in firearm deaths. A few examples:
- In 1966, New Jersey adopted what was described at "the most stringent gun control law" in the country. Within two year, the murder rate was up almost 50% and the robbery rate had doubled.
- In 1976, Washington DC passed one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the murder rate has risen 134%!
- Among the 15 states with the highest murder rates, 10 of them have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.
- Chicago has perhaps the strictest gun controls but the violent crime continues to escalate.
Last Friday in China, where private citizens are not allowed to posses guns, a man entered an elementary school with a knife and stabbed over twenty school kids. This was on the same day as the Newtown shooting here in the States. So, this suggests that even if guns are not readily available, crazy people will resort to other means to carry out their actions. I also can't help but notice that there was hardly any mention of the China story on American news networks. Is it because the Newtown story was obviously bigger and in our own back yard? Or is it because it doesn't fit the liberal media's gun control agenda?
The National Rifle Association's executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, recently said that fault of these senseless shootings can be attributed to Hollywood, video games and the court system for creating a culture of violence in this country. He also called for an armed security officer in every school in America. Of course, more guns is the last thing that critics want to hear. But I think Pierre makes a valid point here, especially about the courts. How many gun control laws are already on the books? And how often are they enforced? There certainly needs to be stricter penalties for criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Too often they are slapped on the wrist and turned back out to society where they commit more violent crimes.
There is no doubt that too many people are murdered with firearms in this country. But I don't think the NRA or any gun owner should be blamed. In almost all of these tragic events, it was a person who was responsibly for carrying out the act. Saying that guns are solely responsible for mass killings is like saying that American Airlines is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. If there's any truth to this, then I'm suing the company that makes my fork for making me overweight.
I also find it very ironic (and hypocritical!) that many high profile people who want to ban guns are the same people who wouldn't dare go out into public without an armed bodyguard. Case in point, the President never goes out into public without his armed Secret Service agents. Can anyone deny that their guns have a huge impact on his safety?
Outlawing guns will not take them out of the criminals hands for one simple reason: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS! What part of this don't people understand? I guess it's like thinking that outlawing drugs will instantly stop drug abuse. Yeah, how's that whole "war of drugs" thing working out?
I don't want to come off as sounding unconcerned about of the tragic events that have occurred. It saddens me to see any innocent person die so needlessly. But I can't help but wonder if there was an armed citizen in that Colorado movie theater or that Connecticut elementary school, maybe, just maybe many lives could have been saved.
In a perfect world, we would be able to sleep with our windows and doors open. In a perfect world, we would be able to get cash out of an ATM machine in West Baltimore without fear of being jacked up. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about lunatics spraying bullets into a movie theater or a class room. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world........
I am not a radical right-wing gun nut. Nor am I an overly religious person. However, if I ever find myself in a potentially life-threatening situation against a gun-toting thug, I pray to God that a good guy with a gun shows up quick......
kw
No comments:
Post a Comment