First of all, a tragedy, or even several of them does not constitute an epidemic, or “gun madness”… this is a media creation and a media frenzy. NBC was propagandizing within an hour of the shooting. They rolled out pre-recorded tapes and emotional flashbacks before anyone even knew what had happened.
This situation must be put in perspective by thinking people, not hysterical hand-wringers. Bloomberg is and has been one of the most adamant gun-control advocates in America. Nothing short of total confiscation is his goal. Do not be lulled by “reasonable” sounding proposals out of him or the left. They are just precursors to disarmament. “Reasonable” gun control is an oxymoron, and a slippery slope in a free society. We recognize this with freedom of speech, but seem to get fuzzy when it applies to guns.
“Assault weapons” are functionally no different than Browning semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been around since the 1930s, or any semi-automatic shotgun. AR-15s in .223 caliber are not actually capable of dependably killing even a deer… they are not very powerful, and are actually designed to wound, not kill. That is why they replaced the .30 caliber in the military… a wounded adversary requires assistance and uses up more enemy manpower than the dead. The point being, good old-fashioned Remington 30.06 deer rifles or Browning BARs have MUCH more firepower, and they are NOT military weapons. These facts just don’t fit the left’s gun agenda.
I would concede that 40-round magazines are probably not necessary to the general public, and may make multiple killings easier, but attempting to restrict they would still be absurd, since they are ubiquitous and there are already millions of them in peoples’ possession. You could NEVER collect them or stop their use. Banning them is just a futile gesture.
True automatic military weapons and machine guns are already heavily regulated, and have not ever been used in one of these mass murders. The guns in discussion are civilian weapons that are not functionally any different than guns that were used in World War I. The trigger must be pulled for every shot. A double action revolver is functionally the same. The trigger must be pulled for each shot. Said another way, if ALL the AR type guns were confiscated, there would still be mass murders with people using “old-fashioned” guns, some of which are actually more deadly than an AR-15. Kennedy was killed with a WWI style bolt action.
Besides, so called assault weapons were already banned for 10 years, and it had absolutely NO impact on gun crime frequency. NONE. This ban didn’t work before and it won’t work now. Stricter gun laws would not have prevented the Connecticut tragedy or the Colorado tragedy. The Connecticut guy didn’t actually own any guns… he stole them from his mother that morning. She would obviously would have passed any background checks. And he killed her with a .22, the simplest and most ubiquitous of squirrel guns wielded by countless 12-year-olds in America.
We must face that these horrendous crimes are essentially unpreventable. There are many unpleasant realities like this in life.
Thus, I am not in favor of millions of people giving up their constitutional freedoms in a misguided and futile gesture to try to head off mentally unbalanced killers. Gun laws will NEVER stop these maniacs. These laws will just disarm and restrict sane, law abiding people. Gun laws in foreign countries do not stop gun crimes. The criminals have guns. The criminals and crazy people are not affected by laws.
Bloomberg is responsible for the ban on 16-ounce soft drinks in New York City. A direct analogy. 16-ouncers are banned to prevent obesity. Never mind that there is no scientific evidence that 16-ounce drinks even cause obesity. Plus, you can buy six packs by the dozen or 64-oz bottles at the store next door. In the restaurant itself, you can refill your 12-oz cup all day long without restrictions. Or, you can buy two 12 oz drinks at once. Or you can buy 3 12-oz drinks in three different stores. This absolutely ridiculous and insulting law will have NO affect on obesity; any thinking person can see that. It’s a feel-good law for the weak-minded fools who have elected him – people who stuff their faces all day with 10,000 calories and never exercise, but blame McDonald’s for being fat.
Then there was the classic example of banning something that people want… prohibition. Maybe the clearest example of a backfire ever seen.
Same-same for gun laws. They do not work. They do not work. They do not work.
The fact is, that far from gun madness, mass murders are WAY down in America from previous decades. The 20s were the worst time for mass murders. Murders in general are WAY DOWN despite record gun sales. Crime is way down despite concealed carry in most states. There is absolutely no correlation between gun availability and increased crime, mass murders, or gun crimes. Despite protestations to the contrary, the millions of people who are now armed and taking advantage of concealed carry laws have NOT contributed to more gun crime. It was supposed to be a “wild-west” show, but, of course, it wasn’t. The phenomenon of armed-citizens drives DOWN crime. This fact, and the overwhelming statistics supporting it, is a total repudiation of the bold tissues of false assertion indulged in by the hysterical anti-gun crowd and their fantasies. Research from EVERY STATE involved in the concealed-carry movement shows an inverse relationship. Gun crimes and murders go down when the general population is armed.
It is crazies and criminals who kill people, and the general population must be able to PROTECT themselves from them, and not by being disarmed.
Not to be totally laissez faire on the issue, I think some possibly effective actions that should be considered are:
· Armed monitors, guards, or police in all schools.
· Reduction of gun-free zones, which attract criminals and crazies. Much greater security in any remaining “gun free” zones.
· Tougher reporting of mental problems and stricter control and supervision of “risky” individuals. (Yet preventing them from buying or owning guns will NOT stop them from getting their hands on guns.)
· Educate people to listen better for gun crazies… just like we now are more attentive to child abusers or domestic abusers than we once were.
· Better household security on guns to keep them away from children.
A key issue in all this… the second amendment restricts the government from regulating guns in part because the founding fathers knew that one of the chief potential NEEDS for guns might be to protect the people FROM the government. We can readily see that risk in these times. The government restricting guns is the ultimate fox guarding the hen house. Witness other countries throughout the world, throughout history. In America, the government serves the people… it doesn’t rule them… or we won’t be America anymore.
Banning guns will not prevent a mass murder… but it will embolden totalitarians.
I will NOT give up my constitutional rights to self-defense because of the actions of a few crazy people. This is the chief reason why we NEED guns, because no one can actually protect you from the crazies, or from evil. Self-defense is an inherent human right.
Painful, pointless, inexplicable, and emotional events like Sandy Hook cannot change the facts.