The response by many on the loony left over the Connecticut murders will be that we need to ban all guns and ban them now. If we did not have guns, the argument goes, these sweet little children would be alive today. That is so foolish uninformed and dangerous.
The facts simply do not support the assumptions. Less than 10,000 people die each year from firearm deaths according to the latest information as reported in the Guardian (link below.) At the same time, automobile death are nearly four times as common as reported by the Census Bureau (link below.) Should we outlaw cars?
The one missing fact in all of the analysis is that a significant proportiion of gun deaths are suicide. Would not having a gun, prevent someone from killing themselves by other means? We believe don't believe so. Therefore one must deduct those deaths off the total of gun related killings which would bring the total down near 4000 per year compared with nearly 40,000 auto deaths.
Another missing issue is that thousands of potential robberies and deaths which are prevented by a gun owner who uses his/her gun in self defense. How many additional deaths would result from a disarmed society? One can only expect the numbers would jump as it has been shown that crime decreases every time a state allows concealed carry.
Additionally, as the following Washington Times article shows, as the number of legal gun ownership has gone up, the amount of violent crime drops It is down 4% (as reported by the FBI). It might be trite but "an armed nation is a polite nation".
The one irony that the press seems to continue to downplay is that these guns were legally purchased and registered by the mad man's mother. They were not street weapons illegally obtained. They were legal and no amount of permitting of gun owners or registering of the weapons themselves would have changed the outcome. They were stolen guns!
The wringing hands of the loony left do not speak to the facts and it is time that the rest of us come to understand that guns (nor cars) don't kill people, it is the loon that does!
Conservative Tom
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/
I don't know much about guns, but what I am mostly hearing is that some want a ban on the kind of assault weapon used in this mass murder. If a person has to stop and reload after 8 shots, it might be easier for the victims to fight him than if he has one of these guns that can rapidly shoot 100 bullets without reloading. Right?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, all such restrictions are in violation of the Second Amendment. I don't think it could hold up to a Supreme Court challenge.
--David
The most that a gun can fire is 20 bullets. But don't worry, my least favorite President will do something administratively that will effectively gut the 2nd amendment. I don't know what it will be, but it is coming.
ReplyDeleteYou can buy a 100-round drum that works on the same rifle as used to murder the kids. You can buy it over the internet for $145.34!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cheaperthandirt.com/prod/AR_15_100_Round_Drum
I can understand the argument as to why civilians should not have this kind of fire-power. But if they try to make this gun illegal, I think the Supreme Court would rule it as violating the Second Amendment, and there is nothing the dastardly Obama could do about it.
--David
I found a better one. This drum fires 100 bullets at the rate of 1,500 per minute.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.midwayusa.com/product/528357/ar-stoner-magazine-system-ar-15-223-remington-100-round-drum-polymer-black
--David
I checked out that site. The drum feed rate is 1,500 per minute, however, it only holds 100 bullets. This means it could move bullets that fast if the human finger could pull the trigger that fast. impossible!
ReplyDelete