More gun control legislation is not the answer
by Pete_Borden
 Politics
December 28, 2012 10:14 AM | 1470 views | 13 13 comments | 13 13 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
What do the following have in common? Poison gas, knives, handguns, dynamite,

ammonium nitrate and motor fuel, semi-automatic weapons, surgical instruments, arson, military looking automatic rifles, box cutters, blunt objects, airplanes, unmanned drones?   Answer, they have all been used as weapons in mass killings within the past eighteen years. How many of the items does the government propose banning? The answer is, only one, military looking automatic rifles.

How many mass killing do NOT involve firearms at all. The answer is one third of them. Among those mass killings utilizing guns, what is the most often used?  The handgun is the most used gun in mass killings.

For what percentage of the nation’s homicides do mass killings account?  The answer is around 1 percent. So, if a ban resulted in stopping any mass killing, it would be a miniscule percentage of the larger problem.

Given the above, all of which is documentable by a Google search of “Weapons used in mass killings”, why is the government dead set on banning that which they incorrectly term as “assault weapons?”

Will such a ban stop mass killings? No it will not!  There are dozens of other weapons, not including firearms, which are equally as effective.

Will it reduce the body count in such killings?  Again, the answer is no.  The shooter at Sandy Hook carried a Glock automatic pistol. Armed with that and preloaded clips, he could have accomplished his carnage in about the same time. 

In Chicago, with very strict gun control laws, 62 school children were murdered last year. Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun control regulations in the country, yet those regulations did not stop the Sandy Hook massacre. BOTH CHICAGO AND CONNECTICUT HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS.  So much for gun control!

Why, then, the mad push to ban certain firearms?  Do not be fooled.   It is not about the “assault weapons”.  It is about eroding the Second Amendment, a little at a time. The gun control lobby knows it cannot attack the Second Amendment head-on They know that would cause a nationwide uprising, the likes of which has not been seen by anyone living today.  So, their only path to the ultimate goal of disarming the American citizenry is to chip away slowly.  Today, the “assault weapons”, tomorrow semi-automatic rifles, etc until there is nothing left!   Then, we are not citizens, we are subjects.

The gun control lobby lives and thrives on such tragedies as the Sandy Hook shooting, because they give them ammunition with which to advance their cause of disarming American citizens.

In the weeks to come, they will be spreading a lot of disinformation, probably supported locally by some MDJ columnists including Kevin Foley.  Some of the misinformation they will spread is already being spread by the nationwide gun control shouters.

  1. Banning “assault weapons” will stop, or greatly reduce, mass killings.  Wrong.  People bent on killing do not need assault weapons, as has been demonstrated time after time.
  2. The Second Amendment applies only to weapons available at the time it was written.  Wrong. It does not limit the type of arms we can keep and bear.
  3. The Second Amendment applies only to militia.  Wrong. It confirms that a “well regulated militia” is necessary, but it says the “right of the people”, not the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
  4. The Second Amendment only applies to hunters.  Wrong. The Second Amendment is in place to confirm the rights of citizens to protect themselves against foreign invasion, or internal tyranny. 
  5. The Second Amendment does not give us the right to own weapons. That is correct.  It does not “give” us the right. We are born with the right.  It CONFIRMS that right.  Government does not grant rights. Government can only confirm, try to limit or deny the rights with which we were “endowed by our creator”.
  6. People do not need “assault weapons.”  Such is a judgment without basis in fact, because of the nebulous meaning of the word “assault weapons”.  As has been demonstrated, a box cutter, or a kitchen knife, can be an effective “assault weapon”.  Would you ban box cutters, or cutlery?  While it is true that nobody needs a rapid fire weapon to shoot a deer, the right to keep and bear arms is not about shooting deer.
Do not be misled into surrendering your liberty.  As Ben Franklin said, ”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
Comments
(13)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Lib in Cobb
|
January 04, 2013
@DA: I will take back what I said about you arriving at partial sanity. You are again back to where you started involving identities.

Please don't go away, we need the comic relief.
Devlin Adams
|
January 03, 2013
You have proven that everything I said is true.

Thank you and good-bye. I am not the "jackass Whisperer", so I have nothing more to say to you.

You resemble a bodily hole that is surrounded by sphincter.

BTW, nobody is fooled by your "Lib in Cobb"act. We all know who you are, Kevin.
Devlin Adams
|
January 03, 2013
Foley, first of all I don't have a team.

Second, if it bothers you so much for people to not use their names, how is that you never call your own team mamber "Lib in Cobb" out for it? Or is it okay for him because he agrees with you?

You react like a spoiled child whenever anyone disagres with you.
Kevin Foley
|
January 02, 2013
@ Adams - You need to read the garbage your team throws at me before you whine about "name calling."

When somebody who demands "responsibility" won't take the responsibility to own his words, they can expect to get called out like "Patriot D," whom I poked fun at in my blog.

My response to Pete's arguments will appear Friday in my column. Enjoy.
Lib in Cobb
|
January 02, 2013
@DA: You have arrived at partial sanity, by addressing Foley and myself as two different people. "Light dawns on Marblehead".

I don't deplore name calling, I am quite good at it, I was raised in a major northeastern city, name calling is a natural.

You are not obtuse because you disagree with me, you're just obtuse, a natural for you. "Gun crazies" fits, as does "low information voter".

I have addressed the issue multiple times in a variety of ways, on a collection of threads, right here. Go back and look it up.
Devlin Adams
|
January 01, 2013
@ Foley and Lib in Cobb. It is really hilarious to read the comments from both of you in which you deplore name calling and labels. Yet most of what you two post is rife with those two thing, including personal insults, references to people's intelligence (or lack of same as perceived by you) You continually downgrade everyone who does not agree wih you. Example:The name calling and disparaging remarks are necessary because both you and Borden and all the other GUN NUTS ARE TOO OBTUSE to recognize the differences between today and 1791, so wrapping yourselves up in the second amendment has little validity. IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH YOU, WE ARE OBTUSE, BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BE WRONG.

Both of you have made disparaging remarks about Borden's column, but neither of you have addresed the issues. Lib did try to address part of what Borden said, in a round about way a way, but then negated his own efforts by resorting to your joint new-found ludicrous talk about muzzle loading rifles.

When and if you two can address an iseue without using labels (gun crazies), disparaging name calling (low information voter), then maybe we can have some serious discusssions.
Lib in Cobb
|
December 31, 2012
DA: Kevin and I are two different people. Grow up and act like an adult involving my identity.

Borden has the insight to point out a very obvious problem, as you do, neither of you has the insight to suggest a solution, thereby, illuminating a lack of insight.

The parents of the 20 dead children in CT are not looking for a warm and fuzzy feeling. The remarkable aspect about many gun crazies is the lack compassion. The emotional aspects of this event and all the others like this cannot and should not be avoided. Both of you continue to point out it is your right to "keep and bear arms", that phrase will not make all the families of all the victims in all the shootings feel any better.

You are correct, the patchwork of gun control laws in the US are ineffective at best. If we only had muzzle loading rifles and hand guns then this mass murder would have not been possible, so the gun does make a difference.

I challenge you and Borden to make worthwhile gun control suggestions.

The name calling and disparaging remarks are necessary because both you and Borden and all the other gun nuts are too obtuse to recognize the differences between today and 1791, so wrapping yourselves up in the second amendment has little validity.
Kevin Foley
|
December 30, 2012
@ Adams - Names and labels are your thing, not mine. Stop projecting. And stop making excuses for Adam Lanza and the rest of the maniacs who have easy access to all the guns and ammo they want.
Devlin Adams
|
December 30, 2012
@ Kevin Foley and Lib in Cobb (Both the same person, by the way).

First of all, Borden is not excusing the killings. He is pointing out, and quite accurately, that the choice of the weapon had little to do with the final result. The killer could have used any number of other weapons, or simply driven a truck load of explosives into the school.

Nowhere does he suggest he knows the ultimate answer, but he is intelligent enough to identify that which will not solve the problem; that which

will give people a warm and fuzzy feeling and do nothing about the problem.

you seem quite adept at throwing out statistics which have nothing to do with the issue.

New York has strict gun control laws and you quote a low homicide rate. Chicago has even stricter gun control laws and last year 440 school children were shot, 62 of them fatally, with an "assault weapons ban" in place. Likewise, as Borden pointed out, Connecticut has tough gun control laws, and an "assault weapon ban" and all that did not stop the Sandy Hook shooter, nor would a national "assault weapons ban" have stopped him.

You take great pleasure in name calling and applying disparaging and phony labels to people, which is a great indicator that all your arguments have little validity.
Kevin Foley
|
December 29, 2012
It's very sad to watch folks like Pete Borden strain to excuse the use of fire arms to kill Americans, 30 every day, nearly 11,000 every year.

This isn't about "gun rights." It's about public safety.

It was just reported that New York City, which has some of the toughest gun safety laws in America, reported a record low number of homicides - 414 - in 2012.

Lib in Cobb
|
December 29, 2012
@Bill:

According to The Guardian a UK publication, crime statistics for the UK and Wales are down over a 10 year period.

In the years 01/02 there were 12,500 reported crimes, in the years 11/12 there were under 10,000 reported crimes.

You state, "crime rate rose significantly in England". Post your source.
Lib in Cobb
|
December 29, 2012
OK Pete: I agree, there are other types of guns which can and have been used in mass killings and banning assault type weapons will not make a difference. Then, let's take way all the guns.

You have written much about more legislation will not help. You have not made ONE suggestion about what would help. So, I am left to assume you have NO CLUE what to suggest. You and all the other gun nuts wrap yourselves up in the second amendment as if it were a cloak of god given righteousness. The second amendment was not written to make murder more efficient and it was not written by god.

OK, let's stop calling "assault weapons" by that term. What should we call them? You and other gun crazies seem too caught up in terminology.

States like CT, MA, NY and others have strict gun control laws which are ineffective, right again. Just more proof positive that the current system or the patchwork of gun control laws are nearly useless. If you can't get your weapon of choice just drive to a state where you can buy it at a gun show or from a bricks and mortar retailer.

The gun technology has changed greatly since the late 18th century. There were no mass murders in 1792 where a muzzle loading flintlock was used. The population has changed, there are more people now who would elect to do us harm with the use of a semi automatic, should held, long gun which strongly resembles a military issue "assault weapon" or even a pistol which could accomplish the same thing.

misterbill
|
December 28, 2012
@Pete--

An aside-

The crime rate rose significantly in England since they implemented gun control. This past week some politicians announced that they want to ban long kitchen knives also because of a few violent incidents in which the knives were used.

The politicians checked with chefs who told them there was no real reason that a knife for the kitchen had to have a long blade.

I expect carpenters and hammers are next. Woodsmen will need an axe license. And so on. Silly wabbits.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides