Posted on 03/14/2012 6:51:28 AM PDT by marktwain
Last week it happened again. Another school. Another disturbed young person. Another needless firearm legally purchased. Another good person dead as a result.
Last Tuesday, a 28 year-old former Spanish teacher named Shane Schumerth walked into the office of Dale Regan, the principal of the school where he had been recently fired, pulled out an AK-47 assault rifle and killed her before committing suicide.
A week earlier, T.J. Lane, a 17 year-old Ohio boy, took out his .22 semi-automatic pistol and killed three people and injured two more.
And the week before that, a third-grader grabs the family's legally bought .45 and sticks it in his backpack on the way to school. The result was a seriously injured nine year-old.
And then, of course, there was Columbine (15 dead) and Virginia Tech (32 dead). You can read the grizzly toll in this archive provided by the New York Times.
And that's just school shootings. Gabby Giffords' promising career was put to an end, as were the lives of six innocent people by a madman with a gun.
Even laptop computers aren't safe. A father in North Carolina recently plugged his daughter's Dell with nine rounds from his handgun because she "disrespected" him in some Facebook postings.
The U.S. had 9,369 murders committed with firearms in 2002. Only South Africa, Columbia and Thailand outrank us, and the next three countries on the list are the Philippines, Mexico, and Slovakia.
Great company to be in. Where does the rest of the developed and sane world fall? Well, Germany had 269, Spain had 97, Australia 59, Japan 47, the U.K. had 14, Ireland 12, you get the picture.
And yet the silence from American politicians has been deafening. Even the modest proposals suggested in the wake of the Giffords massacre (to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check) have died quiet deaths.
The problem is that the National Rifle Association's radical agenda of the last few decades has been spectacularly successful. By opposing even the smallest and most responsible of gun control measures, they have cowed mainstream politicians (even most liberals) from even so much as using the words "gun" and "control" in the same sentence.
The answer is not more silence and even more modest proposals. The answer is not to make nice with the radicals in the NRA. The answer, for those of us who want to end the gun carnage, is to make bold proposals that pull the debate back in our direction.
My bold proposal is to simply ban the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns and automatic weapons everywhere in America. There is just no reason for the existence of these weapons of mass destruction. Their only real purpose is to kill people, and target practice is hardly a good enough reason to have all of this destructive deadly force around. They should be banned.
Now, I am a gun owner, but I don't view my guns as the bulwark of my freedom; I see them as pieces of recreational equipment that I store next to my golf clubs. My guns are no more important to my freedom than my nine iron, and we'd be in sorry shape if our liberty depended on my accuracy with either.
My proposal probably should apply to my own semi-automatic deer-hunting rifle, but that's okay. My gunsmith tells me that the old 30.06 isn't long for this world anyway and I've wanted to replace it with a bolt action.
But isn't this kind of effective gun control a violation of the Second Amendment? Yes, based on some wrong-headed 5-4 rulings from an outrageously conservative U.S. Supreme Court, my proposal almost certainly runs afoul of the Second Amendment. But that doesn't point out what's wrong with the idea; it points out what's wrong with the Second Amendment. In my view the Second Amendment should be amended or repealed, and failing that, we can only hope that a more moderate court will restore some sanity to its interpretation some day.
Like most Americans, I've had enough of the senseless carnage and enough of weak-kneed politicians fearful of taking on the radical gun lobby. It's time we started to fight back and beat them at their own game, and that can only happen with strong proposals from our side of the debate.
Well, "Citizen Dave," are you prepared to personally enforce your proposed ban? Or do you intend to send the sons and daughters of others to kill and (mostly) be killed for your declaration of war on those of us who won't surrender any of our firearms?
Well, "Citizen"? Which is it? Are you prepared to die for your precious gun bans, or are you, in your cowardice, content to leave the dying to others?
No, we'd be in sorry shape if liberty depended on panty-waste wimps like you. Put on a dress and go get a real job. One more suited to your talents.
At least he’s honest enough to acknowledge that his plan necessitates 2A repeal/amendment
A handful of freak incidents, thus a call for massive prohibitions.
But 50,000 dead from cars each year? “Meh. I need mine.”
I’d like to buy Mr. Hoffman a beer.
Shove it Dave.
I say ban people named Dave. Now, I have that name, but if it will get rid of others, that’s okay. Same logic.
Well...add another to “the list” for hog feeding. Be sure to get his home address, make of car, recent photo, etc. for when the balloon goes up. <./Henry Bowman>
“My guns are no more important to my freedom than my nine iron”
He’s an idiot. Which just goes to prove we really do live in a free society where any idiot can write an opinion article.
Of course, if handguns were banned, murderers wouldn’t use rifles, shotguns, knives, hatchets, poison, explosives, etc. to dispatch their victims. They’d say “gosh darnit, they took away my handgun, so I guess I can’t kill a bunch of people. I do have a shotgun, but I wouldn’t think of using that.” Idiocy on parade.
We need to ban Spanish teachers and stop this madness now!
He fails to consider the oppressive power of a government which could ban nine irons. Ok, so he considers one no more important than the other - but a government willing to kill to banish either is a government to be feared and replaced. Too many misunderstand the implications of prohibition, no matter what is banned (”oh, it’s just X, I can do without that...”).
Yes and most of these anti gun types use the stereotypical argument that its safer if we ban guns. In fact on average in the US there are 12,000 - 13,000 gun related homicides every year. There are over 33,000 auto fatalities and over 30,000 deaths from the flu so your chances of getting killed in a car accident or dying from the flu are twice as likely as being killed by a gun.
As we all know ad nauseum the criminals don’t buy their weapons in the gun stores anyway so if you ban guns the criminals who commit most of the homicides will still be out there killing folks with great abandonment.
There is only one reason to want to take weapons from the hands of the average law abiding citizen and that is government control. We will be fighting to maintain the 2nd ammendment as long as we live. This fight will never end.
Dear Citizen Dave -
Might I suggest that you lead by example. Take your old beater 30.06 and whatever other firearms you own (you said “guns” - so I assume you have others..) and turn them in to the local police station.
As for me, I will keep mine, thank you.
Dave is no citizen; he’s a subject. May his chains rest lightly upon him.
No, Dave. Shut up, Dave.
I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't allow you to do that ...
Actually, you missed the one about fatalities caused by doctors. If you interpret it the same way you interpret gun death statistics, Doctors are FAR more dangerous than guns and gun owners ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.