I'll begin this entry by stating for the record that I support gun ownership for private citizens. I support open carry, concealed carry, I even believe that restrictions on fully automatic firearms and short barrel shotguns should be lifted. I fully believe in understanding the U.S. Constitution as written by the 55 people who wrote it a few hundred years ago. They believed that people should be able to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against the possibility of tyrannical government. For those who want to keep arguing about the well regulated militia, I will remind you that a militia to those people was a non-uniformed, non-distinctly organized defensive force that protected a population voluntarily against all threats. I will also remind you that the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision accepted a statement in a "friend of the court" brief that this clause grammatically had nothing to do with the rest of the 2nd amendment--it stands alone, not as part of the right to keep and bear arms clause.
Now, I realize that what happened in Newtown was tragic, as was what happened in several other places this year. I do not believe, however, that these events are reason for restricting access to firearms further. I say further, because it is harder to purchase, and should be, a firearm than a car, a machette, or a mosquito net. It is far harder to purchase a firearm than to purchase food. Where the heck is he going with this line of reasoning. Well, ok, here goes...
I have read and heard much said about needing to restrict guns, or types of guns, because of their efficiency in killing. So, we should be worried about making killing less efficient, that is to say we should restrict or fight against those things which kill in large numbers with little input. Between 1980 and 2010 20.66 people were killed in auto accidents for every 100,000 owned vehicles in the U.S. During that same time period 9.2 people died per 100,000 owned firearms in the U.S. (these figures taken from the U.S. Census Bureau). 90% of those who died of malaria last year were under the age of 5, that number is over 589,000. 2.3 million children under the age of 5 died of malnutrition last year (both of these figures are gleaned from the WHO). Where is the outrage at death, period. We can sit here and make all of the outrageous statements we want to make about what kills and what kills efficiently. The fact is that death is a major part of human behavior and a state in which all human eventually find themselves--dead. I am more concerned with doing things that are useful than unuseful in the fight against unnecessary death.
How many firearms are owned in the U.S.? How many are present in the U.S.? What I am asking is this, do we know how many firearms already happen to be here? The firearms that have been used in most of the idiotic killings in the last several years were already here, they were not recently purchased, and for the most part they were not illegally purchased. Do people really think that stopping new transactions will stop firearm violence? Does anyone think it would really be possible to confiscate all of the existing firearms in this country--not to mention the fact that the people who would be given this task are often private firearm collectors themselves.
But you know what, we can buy and ship food. We can buy and ship mosquito nets. We can buy and ship mosquito repellent. When we as a people start being really upset by death, and start doing what can really be done, then I'll start really considering the efficiency of more gun ownership restrictions. And that is my two cents on this issue.
Now, I realize that what happened in Newtown was tragic, as was what happened in several other places this year. I do not believe, however, that these events are reason for restricting access to firearms further. I say further, because it is harder to purchase, and should be, a firearm than a car, a machette, or a mosquito net. It is far harder to purchase a firearm than to purchase food. Where the heck is he going with this line of reasoning. Well, ok, here goes...
I have read and heard much said about needing to restrict guns, or types of guns, because of their efficiency in killing. So, we should be worried about making killing less efficient, that is to say we should restrict or fight against those things which kill in large numbers with little input. Between 1980 and 2010 20.66 people were killed in auto accidents for every 100,000 owned vehicles in the U.S. During that same time period 9.2 people died per 100,000 owned firearms in the U.S. (these figures taken from the U.S. Census Bureau). 90% of those who died of malaria last year were under the age of 5, that number is over 589,000. 2.3 million children under the age of 5 died of malnutrition last year (both of these figures are gleaned from the WHO). Where is the outrage at death, period. We can sit here and make all of the outrageous statements we want to make about what kills and what kills efficiently. The fact is that death is a major part of human behavior and a state in which all human eventually find themselves--dead. I am more concerned with doing things that are useful than unuseful in the fight against unnecessary death.
How many firearms are owned in the U.S.? How many are present in the U.S.? What I am asking is this, do we know how many firearms already happen to be here? The firearms that have been used in most of the idiotic killings in the last several years were already here, they were not recently purchased, and for the most part they were not illegally purchased. Do people really think that stopping new transactions will stop firearm violence? Does anyone think it would really be possible to confiscate all of the existing firearms in this country--not to mention the fact that the people who would be given this task are often private firearm collectors themselves.
But you know what, we can buy and ship food. We can buy and ship mosquito nets. We can buy and ship mosquito repellent. When we as a people start being really upset by death, and start doing what can really be done, then I'll start really considering the efficiency of more gun ownership restrictions. And that is my two cents on this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment