Okay, let’s take a look at “what makes sense, what works.” An assault weapons ban? Didn’t stop the Columbine shooting, did it? For that matter, neither did armed guards.
Both may have arguably (speculatively) prevented a higher body count,
but 13 people still lost their lives that day, didn’t they?
“But let’s not jump to conclusions,” cries the reasonable Republican.
“Close the gun show loophole!” Sounds good, except there isn’t one, according to the FBI. Furthermore, none of the weapons used in the latest slew of killings were purchased that way.
“What about the media? Violent movies and video games?” cries NRA talking air-head Wayne LaPierre. No correlation.
“A ha, but mental health!” That system already works. Adam Lanza was denied purchase of a rifle days before the Newtown shooting. That’s why he stole his mother’s guns. So far as we know, Nancy Lanza was mentally sound and purchased her weapons legally.
“So naturally, an assault weapons ban is the only solution.” At CES
last week, Bill Clinton said that half of all mass killings in the US
have occurred since the expiration of his assault weapons ban in 2005.
Pretty slick sound-byte, but there are a few bulwarks preventing this
statement from being “true.” First, he doesn’t
actually say whether an assault weapon
was even used in any of these “mass killings.” Over 140 people have
been killed or injured by mass shootings in 2012 alone, and only about 30 of them died facing down an assault weapon.
Stretch further back, and Clinton’s claim becomes so statistically
irrelevant that it’s barely worth mentioning. And that claim is based on a fact-check by the
liberal Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler.
“Well still, the founding fathers never intended for assault weapons
when they crafted the Second Amendment. Let the people have muskets, and
muskets alone,” says the smug liberal. Fine, take them away from the
military, too. “Fine,” the smug liberal replies. “We need to cut
military spending anyway.”
Alright, then let’s look at other Amendments with that logic, as
well. The founding fathers didn’t intend for the internet, so maybe that
ought to be regulated strictly as well. You can still write letters and
talk to people in person and say what you want, but you would agree
that the internet is a hot-bed for hate, bullying, and perversion,
right? “Well … be reasonable.”
I am being reasonable. There have been 41 suicides related to cyber
bullying in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom
since 2003. That’s twice the number of dead kids in Newtown. Studies show that the trend is rising, too.
More of the suicides have happened in recent years. Look, you can keep
letters and personal speech, because those are the only things the
founding fathers intended us to have. But the internet needs to be
regulated, limited, and free speech there curtailed.
“Weren’t a lot of those kids mentally ill? Didn’t those suicides have
a variety of complex external motivators in addition to cyber
bullying?”
Yup. Now you see my point.
President Obama can “vigorously” pursue a “meaningful” assault
weapons ban all he likes. A “meaningful” assault weapons ban is nothing
more than an insulting but strangely natural conclusion to the flawed
and asinine conversation that has risen in the complete disservice to 20
dead children in Newtown, Connecticut. It’s not a right or left issue,
you
all ought to be ashamed of yourselves for your part in this conversation and your willful ignorance of truths on every side.
Because the conversation is honestly a
hell of a lot easier
than you’re all making it. The problem is that the only question worth
asking is so frightening, no one has the balls to ask it. Do we do
things the European way, surrender the Second Amendment, and ban
all
guns so that gun-related violence falls to near-zero … or do we accept
that 20 dead children is just a price we have to pay every once in a
while for unilateral freedom?
0 comments:
Post a Comment