I know about the very first school shooting in this country in which multiple people were killed. It was 1 August 1966 and it ushered in this insane era of what is now known as campus shootings. I remember the shooting at an elementary school in Southern California where a sniper from across the street murdered teachers and students alike. I remember the mass murder of patrons of McDonald's and the chaos that was the scene of the mass murder of dozens at the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas on 16 October 1991. Many people, however, believe this current era of tragedy began at Columbine High School on 20 April 1999, even though that rampage occurred more than a generation after the era began. There were other school shootings before Columbine, but that one seemed to really shatter the illusion that our kids are safe at school.
It may be, however, that Columbine was the one that the anti-gun crowd seized on to try to strip away the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans, despite the fact that if you take the number of those who have used firearms to commit these mass murders and total them up to compare against the total number of people in this country who own firearms, the percentage would be less than one-fifth of one percent (0.2%). Yes, there are far too many murders where just one or two people are killed where the murderer uses a firearm, but just as many murders are committed using knives, poison, blunt force trauma, strangulation, beatings, cars, and other means. I'm not a murderer so I truly can't think of all the devious ways people can think of to kill another person. But the fact remains that 99.8% of Americans who own firearms are law-abiding citizens who simply would not even think of killing someone using a firearm or by any other means.
Then, of course there are those who claim that even if the owner of the weapons wouldn't use them for murder, other people will steal those weapons in order to commit murder. While this is true, someone who is intent on murdering someone else will murder them in whatever means they can, even if they cannot get their hands on a firearm; they'll use a knife, a hatchet or whatever tool/weapon they can find. I'm using many words to convey the same message in the old cliché: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Someone recently said to me that gun control advocates and 2nd Amendment advocates speak different languages, which is what makes coming to a compromise so very difficult. Those who want to ban all firearms simply do not understand the things said by 2nd Amendment people and vice versa. Personally, because I understand and can see both sides, I understand both side's languages, but that doesn't help me make it easier for one side to see the other side's point of view. And part of that problem is that neither side really wants to see the other side's point of view. Even if something makes sense to them about their opponents argument, they will refuse to allow themselves to understand or admit their understanding because then they would have to concede the other side has a valid argument, as well.
I, personally, take heat from both sides because I believe in points from both sides. While I believe in the 2nd Amendment and refuse to allow anyone to take away my 9 mm Luger, my .38 revolver or my .30-.30 rifle, I agree with the gun control crowd that there is absolutely no legitimate use for an AK-47, AR-15 or any other assault/military style firearm in the hands of the regular citizen. Those weapons are for one purpose and one purpose only: the killing of human beings. They were created for use by armies, not by hunters, etc. Same with these clips/magazines that hold 100 rounds. I do believe banning any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is a bit extreme, but those that hold 50 or more rounds are used by the military for a reason: they're to kill as many of the enemy as possible before having to reload.
So, what is the answer? I wish I could convince both sides that allowing private ownership of handguns, shotguns and rifles is our fundamental right enshrined by the Constitution, but there is no valid purpose for private ownership of military style assault weapons or magazines for any firearm that holds 50 or more rounds of ammunition. It would require compromise on both sides of the issue to achieve that solution, and unfortunately, neither side is willing to compromise. Each side wants their own way and truly believe in their heart of hearts that they are right and the opposition is wrong.
Even using Britain as an example doesn't sway either side: Britain has banned all private ownership of firearms yet they still have murders. The death toll in the United States of America won't really be impacted by the banning of firearms, because just like in Britain those intent on using a firearm as a weapon of murder will still find a way to get their hands on one and use it. The difference will be that no one will be able to defend themselves or their loved ones, so maybe the death toll by firearms would actually increase by taking away the firearms of law-abiding citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment