A local radio talk show host went on record stating ‘I am not against hunters owning firearms,’ then went on to add that certain kinds of arms should not be available to the public. She correctly stated that the American 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but also implies that there are limits to the ‘kinds’ of arms the citizenry may own.
This topic fell on the heels of the Newton Conn. massacre, and opinions are still at a fever pitch, but the mixture of ‘hunting’ and ‘canons’ is quite a stretch, and makes an already sensitive subject that much more explosive.
There are rifles that can carry 10 plus munitions, there are handguns that can carry 15, these are just as deadly as any other arm from close range. Granted, the Connec. shooting appeared more gruesome for the children’s’ sake, and for the kind of weapon that was employed, but a single bullet from a 22 magnum would have been just as deadly, the added projectiles was simply overkill.
When a deer is shot with a well placed bullet from long range, a second bullet does nothing. You can’t add to dead other than drama.
The talk host spoke of a local man who purchased a similar rifle used by young Adam as a lunatic, and somebody to avoid. Well, it appears here is a simple proof that a family with such a weapon is nobody to threaten with bodily harm.
A rapist may think twice before entering such a home. Here’s the rub. The criminal does not know what home is armed; therefore he would do best to stay away from all homes. But take away the armed family man, and he is defenseless against every kind of depravity.
No, the citizen armed with artillery of any kind is not a menace, as long as he is a law abiding countryman.
‘Why should anybody have THAT armory in THIS town?’ Really? Can you honestly say that with a straight face in light of what happened in Newton, the so-called model town? But the weapon that was used cared not if cans were plinked, if the man shot a piano, a dirt pile, or even himself; the gun has no personality.
But what about the home life of the young man that contributed to his rant of horror? No father, an aloof mother; who really is surprised? If there were no weapons, some say he would have killed his pillow.
Again I ask Really? Are there not Greyhound buses and school buses that carry innocents? Is a killer’s creativity stifled because he cannot kill quickly? Could he not hijack a bus and drive it over a cliff, killing 65 souls? Yes, we then must ban buses! Or do as the Iranians do, strap a bomb and walk into a store, train station, or whatever.
Then there are pencils and pens, those evil tools of death and destruction; how many lost eyes or lives with a simple flick of the bic? Screwdrivers, hammers, drills, legs of frozen lambs, where does it end?
Adam found a way to unleash his anger because he was broke and nobody noticed. Tragic? Of course, more so, that he took others with him, but the gun was the easiest means to execute his rage, if not that, then something else, perhaps with a greater death toll.
The extremists always cater to the lowest point, and seek to punish they who do abide by the laws of the land. So the new extremists are they who want to abolish the 2nd amendment with some strange interpretation about hunting laws, but this will not fly because common sense will prevail.
The chief of that stellar city Chicago has children who attend a school with eleven armed men. Why? Are his children’s’ lives more valuable than yours? Or is it that he simply knows that criminals are on the loose, and do not obey the laws.
Does not the president have kids that are guarded the same way? Are not these guards a deterrent to them who may seek foul play? You betcha, but they have other regulations for the common man. Why do you not hear of the hundreds if not thousands of homeowners who prevented their own death at the hands of intruders by being armed, capable, and ready?
This news does not fit the template of the United Nations desire to rid the commoner with arms, in which the United States is heavily influenced.
The gun grab talks are more acceptable when peoples’ emotions are affected, more so at the expense of children killed by guns. But emotional decisions are not always good, yea rather, they are usually bad, for reason, truth, and law, are all asked to take a hike.
A man dives into a swimming pool and breaks his neck, so his family starts a crusade against diving boards, for you see, it is now their mission to ensure that nobody suffers the same fate. They failed to tell you however that their wounded son was a novice diver, and had a few shots of alcohol; in other words, there is always more to the story. If you do not want to risk your neck while diving, don’t dive!
Even when sober there is always a risk, but the guns laying around Adams home didn’t help either. Whose fault here? May I remind you of the lack of personality by the firearm?
The real culprit was the youngsters’ parents who cared not to train him in the way he should go, thus he went his own way, and it was a track going the wrong way. Nobody saw this lone box car un-attached to the engine, just blown by the wind as it were, having no power and no source of belonging.
This was a weed growing and growing being fed by anger, and the ‘gun’ became a friend and a short sense of belonging. He felt power.
Please do not blame a ‘gun’ for mans’ inability to control himself. Please to not mistake hunting laws with the right to bear arms. It should not bother you if I owned a cannon; if I by practice have proved there is no reason I should be denied, what’s the beef?
It’s only a tool, similar to a chain saw, drill, ball bat, pencil, or bag of rocks. Has the show host ever seen the devastation caused by that outdated ‘bayonet’ affixed to the business end of the muzzle? Which is worse, a man killed with the sword or a man killed with a machine gun? Death cares not how it acquires customers.
Leave emotion out of this discussion and see more clearly.