I am convinced that the most pervasive problem we have in the United States right now, other than our Congress, is the news media. So many misconceptions are created by media sensationalizing and misstating news events to influence readership or followers for the purpose of advertising dollars.
Right now in this country government leaders are sensationalizing a tragedy committed by a deranged youth to pass laws for their own agendas. Talking heads on TV and big headlines in newspapers scream about assault rifles. They are mistaken; assault rifles are not the stock in trade for your average killer. More likely they are used by paramilitary organizations and criminal gangs.
I went to the FBI website and looked up statistics for murders. According to the latest published data, North Carolina in 2011 had 489 murders, 48 of which were committed with handguns, and 5 percent with rifles. California, meanwhile, had 1,790 murders, 48 percent of which were committed with handguns, and 2.5 percent with rifles. In California hands, fists, feet and pushing were used twice as often in murders as rifles.
Assault-style rifles seem to be the least chosen weapon for murders. They may look cool to some folks but they would be most unlikely to be the choice of weapon for bad guys who do not want you to see that they are armed; they would prefer to conceal weapons until actually performing the holdup. So why does our government want to limit the availability and ownership of the least-used weapon in murders? Because of sensational news coverage and the outrage that it’s caused that’s been blown way out of proportion.
Gun crimes are surely a problem, but coming up with better methods of making sure that the people buying guns are not criminals or mentally disturbed people is a better idea. I think we should punish people who use guns to commit crimes rather than the general public who are law-abiding citizens.
It should not matter what the looks or capability of a weapon are as long as it is not used in a crime. What is the problem with a law-abiding citizen having a semiautomatic weapon capable of shooting 30 times if that is what he wants? I would worry more about the criminal drug gang member with an M16 fully automatic rifle than a group of avid hobbyists at a range shooting automatic weapons.
Banning specific types of weapons based on the emotional outrage caused by news events may be expedient for government officials with an agenda, but that does little to uphold and defend our constitution and protect our country.
WILLIAM STINSON
Edenton
Comments
WELL-REGULATED
As ratified, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is the militia that should be "well regulated" not the keeping and bearing of arms. And I believe regulated, in this case, means organized, well trained and under control with a chain of command. Nowhere in this amendment does it say that only certain arms may be kept and/or borne. What we are currenlty undergoing is not a gun problem but a people problem. People treat other people so horribly these days, especially teenagers, that it is no wonder mass killings take place.
Why restrict something that is seldom done? Guns are generally not advertised on television except on The Outdoor Channel or other like networks. I can't remember the last time I saw a gun commercial on network television. Though I personally would not object to a ban similar to alcohol/tobacco. Gun magazines are gun magazines. What do you expect to see on the cover?
I don't think the argument is to do nothing. The argument is what to do. More laws and bans are not getting to the root of the problem and are only adversely affecting law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow laws and will always find a way around them. I prefer to be able to protect myself from criminals and will. When a criminal breaks into my home a 3-5 shot shotgun should do the trick. When the local, state or federal government decides to institute undue martial law or a terrorist group or another nation attempts to infiltrate a community then I should be able to protect myself along with my neighbors, which may take a bit more firepower. This is not likely to happen but is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists.
Mr. Stinson, you seem to
Mr. Stinson, you seem to overlook the fact that assault weapons, along with semi-automatic pistols, ARE THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERS. And yes, two-thirds of the weapons used in mass killings were obtained legally. You are right in your observation that most murders are not committed with assault style weapons. BUT MOST MASS MURDERS ARE COMMITTED WITH ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS. Check this out for fact checking: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
So, let's screen for crazy in the background check process and reduce access to these weapons in any way that we can.
Now, Riddle-me-This, Batman!: Here's something else to consider: If the LOOK of assault weapons has no affect on a killer's choice of weapons, then why does every gun magazine feature these things on their covers. And then ask yourself why WalMart and our local grocery, drug, and most convenience stores sell up to 13 different gun magazines, nearly all of which feature close-up glossy cover photos of assault weapons? Even you acknowledge the dark appeal of these weapons simply by discounting this as a factor. Clearly the LOOK of the weapon plays a very large part in the marketing, which means that the LOOK sells the weapon. If this wasn't true, the look would be changed. And so the GUN MANUFACTURERS PUSH PINK RIFLES FOR OUR ADOLESCENT DAUGHTERS! Do you STILL honestly think that the LOOK of the weapon has no affect on the mass murderer's psyche when the clearest of all marketing messages about these things is their unlimited killing potential? And THAT is precisely why mass killers use semi-automatic assault style weapons instead of rocks and sticks.
Perhaps its now time to restrict advertising for weapons as we have for alcohol and tobacco. Perhaps we can start to REDUCE THIS APPEAL by GETTING RID OF GUN-PORN in our retail stores. As much as I personally dislike Mr. LaPierre of the NRA, his point about gun violence in entertainment is the same as mine regarding magazine stand advertising, although he won't like the reduced sales volume that might result from changes in both. In fact, I would expect him to change his position if that occurs, thus revealing his true nature as a shill for the industry.
Your argument for doing nothing should be a thing of the past. Oh, and please pay close attention to that part of the 2nd Amendment that requires "WELL-REGULATED!"
Respectfully Submitted,
Force 12
Add comment
1) Enter a Name & Search for Free! 2) View Background Check Instantly.
background.instantcheckmate.com/
Free Reference Toolbar
Look Up Opinion Now Define Words Quickly-Free Download!
AddonReveiws.com/Reference
advisory opinion
Search results regarding advisory opinion
myquestions.co.uk
Newspaper Online - FREE
100% Free Online News Reader. Read current news online. Download Here!
inewsreader.net