In the wake of the mass murder in Connecticut where 20 children and seven adults, including the shooter, died, various politicians from both sides have been looking at doing “something” about these shootings. The most often “solution” is to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 but expired in 2004.
Do you realize that the assault weapons ban would not have stopped the assault in Connecticut? Adam Lanza, identified as the shooter, had three weapons. Two handguns and an assault weapon. The assault weapon was found in the back seat of his car, unused. So how would an assault weapons ban saved anyone at the Sandy Hook school?
During the assault weapons ban for ten years, there was no discernible difference in violence involving guns. The difference between incidents seems to be the same as the difference between a plane crash and a car accident. It’s been well established that flying is the safest form of transportation. But when a plane goes down, it can take a couple of hundred people. You can’t get that many deaths even in a bus accident.
I’ve heard many so-called news reporters and radio talk show hosts asking why anyone needs assault weapons. They aren’t designed for hunting season. They are only designed for mass killings. I’ve heard them say that those types of weapons should only be for those in the military and law enforcement.
Are the military and law enforcement exempt from having someone lose control and start shooting up a crowd? Did I just hear a huge gasp that I would dare suggest that the military or law enforcement would ever do anything untoward? Well, I remember early in the Iraq war that a soldier killed several fellow soldiers because he didn’t want to be there. I seem to remember a shooting in Fort Hood by a soldier and in fact a counselor, psychologist or something in the psychological field, where over 30 people were shot and 13 dead. I also seem to remember a cop in Illinois, I believe that was being tried for killing several wives.
I don’t know that assault weapons were used in any of those, although I think one was used in Ft. Hood, but why should I have to be accurate in defending weapons when pundits and politicians aren’t accurate about banning the types of guns used in Connecticut?
So why are politicians now so anxious to ban certain types of weapons when those weapons have nothing to do with the shooting in Connecticut?
There is an answer to the question “why are these weapons available” but those that disagree will not give a direct answer. Their answer will be, “you’re paranoid” or “you’re an extremist” but they will not have a direct answer. My answer to why these weapons are available is because the other guy has one.
You’re welcome to comment.