Posted on 12/22/2012 4:15:50 AM PST by Kaslin
There are now calls from the Left for gun control legislation in response to Adam Lanza's unconscionable mass killing of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. However, very few people seem to be asking the most basic question of all before getting started: What gun control legislation could have stopped Adam Lanza?
The answer is "none."
Let's consider a few alternatives:
1) The school was already a "gun free zone;" so obviously that wasn't effective. Of course, the sort of people who would respect a "gun free zone" in the first place are the very ones you wouldn't have to worry about carrying a gun; so it's an almost useless designation.
2) What about closing the supposed "gun show loophole?" Well, since Lanza killed his own mother and used her legally acquired guns for his rampage, making it harder for googly-eyed loners to acquire weapons wouldn't have changed a thing.
3) Some people are calling for a ban on automatic weapons. Setting aside the fact that the regulation of fully automatic weapons is already tighter than Spandex, Adam Lanza didn't use a fully automatic weapon.
4) Then there are calls for the "Assault Weapons Ban" to be reinstated. One problem: the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle that Lanza used wasn't covered by the bill. So, his mother could have bought that exact same gun with a sheriff looking over her shoulder while the ban was in place.
5) We could, of course, pass a newly updated "Assault Weapons Ban" that covers the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle. Then, gun manufacturers would try to create weapons that can get around the ban. They would probably be successful. Even if they weren't, it's not as if Lanza was battling Marines. When you're a coward who's attacking unarmed children, any gun will work.
6) We could also ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, but given the 3-5 second reload time, that would have been a minor inconvenience to Adam Lanza at worst. After all, it's not as if a group of small children were going to be able to scamper away or gang up on him during a four second window.
So, what now? Well, let's step into the realm of fantasy and assume that there's no such thing as a 2nd Amendment that provides the public with a Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." that is every bit as important as the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Let's also pretend that the American public would go along with the following laws and attempts to implement them wouldn't lead to wide scale violence and unrest.
7) Congress could ban the manufacture and sale of bullets and magazines. Given the massive number of bullets and magazines already owned by the public and readily available instructions for making them, this wouldn't stop any determined killer like Adam Lanza. On the other hand, it would lead to a massive black market with tens of millions of previously law abiding Americans buying bullets by the bucketful from back rooms across the country.
8) Congress could also ban the manufacture and sale of guns. Again, that would lead to the creation of a massive black market, but it would also leave roughly 300 million guns in the hands of the American people. In other words, if Adam Lanza had decided to wait until AFTER that law was passed to go on his killing spree, it would have been the same sad story.
9) Then, there's the most extreme step of all: Congress could ban the ownership of guns. One problem: In the vast majority of cases, the government has no record of who owns guns and who doesn't. In most places, those records are kept at the gun store level and are not updated. If the gun is lost, stolen, given away or sold by the individual, there is no record of it. This is a feature, not a bug, and it's designed to prevent exactly the sort of confiscation we're discussing here. So, even if all guns were made illegal, it would be very difficult to enforce, most people wouldn't turn their weapons in and there would probably be two hundred million guns left in the hands of the American public. Would a man like Adam Lanza still be able to acquire a weapon in that situation? Come on, he KILLED HIS OWN MOTHER for a gun; so you can be sure he'd have gotten one elsewhere.
10) Let's go Steven Spielberg on this problem and assume space aliens show up and use some bizarre technology to get rid of all guns. Well, even so, fire and explosives would still exist and as Brian Palmer has noted in Slate, those can be even more effective killers than guns.
Guns aren't even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.
If gun control advocates like Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg and Michael Moore, all of whom have armed guards protecting their safety, succeed in making guns less available for law abiding citizens, it wouldn't stop another Newtown massacre, but ironically it would make it easier for rapists, gangs or even the next Adam Lanza to hurt innocent people.
"No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!"
That's the "reasoning" behind gun control
It would be more intellectually honest if Mr. Soetoro would simply advocate for the removal of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, feral incumbant politicians using low-information voters would have the initiative passed in a Marxist minute.
So, the government wants to create a new “war on guns”?
We once had a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. It didn’t take too long before everyone realized they had to have a second constitutional amndment to repeal that ban.
That ban created the biggest black market in illegal substances ever, and propelled low level crime into organized crime, mobsters, and the mafia on a major level, giving rise to Al Capone, Bugsy Seigel, the Bonano crime family, and more. As a result, drug cartels learned from those endeavors, and have grown even larger and more dangerous to all of us than the mafia rising out of the ban on alcohol never ever dreamed of. The reason that gangs in Chicago and Los Angeles and New York all have guns and are the perpetrators of most of the crime is a result of young up and coming gangsters protecting their turf. And we can lay the roots of these violence acts back to the prohibition on alcohol, which taught the bullies - and ultimate leaders - of the illegal black markets how they can take advantage of the rest of us.
And we’ve had a war on drugs for decades. How has that worked out? The only real result is that it gave a few self-centered politicians a reason to fell good, even though it hasn’t worked. Even the libs say the best way to combat drug abuse is education.
We don’t need another war on “something the people want”; that serves only to mask the problems that exist in a few of us so-called civilized people, and will serve only to send law-abiding citizens to the black market to obtain the guns and ammunition they feel they need to protect themselves, creating more crime kingpins. And ordinary citizens will react in the way they did during prohibition, they’ll think it’s “cool” to violate the law.
What we need is an education program geared to teaching the people to understand that guns aren’t the enemy. I’ll go so far as to recommend we give it the same impetus and emphasis as we do sex education in school. The program needs to be mandatory and it needs to start at younger ages at the elementary level, to teach kids not to be afraid of guns and weapons, but to educate them so that anytime someone sees a gun, a real understanding is what’s needed, not an occasion just wring one’s hands and run away screaming.
Why not try passive resistance? Hide your guns, if you have to. Don’t cooperate. What can the government do if enough people go that route?
Bravo!! We finally found something for us oldsters to do. And we are not as afraid to die as others since we have lived a long and full life. Retired peace officers and other well-regulated individuals, (carrying concealed) allowed to "visit" the school and have a meal at the school cafeteria, would be a strong deterrent.
Schools have their much vaunted "lock down" plans, but apparently that plan failed at Sandy Hook. Lanza supposedly shot through the glass on front door to gain access which should have given time to put the school on lock down if there had been a good and tested plan and notification system. Knowing how school bureaucracies work, I would bet that to put the school on lock down requires approvals from principals, vice principals and a call to central administration. I have a feeling that school "lock down" plans are just paper exercises designed by school bureaucrats and are not realistically tested. Back in my day school fire drills were pretty much that way. The drills were often announced in advance, no attempt was made to make them more realistic by blocking some exits to test using alternatives routes or simulating smoke filled halls and making students get down to make their exit. We just heard the alarm and walked out the door like nothing was happening. I would bet "lock down" drills are conducted much the same.
A 95-year-old blind grandma with the shakes could change a magazine in 5 seconds. A 20-year-old could do it faster.
Liberals and logic? Are you joking?
Provided they know what they are doing
And, oh — add corporal punishment if the student is too immature or antsy to follow verbal commands. No arguments from parents allowed. Like the old days. Worked the old days. Remember the song? “School days, school days, good old Golden Rule days — reading and writing and ‘rithmetic, taught to the tune of a hickory stick.” Applied to the seat of learning. No school shooting then, ya betcha.
facts and logic mean nothing, they are appealing to fear and emotion.
in generalities, this line splits across gender. the men pushing for this have ulterior motives, they are manipulating their intended demo group to beg them to do this. we’re just responding to what the people want...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.