Another look at gun control
I’m never quite sure which argument against gun control is the most absurd.
First, more guns do not make us safer. Just look at the latest statistics on gun-related homicides: currently the U.S. suffers 3.2 victims per 100,000 people, while Germany and the United KIngdom have less than .1 gun victims per 100,000. The main difference among these societies is the availability of guns.
And what if other citizens had been armed at the sites of recent mass killings? The use of assault weapons in places like Aurora and Newtown rained death so quickly that there was virtually no time for armed response before the murders were done. Besides, that movie theater in Aurora was dark and filled with smoke provided by a shooter who wore body armor. How many additional victims would have died that day caught in the crossfire between the shooter and armed but panic-filled patrons?
The claim that any gun control would violate Second Amendment rights is equally ridiculous. Our Second Amendment rights are already limited. Civilians cannot purchase items such as rocket launchers or grenades. What in heaven’s name would be the difference if assault weapons were added to the prohibited list? Or high capacity clips? These things are all designed for mass killing, and it is humanly impossible to devise a valid reason to justify their possession outside of the military. Most of the gun owners I know agree.
“Gun control” has nothing to do with eventually taking away hunting rifles or the handguns needed for self-defense. To suggest otherwise is paranoia. The ongoing parade of American gun tragedies demands the courage to reevaluate such issues as weapon types and sales methods.
Obviously, the time is now for serious talk about gun control.