The tragic events of December 14 in Newtown, CT have renewed liberal demands for ‘reasonable’ gun laws, and radical leftist demands for a ban on all guns.
The ‘ban all guns’ crowd is, of course, out of their tiny little minds. Disamring all civilians would require breaking down doors, because most gun owners won’t voluntarily give up their weapons. Nor should they. Banning guns will only mean disarming of the average, law abiding American. Criminals won’t follow the law any more than they already do, so law-abiding people will be that much more at risk. Even if it were possible to find & destroy every last gun in America, the technology exists to make them.
People who call for ‘reasonable’ gun laws seem to forget there are already laws on the books restricting felons, and people with certain mental illnesses from owning guns. A more recent law means that a background check has to be completed.
So what do they want? Should a gun lock be required? Well, that could certainly save a few innocent lives, but could also cost lives as well, since the weapon wouldn’t be as readily available to defend property or person.
What about some kind of extended waiting period, to let someone ‘cool off’, instead of just getting mad about something and buying a gun to get even? Again, a few lives might be saved, but others could be lost- a woman who’s being targeted by an ex, for example.
A ban on ‘assault weapons’? Well, aside from the problem of defining ‘assault weapon’ (or ‘assault rifle’), I can at least understand the reason for some restrictions on certain types of high powered rifles. We don’t really want military grade guns out there in the hands of the general public. But with the history of liberals taking their wins one small step at a time, I have no reason to trust that starting off by banning this or that type of gun will stop. Next they’ll demand guns a bit smaller are banned or regulated, followed by clips with more than a certain number of rounds, followed by clips with an even smaller number of rounds, and so on.
Could this tragedy have been avoided? We know now the murderer didn’t go down to his local gun store & pick up his weapons of choice. So all the waiting periods in the world wouldn’t have done any good. He reportedly had some mental issues, so adding more restrictions wouldn’t have helped (yes, those with certain mental conditions should be kept from buying guns). The school is already one of those many ‘gun free’ zones, and that obviously didn’t do any more good than it did at Columbine or any other school.
Maybe the solution is to control access a little better- possible through having people pass through 2 controlled doors- and to have a few teachers or other staff members armed. Make sure that there aren’t any ‘fishbowl’ rooms, where potential targets aren’t able to hide, and an easy to use system to lock all classroom & office doors could help, to.