Continued from Part 1 here…
Then a common and pertinent point made by gun advocates and worth addressing.
Now, even of those 3,371, only 37 were killed with a rifle which is barely 1%. 98% were killed with a handgun so creating gun control legislation that targets assault rifles has statistically proven to only weed out less than 1% of the problem, if you are lucky.
This point is relevant and there is no denying the numbers but it doesn’t tell the whole story of lives lost. If we are going to take a critical look at the most high-powered weapons, we have to look at Mexico and what has gone on there over the past seven years. As I’ve stated before, the Assault Weapons Ban expired in late 2004 and two years later former President Calderon began sending Mexican Army troops into the areas where the drug cartels had become too heavily armed for regular police. The idea that the ease with which one can buy a weapon made solely for military purposes in the U.S. has nothing to do with the drug cartels in Mexico being so well armed is ludicrous. A fair assessment of the effect on lives taken by these weapons would include this fact.
If the Afghan-Chicago comparison hadn’t been made, this next part would be the most absurd leap from reality in the speech.
On December 14th of 2012 the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting in Central China a man stabbed 22 children and one adult. Guns are not needed for mass murder.
Guns may not be “needed for mass murder” but they sure make the deed easier. I suppose I would need an example to prove that. Where can I possibly find one?
Wait, I got it. I’ll use the same one given in the speech.
What is not noted here is the fact there wasn’t a mass murder in China that day. How do I know this? Because for an event to be classified as a mass murder, you need a few key things and those things are actual dead bodies, of which there were approximately zero fatalities in the China attack mentioned. To which the question should be asked, what school would you want your child to have been in that day? The one where there was a mass murder or the one where there wasn’t?
Then one last claim by the young girl worthy of a closer look.
You must also consider the fact that the majority of gun violence occurs in low income neighborhoods. Raising the overall cost of owing a gun through higher licensing and registration fees, denies the ability of lower income individuals to protect themselves against the crime focus in the areas they live in. Passing this legislation would be discriminating against these lower income individuals who are actually at a higher risk of being victimized of crimes.
People on the right want to protect low income individuals? When did this class war begin?
In short, the point made here gives us two options when we also consider the fact most of the violence in low income areas in places like Chicago is due to gang violence and not just random acts. Option A: make guns easier to get so both sides are armed to the teeth and have the areas delve into mini-war zones akin to the cartel violence in Mexico. Option B: make guns harder to get everywhere and the price goes up for the gangs to get them thereby reducing the overall level of violence over time.
Maybe we could work on giving them an option C: offering better jobs and a way to a better standard of living so gang life isn’t so appealing.
Nah, that’s crazy talk. The answer is and apparently always will be: more guns. (No matter how ridiculous the argument backing it up is.)