A plausible solution to a topic on which both sides of the political spectrum trade more in fear than in facts.
Ever since the savage shooting of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in early January, several politicians have mused about imposing stricter regulations on the sale and purchase of firearms. Considering that many domestic terrorists now buy their guns in an entirely legal fashion, this does indeed seem to be a course of action worthy of more than a moment's thought. A large segment of the American population, however, would strongly disagree with such a notion as they fear that the government will do the unthinkable; confiscate their weapons. This concern is not entirely unfounded as many a left wing public officeholder has floated the idea in past years. Needless to say, door-to-door roundups would be an assault of horrific proportions on the most basic of freedoms which we as Americans enjoy.…
Article comments
26 - Cannonshop
#25 statistically, Joe, automobiles kill vastly greater numbers of people every single year in irresponsible hands, than firearms do-even when you include intentional shootings alongside accidentals, while only tracking a narrow sample of total automotive incidents.
Your corvette is ten times more likely to kill or maim someone, than my AR-15-and that's using numbers slanted to reduce the Corvette (or other automobile)'s chances, while exaggerating the rifle's.
Further, just within firearms as a category, so-called "Assault Weapons" domestically kill a fraction of the people killed by shotguns, pistols, and .22's.
The reason, of course, would be obvious to anyone that uses a lick of sense- "Assault Rifles" are bulky items frequently covered in add-ons that make them unweildy, they're relatively expensive, and they're not very good rifles. Mechanically, they're little to no different internally from commercial hunting rifles like the Remington 740-except that they're not as accurate, and they look 'scary' with all those jutting bits of black accoutrement (or green, or powdercoat grey...) Ballistically, compared to traditional hunting calibers, they're on the low end-the AK-47's round (which 20/20 made a big deal about penetrating 1/4" of mild steel at 50 feet) is identical to the now-over-a-century-old .30/30, one of the most common (and frequently cited as underpowered) deer cartridges in the Northeastern U.S., and it's illegal to hunt Deer with a 5.56 Nato (aka .223, the round used by our military) not because it is too powerful, but because it is NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH to cleanly kill deer sized or near-dear-sized game-it's only legal for woodchucks and other small pest animals. (there are only a very small number of states that will let you carry an AR-15 on a deer hunt-Texas being one, and iirc, Alaska the other).
The only reason gangers are attracted to them, is the main reason anti-gun people are terrified of them-they LOOK SCARY. it was one of the funniest things about the Brady Law and AWB in the nineties-those two pieces of legislation made bank for gun-dealers and re-sellers, by driving the value of what were otherwise imported pieces of crap into investment levels of demand-around the Gun show circuit in the nineties, we used to call it "The Gun Dealer's Enrichment Act of 1994", at least, privately, though it did spawn a cottage industry in aftermarket parts, and drove up sales by domestic manufacturers, the entire Brady Suite of laws really had zero impact on actual SHOOTINGS and CRIMES.
Basing your decisions on cosmetics is idiotic when you're writing Law, Joe. A better approach might be to approach Crime in a holistic manner-what factors increase a person's likelihood to do violence against another person, and start looking at those factors.
One place you might start, is acknowledging that unemployed people tend to go criminal much more often (along with rioting more often) than people with good jobs that pay a living wage, that uneducated people tend to become unemployed people more often, and that the education system is turning out waves of uneducated and under-educated ignoramuses,and, finally, that Minority dominated regions (those, and the Deep South) tend to have worse schools than the rest of the country, and that they tend to dominate inside Major Urban Areas.
Which are also the areas more likely to generate large numbers of criminals.
So, maybe a better idea than trying to restrict civil rights on the basis of fear, might be to ask what in hell is going wrong in our urban culture that it generates kids who worship the "gangsta" lifestyle, and what can be done about THAT before they reach PRISON and become impossible to teach?