This is obviously a very topical issue at the moment. It is necessary to examine the underlying issues to separate the wheat from the chaff. The NRA is the mouthpiece of the gun manufacturing industry. They are for any measures, no matter how distasteful, that sell more guns and against any measures, no matter how beneficial to society, that in any way limit the sales of any type of firearm to private citizens. That’s a major reason they want to arm teachers because they can sell more guns. The NRA could care less about protecting children.
My view point is each citizen should be allowed a limited number of single shot weapons, which must be re-loaded after every shot, and 2 rifles for hunting, ie., deer, geese. There should be extensive background checks to try to prevent potentially homicidal and/or suicidal people from having access to such weapons. The NRA opposes these restrictions by arguing that any restriction on gun ownership is tantamount to 100% banning of the right to bear arms. You will notice that no where did I say private gun ownership should be banned. Why does the NRA take such a position? Any restrictions will reduce gun sales to private citizens.
The NRA is a huge propaganda machine. They would make Josef Goebbels proud. They attack teenagers, mothers and anyone else who disagrees with them. Look at some of their arguments and see if they hold water.
1. Guns don’t kill people, people do. They are partially right on this. The gun is the tool used to kill people. The problems is semi-automatics with large magazines allow for carnage on an unprecedented level. In Las Vegas, 58 people were killed and 851 WOUNDED in a single shooting incident. If that gun man only had a single shot weapon, the casualties would be much less. BTW, over 1100 shell casings were found.
In the mass shootings at the movie theater in Colorado and at the political event in Az, both murderers were jumped when they had to re-load. The murder at Sandy Hook learned from this experience and purposely left smaller magazines at home when he left to kill school children. The NRA is opposed to any limitations on the size of magazines.
2. If semi automatic weapons with multi bullet magazines are prohibited, then only the criminals will have these weapons. One thing to consider before delving into this issue is that every murderous street gang, can legally buy AR 15’s and the ammo for their use in 2018. Makes you feel safe doesn’t it.
UK, Australia, Canada and Japan all have economies and problems similar to ours. Those countries all ban private ownership of semi automatic weapons. They also require extensive background checks. In Canada, hunting is an extremely popular sport and private gun ownership is widespread. However, you can’t own a AR 15 in Canada.
In Australia, they had a mass shooting in the 1990s and restricted the types of guns that citizens could own. THEY HAVE NOT HAD A SINGLE MASS SHOOTING SINCE. All four of those nations have mentally ill people, angry people, people who have been bullied, people who play violent video games, yet no mass shootings. Also, there have been no shootouts with criminals using AR 15’s or other semi automatics. Apparently, the criminals have not taken all the weapons. If the U.S. were to outlaw AR 15’s and other semi automatics, the only way criminals would get the guns is probably by buying them from NRA members.
In the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan, no one is calling for the arming of teachers. WHY NOT? Probably because the only people who can carry semi automatic weapons are soldiers. A second reason no one is calling for the arming of teachers in UK, Australia, Canada and Japan is because there are no mass shootings of school children because private citizens cannot own semi automatic weapon which can be easily converted into fully automatic weapons.
Another weak argument made by the NRA is that there are already too many of these weapons in the U. S. I agree there are too many of them. However, if possession of these types of weapons were made illegal, then more would be confiscated. As time went on, they would gradually disappear or be confiscated by law enforcement.
The NRA argues that semi automatic weapons are needed for defensive purposes, like protection.
This argument is so bad it is laughable. A single shot weapon should provide all of the protection one would need. Who is going to be burgling your home, Al Qaeda? Guns are a sword not a shield, so they are a offensive weapon by nature. Also, semi automatic weapons encourage irresponsibility. A person doesn’t have to aim a semi automatic, just spray it and forget it. The likelihood of innocents being killed and wounded is much higher with these types of guns.
Semi automatics with large magazines were invented to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time. Target shooting with these types of weapons is a joke. There is no skilled involved whatsoever. Try duck hunting with semi automatics. The duck would be obliterated. Once again, no skill involved.
The good guy with a gun is a NRA lie with no basis in fact. Every once in a while, a violent criminal is stopped by a private citizen with a gun. Invariably, the private citizen is an off duty police officer or at the very least ex-military. No crime has been stopped by a private citizen using a AR 15.
Where were the good guys with guns at the Pulse night club shooting? Florida has extremely lax gun laws. Where were all the good guys with guns? Where were the good guys with guns at the Sandy Hook school shooting? Where were all the good guys with guns at the Colorado theater shooting or Columbine? Colorado also has very lax guns laws. Where were all the good guys with guns at the Congresswoman Gabby Giffords event shooting in AZ? AZ also has very lax guns laws. Finally, where were all the good guys with guns at the Parkland School shooting?
Another Florida mass killing. Boy, these good guys with guns stay well hidden.
The NRA will argue that there should be no restrictions of any type on guns or ammo because the restrictions will be ineffective. Now, the NRA is suddenly concerned with law enforcement efficiency. Yeah, right. This specious argument is that since more than few people will get away with flaunting such laws, then they should never be enacted in the first place.
In 2015, the clearance rate for murder was only 64% according to the FBI. A clearance is defined as a homicide case that ends in an arrest. It may or may not result in conviction. Using the NRA”s analysis, the U.S. should no longer make murder illegal since only 1/3 are not solved.
The NRA also claims that everyone will be safer if everyone is armed. Remember, the NRA is all about selling as many guns as possible. However, they would never be honest enough to admit this. So they lie and say they are concerned with the safety of U.S. citizens.
The argument is that if everyone is armed, then people won’t misbehave. Vigilante justice is such a fair process. Lets look at one way this could end. A pissed off guy can now act as judge, jury and executioner. No need to call the police because they will just slow the system down. Kill them before the police arrive.
If this argument is true, than any place where most people are armed is the safest place. According to this argument, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria are the safest places in the planet because everyone is armed. Also, those countries have a proliferation of semi and fully automatic weapons. For some reason, I don’t think they are using them for duck hunting.
Guns are used to intimidate much more than they are used to protect. Guns are almost exclusively an offensive weapon. It is typical that the students, from Parkland HS, protesting our gun laws have received death threats from the pro guns supporters. I bet that I will receive death threats for this article if more than two NRA supporters read this article. Finally, I am going to remind the readers of this article of the following:
I do not advocate the banning of all private gun ownership in the U.S.