You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Why the proposed solutions won't work.
If you want to solve a problem, identify the cause and fix that - don't solve things that have nothing to do with the problem... Fact - US is 10th on the list of firearm death rate reporting countries; US firearm death rate is 1/4 of the rate of the leading countries; the top four countries have extremely strict gun control, and their rate remains (Pakistan, Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan and other like places of firearm deaths do not keep records and are not on the list)... Fact - Switzerland rejected gun control (rejected registering, permits, keeping weapons at the armory) in the 2011 referendum; Switzerland has 1 firearm in a private home for every two citizens (US has 1 private firearm per every two citizens); Switzerland has 1/3 the firearm death rate of the US... per the FBI, 55% of US firearm deaths are suicides - 45% homicides. If 3 of 4 suicides were prevented by mental health care, intervention, and like actions, the US annual firearm death rate would be that of Switzerland and Finland... Even though firearm controls might appear to make sense in theory, firearm controls are not expected to work because actual real-world implementation of controls has not worked in places with high rates of firearm deaths... And because of the majority of who dies from firearms in the US - suicides- the overall suicide death rate won't change even if the firearm death rate does change. Solve the problem - don't put in a fix that doesn't solve the problem.
Fact: U.S. is by far first in firearms deaths in comparably advanced countries. Of course when you feed in the completely insane countries in the Middle East, they're nearly all ahead of us. You can use stats as you have to prove any d______ thing you want to prove. Clearly and tragically the weapon used in CT was extremely deadly because each of those six year old kids was struck at least three times. Those weapons need banning and so do the cartridge bearers that hold so many rounds. NONE of these guns are needed for hunting or protecting one's home. I'm so sick of the NRA arguments I could puke and I'm against unreasonable gun control, a hunter practically all of my life, and a gun owner. It's also an undeniable fact that countries with stricter, sensible gun laws have a lower rate of fatalities. We are NOT going to walk away from those slaughtered kids this time. Enough is far too much.
You can say that suicidal people would "just find another way to kill themselves", but the fact remains that many attempts are unsuccessful, that if found in time these people can be helped. The use of a gun, on the other hand, is almost always immediately fatal. There is no "coming back" from a gunshot to the head or heart. 66% of all gun deaths are due to the use of a gun. The reality is that guns are instantly lethal. In 2010, over 19,000 Americans ended their lives with a gun. 11,000 more committed homicide. Several hundred died by gun accidentally. Altogether, 31,543 people died by the gun - more that traffic fatalities.
The writer and others have happily ignored countries like Australia, where a very conservative leader implemented very strict gun laws that are working. Also Canada is ignored, a country with many, many guns but none of the weapons of war so available here at gun shows and on the net with little if any background required. These countries are far more like us than Somalia, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.-the countries that actually rank ahead of us in gun fatalities where there are outright wars going on between various factions.
Australia's experience indicates that Chapman is wrong. When they got fed up after a similar mass shooting, they instituted a ban on sales and repair of assault rifles along with a buy-back plan to get rid of as many as they could. Despite having a wild west mentality that exceeds our own, they haven't had a single mass shooting since.
A reasonable reaction is to move forward with the suggestions being offered up (1) mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases (2) ban high capacity magazines. Absolutely reasonable. Most gun owners would agree, i believe that the pushback that we see on these proposals are not necessarily with these proposals themselves but rather than the "slippery slope" argument.
When the author talks of limiting gun ownership to people with a diagnosed mental illness as "punishment", he shows his bias. To say the 2nd amendment makes gun ownership an individual right is reading A LOT into what is actually stated. Problem is, that rhetoric is repeated so often, people think of it as gospel.
So it sounds like the author thinks we should just throw up our hands and walk away. Nothing's going to work, so let's not bother. That's the real wrong answer. There has to be a point where enough is enough.
crystalbay - "66% of all gun deaths are due to the use of a gun." Huh? So that means that 34% of all gun deaths are not due to the use of gun. Double 'huh?' I guess what it really means is that you can use statistics to whatever means you want to attempt to prove a point, but they don't always mean anything pertinent.
66% of all gun deaths are due to the use of a gun. The reality is that guns are instantly lethal. ************ If 66% of all gun deaths are due to the use of a gun, then guns are not instantly lethal, but are in only 66 percent of the cases.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks