facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

People with guns kill people



Published: Thu, December 20, 2012 @ 12:00 a.m.

People with guns kill people

After every tragedy involv- ing an antisocial or mentally unstable murderer who uses a gun to kill or maim innocent victims, the all-powerful gun lobby responds with the inaccurate mantra, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The truth is, as in almost every one of our many mass killings, people with guns kill people.

Our perverse interpretation of the Second Amendment that embodies the belief that anyone should have unfettered access to owning any type of weapon available is absurd to the extreme. At the time the second amendment was passed, the state-of-the-art weaponry consisted of a single-shot, muzzle-loading rifle. It is inconceivable that those who penned the Second Amendment could have envisioned today’s rapid-fire assault rifles with high-capacity magazines capable of shooting “dum-dum” bullets designed to flatten and expand on impact resulting in maximum damage to the human body, all of which were used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings. To believe that the Second Amendment’s authors would have approved universal access to these types of weapons is to believe those authors were insane.

That we allow gun shows to peddle the most lethal assault rifles, assault pistols, high-capacity magazines and ammunition to anyone without either background check or waiting period exhibits an astonishing lack of even a rudimentary level of common sense. Private ownership of these kinds of weapons has no place in a civilized society. To protect the public, training, testing and licensing are required to legally drive a car, while owning a devastatingly lethal firearm that has only one purpose, to kill, requires only cash in hand.

The gun lobby’s response to suggestions that the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity clips be banned is that criminals will still find ways to get them. While that may be true, criminals are not the people who have perpetrated the mass killings of innocents that have sadly become all too common in our country.

By our years of capitulation to the gun lobby’s zeal to protect the rights of gun owners, we have inadvertently denied the most basic of human rights, life, to 20 precious, beautiful, innocent children, any of whom could have been our own, as well as six equally precious, innocent adults. In order to mitigate our collective responsibility for time and time again failing to confront the gun lobby on the issue gun control, it is now time to contact President Obama, Sens. Portman and Brown and Congressman Ryan and demand rational legislation that would outlaw private ownership of assault rifles and pistols, high-capacity magazines and the abominable “dum-dum” and cop-killer bullets, while protecting the legitimate rights of sportsmen and collectors.

Robert F. Mollic, Liberty


Comments

1charms(228 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

"and demand rational legislation that would outlaw private ownership of assault rifles and pistols, high-capacity magazines and the abominable “dum-dum” and cop-killer bullets, while protecting the legitimate rights of sportsmen and collectors."

Robert,

Who is to define what is "rational" legislation... or "legitimate rights of sportsman and collectors?"

Beside assault rifles, you also want to prohibit sales of pistols. Do you realize that semi-automatic pistols have been around since about the turn of the century - LAST CENTURY?

As horrible as last Friday's tragedy is, it would be a greater tragedy to deprive Americans of the right to protect themselves and their families from criminals.

That's the greater societal concern. Friday's perpetrator is a criminal. Don't forget that. His state of mind may be a mitigating factor in his punishment (if he had lived), but I would have supported the right of teachers to use whatever weapons are available - to protect those innocent children - including assault weapons.

It is the anti-gun people who are politicizing this tragedy. And that is a shame.

You talk about the "all-powerful gun lobby" as if the majority of citizens don't support the right to own firearms. If you took a poll, you would likely find that people want the ability to protect themselves with the latest firearms available - just like the criminals have.

In a perfect world, killing would not occur. But we have to face reality. The cat is out of the bag.

Our founders had muskets. Who are you to assert that they would not have wanted the latest in weaponry for personal protection?

Suggest removal:

2dmacker(225 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

"As horrible as last Friday's tragedy is, it would be a greater tragedy to deprive Americans of the right to protect themselves and their families from criminals".
Criminals with guns are who's killing people and by making guns illegal those who violate the law will still have guns. Murder is and always has been against the law.
The anti-gun lobby is quick to tell us the number of criminals using guns to commit crime. How many guns, in the possession of law abiding citizens, are not used in crime?
China has asked Obama to disarm the US citizenry. Why do you suppose they did that?
It's shameful that the anti-gun politicians are politicizing the terrible tragedy in Newtown to advance their long standing call for banning guns.
My heart goes out to those victims killed by a mentally disturbed person with stolen firearms.
Who really is threatened by any firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen in the US?

Suggest removal:

3uselesseater(229 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

Do we need these editorials every day?

Who in the Whitehouse is pushing the media to push this rubbish?

"cop-killer bullets"

You mean hollow point bullets? The same bullets metro PD officers all over the country? The same bullets that are disallowed in war combat under international treaty?

"who the hell needs an assault rifle for protection?"

2nd Amendment doesn't specify and weapon type. It is open ended. If a militia is intended to combat corrupt forces like the Kings Army then the militia of the people should have the weapons of the King.

You are looking at guns as personal protection item, which they are in part, but not exclusively.

Suggest removal:

4uselesseater(229 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

There are a bunch of things that appear to be similar in these mass shootings:

1. All white
2. All young males
3. All above average intelligence
4. Believe they were all steady upper middle class folks. The latest school shooter, his mother had alimony of nearly $300,000 a year plus the father paid for the son's college, car, etc.
5. They all seem to have been anti-social or unable to fit in.
6. All of them seem to exhibit autism and/or other developmental problems.

Suggest removal:

5Askmeificare(667 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

I live in Youngstown Ohio and I don't need, but I want an assault styled weapon.

If some perpetrator wants to gain access to my home, then I want to have access to anything bigger and badder than he has. I wish to use that to assist in changing his mind -whether his mind changing hightails it out of my house or his mind changing is blown shot out of my house.

Either way, I'm good.

BTW, Happy Holidays and Merry Xmas!

Suggest removal:

6TEEBONE(2 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

The subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment enumerates the primary (but not only) reason for guaranteeing the right of the people - to place them in parity with government forces viz small arms.

This is a founding prinicple. Times change, principles don't.

I won't go through the list of precedents that protect not only keeping and bearing bolt-action rifles for lawful purposes, but all semiautomatic firearms and pistols as well, because I've done it too many times already, and frankly, I'm tired.

But they exist, the government can't ban a whole class of protected weapons, and that's that.

Suggest removal:

7kurtw(782 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

Re: Profile of spree-shooters. I think if you checked, you'd find all these people had abnormal relationships with their parents. There's a pattern: look for over-involved, over-controlling mothers (women in general), under-involved or missing fathers- or father-surrogates (masculine influence of some kind).

Put those things together and what you have is a recipe for male-initiated violence. It boils down to a revolt against maternal-or feminine- control, pure and simple. The New Town shooter did what first? He shot his own mother. Highly symptomatic.

Feminists hate this kind of analysis, I know (they say it's misogynistic). But, facts are facts. Ask a Psychiatrist, if you doubt me. If you want to stop or lessen the frequency of these kinds of incidents- then strengthen the traditional two-parent family. Single parenthood, of any kind, is a disaster for children- especially boy's.

Murphy Brown, you have a lot to answer for.

Suggest removal:

8norman891(2 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

So if the second amendment doesn't mean the same thing now as it did when those who penned it wrote it, then I suppose none of the other nine in the Bill of Rights mean the same thing now as they did then either. If one can be taken away/abridged, so can all the rest. Careful there, you're playing with a double edged sword... and half a deck.

Suggest removal:

9UsuallyBlunt(105 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

The second amendment is the only protection for all of the other amendments...no arms = no free speech...etc

Suggest removal:

10UsuallyBlunt(105 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

Dum Dum bullets do not flatten and mushroom...they are solid and designed to "bounce around" inside of a body...dum-dum = no mind of its own...like some people!

Suggest removal:

11exlonghorn(31 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

People don't like to hear it, but the truth is that the 2nd ammendment was intended to be the "RESET" button on the Constitution

Suggest removal:

12papa1(549 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

the united states has 20% of the worlds population and owns 50% of the worlds' guns. i was stunned when i heard that. while i believe that hunters should be allowed to hunt and people should be able to purchase a reasonable firearm for home protection, these "killing machines" should be confined to battlefields. and instead of calling it gun control how about gun safety or automatic weapons control? wayne lapierre the head of the nra spoke yesterday and his only thought was more people need to be armed. he said nada about automatic weapons or high capacity clips. that's their answer, we need more guns. he'll be on "meet the press" tomorrow, that should be interesting. yea, we should have trained security guards with full battle regalia dripping of their bodies, that would make a little kid feel secure, right? or give him nightmares.

Suggest removal:

13cambridge(2919 comments)posted 1 year, 4 months ago

papa....The United States actually has 5% of the worlds population and 50% of the worlds guns. We are the leaders of all industrial countries when it comes to gun deaths and there are those few nut bags that think more guns are the answer for reducing gun violence. Go figure.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport