Gun control

It has been more than a week since the tragic school shooting in Connecticut on December 14 and there have been calls from everything to increasing the number of guns to banning them outright. I am not going to talk about the incident; I prefer to let the victims and families deal with their mourning in privacy. I would not want reporters shoving cameras and microphones in my face if I had to deal with a tragedy. Also, I refuse to mention the suspects name or anything about the events of that day or leading up to it. I, in no way want to sensationalize or publicize the actions in hopes that there is not another lunatic wanting to one up the latest school shooting or copy the crime to achieve his 2 weeks of infamy. I think the mainstream media should treat these incidents in the same way, but the last thing I want is a law stating what can and cannot be reported. Instead, I want to focus the debate that has risen out of the tragedy, gun control. I was always taught that gun control meant using both hands; know your target and surroundings (meaning know what you’re shooting at and what’s behind your target and next to your target). It means always having control of your weapon, safe handling, care and training. To some, gun control means banning guns from individual ownership. Most won’t come right out and say it, but that’s the ultimate goal. All of the gun control measures are determined to restrict ownership of firearms. The one weapon that always comes up for banning are the so called “assault weapons”, which are really just military looking semi-automatic rifles. The federal ban on “assault weapons” expired in 2004 and studies from the CDC and National Research Council found no noticeable effect on crime. The University of Pennsylvania submitted a report to the Dept. of Justice stating that renewing the ban would little effect on the crime rate. The main reason is “assault weapons” are only used in approximately 10% of crimes involving guns. Proponents of banning “assault weapons” claim there is no reason someone would need to own such a weapon, they are not used for hunting. I would take you back to the Rodney King riots in LA where a shop owner protected his private property against a group of looters, using his “assault weapon.” Let’s take a look at the history of gun bans. We can start in 1930’s Germany and move into Soviet Russia and keep going into China. Those countries successfully disarmed their opposition and the result was disastrous for its citizens. Hitler prohibited Jews from gun ownership and they suffered one of the worst atrocities in the history of the world. Stalin massacred tens of millions of his own people, ethnic minorities and peasants. Of course, Mao did the same thing, killing millions of his fellow countrymen. In contrast, look at Switzerland. The Swiss government trains and arms its citizens and it enjoys one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Gun ownership does not mean higher crime just like strict gun control does not mean less crime. England, where citizens are mostly unarmed, has the highest violent crime rate in the world.