Once again, another mass shooting in America where dozens are killed. This time at a Baptist church in Texas by someone again using an assault rifle with multiple high capacity magazines. Some news sources are reporting the attacker may have fired approximately 400 rounds in very short order killing 26.
The gun lobby and others who want no restrictions on any weapons of war proliferating our streets are fond of saying it’s too early to talk about this tragedy and we shouldn’t politicize it by talking about it.
Okay, we won’t talk about this one.
But surely it’s still not too early to talk about Las Vegas where 58 died? How about Orlando where 49 died, Virginia Tech where 32 died or Sandy Hook where 27 died? Or the countless other mass shootings of three or more people that are just too numerous to even list?
As a nation, we need serious action regarding public safety and public health. To protect both, we need to implement more reasonable restrictions on the proliferation of high capacity magazines, bump stocks and weapons of war being placed in the hands of almost anyone who wants them who doesn’t already have a felony conviction.
We need to realize that not everybody needs or should have easy access to AR-15 style assault rifles with multiple high-capacity magazines like the ones used in recent attacks. There are too many mentally ill people and those prone to violence to continue to allow such easy access to weapons and accessories that can be used to easily mow down a bunch of people at church or the concert before the user is confronted, kills themselves or shoots it out with police. People like to say guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s true, but without a high capacity magazine assault rifle, the person using the gun couldn’t kill as many people as easily.
It is simply unacceptable that we are being told that these mass shootings are the “the price of freedom” when we, as a nation, should be taking reasonable steps to restrict access to such high powered weaponry and protect public safety. Will we stop all mass shootings? No, but we will stop some of them and we will force some of these mass killers to use something like a handgun or less lethal rifle that has to be reloaded more, has a lessor kill capacity and has a lessor kill distance, resulting in saved lives during mass attacks.
One can be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment ownership of weapons for sport and personal protection and also support reducing these weapons of war from proliferation in the streets of America. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the right to bear any arm desired is not absolute under the 2nd Amendment. Reasonable restrictions on what style and type of weapon one can bear are Constitutional.
We are to the point in this country that the lack of legislative action on the type of assault weapons one can bear is infringing on other people’s right of assembly without fear of serious injury or death, their right of general welfare and safety, their right to life and the right to pursue happiness without being caught up in a mass attack from someone wielding a high capacity assault rifle using a bump stock or similar accessory that can kill scores of people within minutes.
When one is dead, all ones rights are gone.
Lets support taking a more proactive approach to public health and safety and limit easy access to these high capacity weapons of war. After all, how many rounds does one need to kill a deer?
A person with a gun can generally kill a few people. Unfortunately, it happens regularly everyday. A person with an assault rifle, using high capacity magazines and accessories like bump stocks can kill many scores of people very very quickly from long or short distances and this is happening more and more frequently.
It’s time to draw the line somewhere. Lets not accept mass murders as the price of freedom in America. Lets put public safety ahead of someone who thinks they need an assault rifle to blast a deer with hundreds of rounds.
Tim Gobble
* * *
Carefully reading Mr. Gobble's detailed opinion shows that there is a major difference between three deaths and a few deaths. Regulations need to be in place to prevent the former, knowing good and well that the latter will persist.
"Or the countless other mass shootings of three or more people that are just too numerous to even list?" -Tim Gobble
"A person with a gun can generally kill a few people. Unfortunately, it happens regularly everyday." Tim Gobble
Let's outlaw high capacity magazines in order to clearly define this difference. I'm thinking magazine capacities somewhere between a few and three is a good place to start.
Tim Giordano
P.S. And to answer his question, three is the number of rounds allowed for killing a deer.
* * *
Tim,
Assault Rifle: a selective-fire (meaning it can switch from fully automatic to semi-automatic) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
Assault rifles are already illegal, unless you pay a $200 tax, send your photo, fingerprints and application to the ATF, wait approximately 9-12 months in hopes for approval to buy, from a federally licensed person or business, a pre-1986 firearm in the price range of upwards of $15,000. But, even after all that, your personal identification is tied to that weapon until someone else decides to go through the same rigorous process to purchase it from you (via a federally licensed person/business) or you commit a crime that prohibits you from possessing firearms, in which case, the ATF will show up to confiscate it.
So stop intentionally trying to mislead people or at the very least, misrepresent facts. You know, at least you should, what an assault rifle is and that none of the rifles used in any of the shootings you mentioned were assault rifles.
You only use the term to conjure fear in an attempt to convince people no one “needs” an AR-15 (AR does not stand for assault rifle and an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Never was, never will be.)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There are some pretty key points in this statement. You notice it says nothing about hunting or practical. It does, however, say “necessary to the security of a free State.” That is because our founding fathers knew that if a government goes unchecked or becomes tyrannical, the people of that “free state” will need “necessary” arms to secure their freedom.
An unarmed people is a controllable people. We, Americans, are not and never will be a controllable people. We “keep and bear Arms” for our protection of enemies, foreign and domestic, not hunting.
Do I “need” a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable box magazine that can have a capacity greater than three rounds? Yes. Because the people that may be used to take my freedoms expressed in our Constitution have such rifles. Only an idiot would bring a knife to a gun fight.
John Masters