Guns don’t kill people — stupid, evil people with guns kill people.
We’ve heard a ton of some variation of this throughout the last week. And it’s true.
The political posturing started before the bodies were recovered from the Dec. 14 shooting in Newtown, Conn.: one side gearing up to blame guns for the horrible events and the other to deflect blame.
At this point, who or what’s to blame is sort of irrelevant, is it not? The fact of the matter is another group of young people are dead. The worst part of the entire issue is that this happens every single day in this country.
On the same day as the shootings in Newtown, 11 young adults were shot to death in Chicago. We say we care about the children in Newtown, the youngsters in Chicago and across the nation, but do we? Are we truly doing all we can?
I have never been a gun control advocate. I am a bit too much of a revolutionary to allow no weapons. However, as much as pro-gun advocates want to bang the drum about “evil” being the cause and guns “not killing people,” the facts shoot holes in the rhetoric as long-standing dogma remains this country’s gun deaths does not only exceed every other industrialized country in the world, it obliterates all of the others — COMBINED.
Facts:
People killed with firearms 2010, according to the United Nations:
Japan 47
Great Britain 14
Switzerland 68
Australia 59
Canada 144
Sweden 58
Spain 97
United States 9,369
That’s right. You saw it correctly.
Another fact is crystal clear as well.
States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths — even the District of Columbia has seen a dramatic reduction in gun deaths since its’ “no tolerance” stand.
Many people want to point to population strains in urban areas or higher rates of mental illness, but at the end of the day, the states with tougher gun laws produce a smaller gun death rate.
So what do we do? How do we handle these glaring statistics? Do we just dismiss them and hide behind the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment states: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
According to Webster’s, the definition of Arms: Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
People jump to defense of the Second Amendment, but the truth is we have been chipping away at the Bill Of Rights for decades. Where’s the outrage for the other amendments?
Unreasonable search and seizures? Anyone ever stopped for no reason will unequivocally say that amendment has been diluted.
Freedom of speech, or of the press? Please, you can’t say whatever you want on television, in print or even the Internet. And, while we, in the press, have greater freedoms than most nations, we have all seen, heard of or been a part of some form censorship.
Accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury? I really don’t have to say anything but “Patriot Act,” do I?
The point is, where are the Bill of Rights protectors that ran so fast to defend the Second Amendment?
I am quite sure some people are figuring this is where the alleged liberal writer says, “Take away the guns” or “Do away with weapons,” but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is we have been living in the “gray area” of the Second Amendment for some time. We don’t really have the “right to bear arms” — it’s just an illusion.
We already ban weapons. We already limit this and that. The fact is, when our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment it was written so the people could protect themselves from a potentially corrupt government, plain and simple. The problem arises when the “arms” part of the equation is factored in.
When the Second Amendment was written, arms pretty much included rifles, cavalry, cannons and some wooden ships with cannons. That’s it. Today, the list of weapons is much longer than the actual Second Amendment intended.
If the idea was to “protect” the citizens from the government, then let’s stop playing around in the “gray area” as we have done for decades. Let’s really protect the citizens.
Look at it like this: should the government come to “oppress” me and mine, chances are they will not be dressed in red coats, lined up in formation taking orders from an officer with a wig on horseback. Rather, they will show up with personnel carriers and be supported by armed-to-the-teeth choppers.
So to “protect” my family and friends and given my “right to bear arms,” I want something besides my AR-15 with a 500-yard effective shooting range. I need some Rocket Propelled Grenades. It has been proven that RPGs or their shoulder-launched missile brethren such as Stingers are the only viable defense against gunship attacks.
Why am I not able to purchase, legally, an RPG launcher?
According to the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Who is the Supreme Court to say there are limits to what type of weapons I can and cannot keep?
As a matter of fact, in the wake of the elementary school shooting, I feel I would be better able to protect my kids going to school if I could follow and track them with drones. Why can I not purchase a drone? Wouldn’t you feel safer about your children leaving the house if you could track their entire day with a heavily armed Reaper drone shadowing them?
Or better yet, I want a nuclear bomb. What better defense or deterrent is there? You think my neighbors would feel safer if I had a hydrogen bomb in the bedroom? Besides, you know what they say, bombs don’t kill people — stupid people with bombs kill people.
Richard Clarkis the universal desk editor of Halifax ENC. You can reach him at 910-219-8452 or at Richard.Clark@jdnews.com. Follow him on Twitter at kpaws22.