By my count, in 2012, 81 people have been killed and 83 injured in 12 multiple murder attacks. These attacks all took place in public places, resulted in at least 2 deaths (not counting the shooter) and all involved semi-automatic weapons. I have not included any of the shooters in the count. I consider all of their deaths to be suicides. Of the casualties, 42 were killed and 63 injured by assault rifles. Since 1966 These types of public rampage shootings have taken (by my not very exhaustive search) 489 lives (not counting shooters) and injured another 477. Considering the 46 year period, that only averages just over 10 deaths and 10 injuries per year. But let's take a closer look at the numbers.
From 1966 until 1993 (The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect in 1994) 144 people were killed and 164 injured, that averages 5 1/3 deaths per year. The average would have been much lower except in the 2 years prior to these laws taking effect, 42 were killed and 45 wounded in 4 attacks. From 1994 through 2003 (when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired), 123 deaths and 94 injuries (13 2/3 deaths/year) were attributed to mass shootings. From 2004 through 2012, 222 dead, 219 injured, averaging 27 3/4 deaths per year. While the actual numbers aren't staggering, the rate of increase is something that should worry everyone.
The majority of these instances (I want to say, all of them) were perpetrated by people with either mental illness or severe emotional disturbances. Of the deaths, 165 died in instances where an assault rifle was used and 205 died in attacks using high capacity semi-automatic pistols. In other words, 3/4 of the deaths were caused by two types of weapons. There are two possible approaches to this issue. Either identify, isolate and treat the mentally ill/emotionally disturbed, or get rid of the guns they are using. Pick a solution and then stand by it, all the way. No exceptions, no limitations, all the way.
To identify, isolate and treat everyone who is mentally ill or emotionally disturbed is quite a task, but I'm willing to go that course. The first step is to get every person in this country in for psychiatric evaluation. I know, that you don't have any problems and that I don't have any problems, but how can everyone else be sure about us? After all, you are reading this, and I'm the nutcase writing it. To reduce the risk of a misdiagnosis, I suggest each person be required to undergo 3 separate evaluations by 3 randomly selected doctors. If any of the 3 believe there is a problem, then further evaluations would be required. That should help us identify all the mentally ill. I suggest re-evaluation every 2 years, until age 75. The emotionally disturbed is a little more difficult. I suggest putting everyone through a high stress boot camp type environment every 5 years to determine if they can handle extreme emotional stresses without losing their reasoning abilities. Try working 20 hour days for 2 weeks, then have your car break down and your girlfriend dump you all in the same day and see if you can still cope. It isn't easy, and no, I don't want to talk about it.
You might be thinking all that sounds like a very expensive violation of your rights and your privacy, and you would be correct. However, not only would it greatly reduce the risk of someone committing a mass murder, but it would also identify people who shouldn't be teachers, or police officers, or politicians. It would help us to identify rapists and pedophiles, psychopaths and sociopaths. And the mandatory boot camps would go a long way to fixing our obesity problems. The difficulty has always been identifying someone who would commit such a crime, before they commit it. Most offenders seem to be normal people. Maybe not very outgoing. Maybe they keep to themselves. Maybe they don't have a lot of friends. Actually, that sounds like me. I better go buy several guns just to be on the safe side.
The other approach to this problem is to do away with the weapons being used to commit these atrocities. That means stop making them, stop selling them and get rid of the ones already out there. This won't stop the killing, after all there are still plenty of other guns or other ways to kill. But, if you reduce the numbers killed by 75%, that seems to be a worthwhile improvement. If your reading comprehension is at least adequate, this next sentence won't need further explanation. I don't suggest banning all guns, I suggest banning two distinct types of guns: Assault Rifles and Assault Pistols.
Before going any further I'll define each of these. An Assault Rifle is a semi-automatic rifle (1 pull of trigger = 1 shot, with no reload to capacity of magazine) with a removable magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. An Assault Pistol is the same thing, except in a pistol. The 10 round designation is my own. I am unaware of any fixed magazine weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds, and there are many removable magazine rifles and pistols that hold 10 or less rounds.
As I see it, there are four reasons to own guns. They can be collected, used for hunting, used for protection or used for crime. If you consider having guns to protect yourself from the government as a reason, you might want to work on your reading comprehension. That falls under either protection, or crime, depending on how you look at it. Collecting, really doesn't deserve to be mentioned, since gun collectors tend to have guns for one of the other reasons. Pistols, rifles and shotguns are all used for hunting, depending on what and where you hunt. Pistols and shotguns are good for protection. For most crime, pistols are best. Easily concealed and quite effective for robbing banks and liquor stores, they are also a good choice for murder. Banning Assault Rifles and Assault Pistols in no way prevents you from your chosen gun usage, it merely reduces the number of people you can kill or injure at one time.
The reason that hunting rifles tend to be one of the above types is simple. If you miss with your first shot, chances are your target is going to run away. A second, third, fourth... twentieth shot is less likely to hit and increases the danger to other hunters (when you continue firing, you develop tunnel vision and are unlikely to notice anything other than your intended target). In places where many hunters are likely to be around, rifles are either not allowed, or restricted to pistol calibers, to reduce their range and the danger to other hunters.
If you are worried about protecting your family, then you may wish to purchase a pistol. They are compact, reasonably priced and very effective in close quarters. Plus, if you do have to shoot an intruder, you are much less likely to kill someone across the street, or down the block. They also will do a lot less damage to your house than a shotgun.
For home protection, any handgun will work, and the logic of many is that the more shots you have, the safer you are. However, burglars don't tend to work in large groups. If you're breaking in a house where you figure to get $300-$600 worth of stuff, how many ways do you want to split that? Also, many states have greatly increased penalties for using a gun to commit a crime. Get caught in a house with no gun, probably do 9 months. Get caught with a gun, and do at least 5 years, and maybe a lot more. In most cases, the presence of someone with a gun, will cause a burglar to run. In almost every other case, a shot fired, will do the trick. Ask yourself, if someone breaks into your home is your intent to protect your family, or to kill the person? The difference between protecting your family and wanting to kill an intruder is significant. The difference between wanting to kill someone for breaking into your home and wanting to kill someone for cutting you off in traffic, or for not giving you that raise, or for insulting you is rather small.
For home protection, I recommend a nickel plate .38 or .357 magnum revolver with a 3" barrel. The shiny nickel plate makes the gun more visible, the 3" barrel limits the lethality to close range and the medium caliber bullet is a good compromise between stopping power and recoil. I also recommend spending some time at the local shooting range to make sure you can hit what you intend. Then, if you hear someone break into your house, arm yourself, attempt to locate the intruder, and make them aware of your presence. "Stop or I'll Shoot" is a popular method. If the person runs, follow at a safe distance, try to notice as much as possible (height, weight, age, dress, getaway vehicle, etc.), and then call the police. If the person doesn't run, but doesn't make a threatening move, keep them in your sights and call the police. If they make a threatening move, or if they have a gun, shoot once at the torso. Do not fire again until you determine the effects of your first shot, or until the other person shoots back. Every shot you take increases the risks of a stray bullet injuring a member of your family.
Every year, some concerned homeowner makes a mistake and shoots someone they shouldn't have. Often it is a member of their own family or a neighbor. Depending on your neighbors, you probably don't want to do that. Identify your target, evaluate the threat, give the target an opportunity to either flee or surrender and in almost every situation, you will not be required to fire a shot.
For the Second Amendment Panic people here's some good news. First, the Second Amendment can not be taken away, or overturned, or anything else, without first being proposed by a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate. The proposed change would then have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. We can't get an Amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women, how do you think anyone will ever get an Amendment to overturn the Second Amendment?
As for the "If they pass one law, then they will eventually outlaw all guns" crowd, does anyone outside of elementary school actually think like that? Our laws tend to be restrictive rather than prohibitive. We have speed limits, which have changed over the years. Strangely they haven't led to abolishing all cars. We have laws that limit or restrict most aspects of our lives, from what we eat to what we say. We already have a significant number of laws, some that have been around for a very long time, placing limits on guns. If you truly believe a law restricting the possession of weapons that are only necessary to kill large numbers of people, will cause all guns to be outlawed, then I feel sad. Not sad that you are unable to reason, but sad that you will continue to spread your idiocy to your children and to anyone who will listen. And when the funeral is for your child, or grandchild, don't feel sad. Be happy. After all, you've still got all your guns.
No comments:
Post a Comment