With the recent shootings that have been happening gun control is once again a hot topic of media outlets and politicians. Many will argue that banning assault rifles will reduce or eliminate the problems of these mass killings, but will it?
According to several articles I found one of the first recorded school shootings in the United States happened on July 26, 1764, in Greencastle, Pennsylvania. The school master and 10 children were killed. Obviously there were no assault rifles involved but had there been would more people have died? Possibly, but a human life is precious regardless if 10 are lost or 20 isn't it? The greater the number does make it more tragic but to me it seems that those that support tougher gun laws and bans on assault rifles try to paint a picture that yes there still will be killings if these additional laws and bans are in effect but not as many. This may be true but will the number of incidents in which mass killings decrease because of these laws, doubtful. For example, say there are 20 mass shootings a year were assault rifles are used and on average 20 people are killed at each one. Now assume these new laws and bans are in place and eliminate the people committing these shootings from having assault rifles and therefore the same 20 shootings only killed 10 people at each one on average. Did the ban work? In a sense, yes, because less people died but the same number of shootings occurred and people still died at the hands of someone, thus you still have a problem with people, not guns, committing mass shootings.
Many people die every day by the hands of another. They are killed by many different objects and even the bare hands of the assailant but the media and those that want tougher gun laws exploit the more gruesome, tragic killings to try to promote their cause.
The FBI reports that in 2011 there were a total of 12,664 murders in the U.S. of which 8,583 were committed with a firearm and out of those firearms the one that was used the most was a handgun, 6,220. So why not be screaming to ban handguns? Because, those that want more gun laws know that would be a tougher fight because more people own handguns. The assault rifles are a starting point!
Think about this analogy, using the same logic to ban assault rifles. Thousands of people die every year in automobile crashes, many of which are caused by speeding. Our country has speed limit laws defining a safe speed for a particular road, yet auto manufactures make vehicles that can reach speeds of 100+mph. Would a ban on these type of vehicles eliminate or at least reduce the number of deaths from automobile crashes? Why not pass laws requiring the auto manufactures from making vehicles that go over the highest speed limit in our country? Yes we could still have automobile crashes and people would die from them but none would be from speeding correct? The only way to eliminate all deaths caused from automobile crashes would be to eliminate the automobile.
The same logic could be applied to many things, the point is how much government intrusion are we as American people willing to allow? The government controls more and more aspects of our lives each year as new laws are passed. Many, unless you are following them as closely as a senator, you have no idea about. The government feels they know what is best for us. Do any of you honestly trust our government? Look at the screwed up mess our country is in and both parties are to blame yet they continue to play us against each other while they continue to get richer, they continue to live how they want, they are protected by armed security, they have great benefits and healthcare and we just continue letting them control what, when and how we live our lives!
It seems our country is becoming more and more divided. There are those that welcome the idea of the government having more control and there are those that oppose it deeply. Unfortunately, in my opinion there are less people that oppose it, or are they just silent? Thomas Jefferson once said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."