I continue to be amused, though not in much of a good way regarding the cloud of gun ignorance blowing in from a few Nor-Eastern jurisdictions that seem oblivious to any other realities than their own. The winds are being fanned mostly by media spokesmen, pundits, and journalists from NYC and other historically anti-gun area of the United States. I have been amazed at the obvious lack of practical knowledge exhibited by this bunch. Even those who may be broadly identified as Conservatives, or perhaps have shown ideological support for the Second Amendment and general gun rights show a painful lack of real understanding regarding the issues, the facts, the arguments, and most especially the ability to think outside the canned Liberal arguments in which they have been steeped.
On Fox, which theoretically poses a "fair and balanced" approach, with purported leanings toward Conservative values, there has been a show of solidarity, for the most part, with the rest of their Eastern born and schooled pals, in calling for a ban on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and a variety of other gun-ban points for protest. These people seem to be completely blind to the fact that any of these proposed arguments will have no affect on the gun violence whatsoever. Please reread that last part if it is lost on you. This is not some ideological point of debate. It is a real fact. it is precisely at this point that they all seem to depart from the truth.
When this point is made, they seem to automatically regurgitate a rash of tired old gun-ban arguments upon which they whet their teeth and have been been taught from cradle to graduation form Liberal Eastern Universities and private colleges. So let me make the point again. The facts do not support their arguments. Period. This is not some trumped-up quasi-argument of the likes which they are accustomed to debating in the news or political arena. It is what truly a fact. If I had a better word to express what it is, I would use it. Facts n their world, are apparently viewpoints, rather than the old-time definition of facts. Facts can be twisted and presented and skewed and redefined, but what I am talking about are not debatable points. They are, well, facts. And in this paradigm fact are facts.
It is a fact that the currently proposed gun-ban steps and models for litigation, will make no difference in controlling the types of gun violence that we have witnessed recently. Zero, zilch, nada, none. There are some reasonable steps that could plausibly make a difference, but these steps are being ignored. It is as if the the emperor has no clothes, as my wife enjoys invoking to illustrate the absurdness of people ignoring the obvious for whatever reasons. Personally, I don't have any idea of why this phenomenon is happening. I have generally considered most modern Americans to be rationale in their thinking. But I have obviously been too kind in this view. Obviously, some people behave emotionally regarding many issues.
And emotions are fairly easily shaped by nameable techniques or propaganda. The gun debate is very emotional. People want someone to pay for the bad things that have happened recently. Some folks are sincere in thinking that the NRA or gun-owners, or so-called assault weapons, or handguns, or high-capacity magazines are to blame for these incidents. Others are merely using these events as a pretext, to push forward an ideological Liberal agenda. But in both events, the reality is that if they honestly believe that a proliferation of these types of weapons is to blame, even partially, their hysteria and vengeful threats against gun-owners is not only doing nothing to curb gun ownership--it is actually proliferating gun ownership.
Let me repeat that point too, because it is a lot more tangible and far-reaching than most of them realize. The emotional reflexive action by gun-haters, or even those a little-bit in favor of conceding that these emotional gun-ban steps are actually helping their cause, of supporting these propose measures while thumbing their noses at measures that have at least some basis in reality, ARE ACTUALLY PROLIFERATION GUN OWNERSHIP IN AMERICA, INCLUDING THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES.
NO! Guns never kill kids. Guns are as cold and impersonal as are hammers. It takes some wrong, ignorant, or evil-thinking monster to consciously pick a gun up, load it, aim it, and pull a trigger. It never happens in a vaccuum. Even in the case of a child accidently killing himself or a playmate--someone else had to prepare the gun and leave it where it could be found. Even working any safety mechanisms and pulling the trigger is NOTvery intuitive. The true Old West story is told of gunfighter Tom Horne, who nearly escaped prosecution for suspician of killing a young mman for hire, was foiled in this escape attempt when he could not figure out how to fire the newfangled weapon--which was not nearly as sophisticated as the guns pictured. No. Guns still do not kill people. Crazy, unhappy, disaffected, spoiled, mean, evil, misguided people choose guns from a whole littany of other availble methods of killing to improperly and illegally use them to kill kids.
NONE OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES ARE ANYTHING OTHER THAN TOKEN OR SYMBOLIC MEASURES. To make this point more pointed, may I say that these proposed measures are completely bogus. If you will not eject from this post at the suggestion of this, I will tell you why, which may be, your first true understanding regarding these points. I don't expect someone who is emotionally vested in being against guns to change their viewpoint, but if you truly understand the points that I am making, you may actually become a more effective gun-ban advocate. More importantly, you may actually learn some alternate steps that will make an honest difference toward decreasing gun violence--if that is your desired result.
So here is the substance that makes my notions more than mere notions, but rather, facts. Let me start with part of the basic premise that I started with. News comentators on the major news media outlets are mostly from the North-Eastern area that have strict gun-control. Being raised and schooled in these areas--coupled with the general journalistic media culture in which they are emersed, these people, who are in positions to influence public opinion, trend toward liberalism with regards to guns. They may even ideologically support the Second Ammendment, but for the most part, they lack the frame of reference to think objectively--or certainly not to think subjectively in favor of gun-ownership. They have a basic lack of understanding regarding many of the issues and facts--or even an understanding of the vernacular of firearms to be objective. They also think they know how the public thinks, when in reality, they only know how ther public from their own gun-ban leaning areas. They fail to realize many of the pro-gun-ownership counter-points, because they have never heard them nor have they ever thoughtfully entertained them. These people are obviously very intelligent and well-educated, but they lack the experience of living in a pro-gun geography or growing up in a truly pro-gun envoronment.
There have been glaring examples of this on Fox. I chose Fox for its Conservative reputation. They are not very conservative, they are a little right of center on most issues. But not on guns. They are substantially left of center. One comentator got me worked up today when they were leading a discussion and participating with their own comments regarding the New York Journal's recent publication of all the gun owners in their distribution area. While a few of the salient points were brought out during the discussion, it was clear to me that all of these particular particpants supported the New York Journal's publication of a list of gun permit owners. They pointed out that no laws were violated, and went on to say that if gun owners felt that they wanted to own guns, that thye should also understand that it was a matter of public record and be prepared to have this information publicized.
One Fox contributor to this NYJ discussion went as far as to say that he certainly woul dwnat to know who had guns in their homes as a consideration of where their children were allowed to go. As a whole, this discussion group concluded,or so it appeared that this move was a good and positive move. They seemed to conlude that the public was being served by this move, and that no downside existed for such actions and that anyone who objected to having their gun-ownership, rather their gun ownership permits publicized. There appeared to be a concensus regarding this matter, even though none of the real objections of subtance were even touched upon. These point are so obvious to those who have been raised in progun environments and jurisdictions that no critcal thought is even required.
For instance,the argument that if a citizen wants to own a gun, then he should expect that if he registers his gun, that sinc eit is a matter of public record, tht it would be published. Too bad, so sad, that's the way it is, tough luck, seemed to be the attitude exhibited by this discussion group. This points up one of the myths regarding legal gun ownership. In reality, there is no federal gun registry. Such a registry at a national level is actually illegal. Attempts to have a national gun registry has been resisted vehemently by our Congressional lawmakers--to the degree at least that such attempts have been defeated thus far. The reason for such resistance is for fear of such a registry being abused--as was this local registry in question. The case has just been made for not ever having a national gun registry.
The jurisdiction served by the New York Journal is one of the few local jurisdictions that require either a gun owner to register their guns, or to have to require a permit to possess one. By far and away the rest of the United States requires no gun registry, nor do they require a permit to own or possess one. The rest of us simply take for granted that we can buy as many or kinds of guns as we diesire, with only a few limitations, such as fully-automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. These firearms were banned durin gthe 1930's under the National Firearms Control Act--driven by the FBI, under the hysteria of the Dillanger-style Chicago and New York Mafia gangs. It is this act of law that has already made military-style weapons illegal. This is why it is not really addressing the problems so oft-cited by gun-control advocates. Military-style weapons are already illegal. What needs to be done is to enforce the existing laws. But I am not on that right now. Gun registry and permits require toown guns. These mesures are the exceptions to the rules--NOT the norm.
In most jurisdiction within the United States of America, the land of the free, home of the brave--law-abiding citizens can go buy a gun with few worries. A simple and quick backround check is performed after fillin gout and signing a form (under penaty of being fined and imprisoned if anything is falsified), you take the gun and go home. That's it. It was not that long ago that no background check was required. But since it has always been illegal for convicted felons, those adjudicated mentally -ill, non-citizens, and those dishonorably discharged from the military service to own guns in the United States, it is reasonable to require a background check.
In most of the USA, a permit is required only to carry a gun. In most of those places, no burden of proof to justify your need for such a permit is required. It is just assumed that any legal citizen who meets the above tast test can buy guns without a hassle, no questions asked, except of course those on the aforementioned form.
The other way to buy guns is even simpler in most US jurisdictions; although it has long been a cause for extreme consternation. Two people meet, either at a gunshow or privately anywhere, the gun is inspected and a oprice is agreed upon. The money is exchanged for the gun(s). Wala. This is the way it has been being done pretty much forever in the USA. So if you are under any illusions that law-enforcement or any othe rgovernment agency knows who has guns or what kind they have, you are mistaken. It is actually illegal for the Federal government to maintain a gun registry, although this law was broken and one was illegally begun under President Clinton. When this candestine project was discovered under Presiden tBush, it was rightfully destroyed. Who know what our current regime is doing. I can only guess.
Theoretically, once a called-in background requisite check is done and a buyer is cleared for that transaction, the record is then destroyed. In reality, I doubt that it is destroyed. But if the law is followed the record is destroyed. Fat chance I guess.
So the assumption that anyone buying a gun should consider it a matter of public record to be published by some liberal newspaper to the detriment of the safety of those unwary gunowners is just not universally applicable to the rest of these talking heads' viewing audience--those outside of their own stuffy antigun jurisdiction. In manyof these alternative jurisdictions, it might well be easier to publish a list of thsoe people who do not own guns. Oh, but wait, ther would be no legal way to arrive at such a list. If this is suprising, just wait,it gets better. There are quite a few jursidictions wherein a good citizen can not only buy guns, but they can legally strap them on in plain sight, if they are so foolishly inclined to do so, and walk down mainstreet without breaking the law. But the real story in such cases is that, oddly, there are no gunfights at high-noon, no rampant murders, no shooting rampages--at least not between these legal packers-of-heat. Noooo!
Furthermore, without any exceptions of which I am aware, the use of guns in the commission of crime ranges to the low of all jurisdictions in the USA within these geographies where little gun control is observed. This is no anomaly, this is the way it is in these realities alternate to Boomberg-berg.
Since the pundits seem to be unalbe to discover any downside to the publication of such a list let me offer some. The most obvious argument against the publication of a list of presumed gunowners is probably that it provides a shopping list for specialty burglars who deal in ripping-off firearms and selling them on the black-market where they wind up illegally in the hands of ciminals and gangmembers who are unable to buy them legally.
Perhaps an even more compelling reason for not publishing such a list of registered gun permit holders is out of consideration for those who are not found on that list. Given the interactive map that accompanied the list, another shoppinglist of sorts is made available to criminal burglars and especailly home-invasion speicalists. Armed with this list and illegally acquired firearms these home-invasion specialists have a very good target list where they will more than likely meet no armed resistance. How forunate for the criminals that the NYJ did so much work in their behlf. We can only hope that the gun-desising friends of the NYJ fares as well as do the gun-owners outed by their irresponsible, no stupid, journalism.
But wait, there is another group who maybe justifiably indignant regarding this published hit-list. Unlike the rest of free-America, a bar of justification is required in these gun-ownership-challenged zones. Only those who can reasonably justify their need for guns are permitted. Presumably, this list would include such exemplary citizens as law-enforcement personell, judges, high-profile attorneys, mayors, aldemen, wealthy businessmen, jewlers, bankers, teachers and school principals?? (of course not). So those outed are those who presumably correspond roughly to a list of those that the underworld element would not wish well. And here they now can know or able to extrapolate whom of these are armed, whom are not armed and as a bonus have an interactive map showing where they live and their full names. Isn't this special. And yet, no one on Fox news, let alone on other more liberal news sources, seems to understand ho wshameless and unethical the actions of the NYJ was in publishin gthis information. I am guessing that those who did this will have actual blood on their hands.
I am guessing that this was not the intent of those at the NYJ. So what was their intent? Again, I am only guessing that whatever it wa,they blew it.
The Fox noon discussion group were in agreement that this should be public information, as they would certainly want to know that there were guns in the homes of those in their communities where they migth allow their children to go. Classic, uninformed, dumb, prejudicial. Maybe they would also appreciate a published list of ethnicity, religion or lack of, sexual orientation, income, swinger-status. The odds of a firearm accident occuring in the home of a legal gun-owner is so infitisimal that that winning the lottery is more likely--even less likely in such a controlled ownership jurisdiction (yes, I knowling admit that, as a peril of living free). but of course, the odds of those alternate-universe news-folks know such statistics, are even slimer.
More reasons not to publish the list of gun-permit-holders does include the issue concerning kid's safety. Some parents who are required to carry guns for one reason or another, (and trust me, there are quite a few--such as being an FBI or CIA agent or undercover LEO, Secret Service Operative, security provider, a judge who is under threat for his rulings, a politican who does not warrant of disire a security detail, and what-not ), may opt to keep their gun-ownership under-wraps, even from their own children. But suddenly, given the intrigue provided by suddenly know that guns are in the house--what kid would not be tempted to look around for them. If parents have taken steps to keep their kids from knowing that there are guns in their house, what right does a misguided liberal jounalist or newspaper have to overrule this judgement? Some people have no choice regarding what their occupations require. And what anti-gun-ownership radical doesn't beleive that we need such individuals in such occupations.
Just as every effort to secure firearms, in at least some scenarios can be compromised or twarted by those who knowingly try to do so--such as buglars who know they are there or perhaps, the owners' kids or other mentally-ill family members, though very intellegent, may not be considered responsible with guns. One of the most effective ways to keep these guns secured is by not letting them no about them. Oops.I bet this was never considered, huh? No. Of course not. Only bad and irresponsible people own guns. Those other folks who do own guns who protect those who don't--professionally--or who, through their civil service make themselves targets of criminals have courious children or mentally-ill family members. It does not happen very often, but it will inevitably happen somewhere, that an unauthorized person gets their hands on legal guns. Leave it to the idiots at liberal newspapers to anoint themselves as purveyors of truth--when it suits their needs--at the compromised safety of those who are saddled with saving the rest of us--to make this task more difficult for them--with the dumb excuse that, "Our readers want to know."Blood on their hands.
To think such things don't happen in China, or the Uk, or Germany, or Russia, or Canada ignores the above truth that someone somewhere is required to have kids in every human society. Peace is an ideal. Peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for, but human history to this point suggest that it is only an ideal, and that it is not universally embraced. And since it is not, it is necessary to have people with guns among us to protect us--to one degree or another. I personally agree with our founding fathers and from having observed people in jurisdictions that do allow guns freely that gun ownership whould be allowed for every good citizen--acceptin gthe fact that a small percentage of those guns will be compromised and incidents will occur. But whether you agree with this view or not, you must agree that guns will be in the hands of some of us. This cannot be avoided.
To me, this truth may be equated to those who have no problem eating a good steak, but who decry hunting or the killing of animals. Just because a fair segment of society wishes to sanitze themselves from reality and leave guns in the hands of others who cannot do this, doesn't mean that there in no blood on their hands. soldiers and policemen are people too. Personally, I think it is hypocritical to allow this. Our own personal protection and the protection of our own family--is ultimately up to we as individuals. Cops cannot be everywhere. Only when we are faced with a criminal with a gun about to snuff out our life or the life of a loved one--will some ideologues realize this. None of us have the right nor the luxury to be pacifists when the young ones depend soley upon us.
The following was excerpted from The New York Daily News, It is typical. Seldom have I found as much misinformtion in as concentrated an area as New York newspapers concerning guns, shootings, and related firearms topics; they shows such an lack of basic knowledge regarding guns. It has to be either intentional or complete ignorance to get it this wrong. The guns misrepresent the fire-power completely. They incorrectly explain that the Bushmaster is called an Assault-Rifle and further explain that it is used by Law Enforecement and the Military. This is not true. They may be used by SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT as LE uses virtually all kinds of civilian weapons. But it is never used by the military. A fully-automatic (machine-gun) rifle that looks a lot like this semi-automatic rifle, is made by Colt for the military. They are not similar in actual operation. This Bushmaster rifle is never used by the military, as it does not have the required feautures to fight a war--such as machine-gun firing sppeds. The two handguns are misrepresented as being able to fire up to five rounds per second. This is simply bogus .How rediculous. Where is the fact-checking. Where is the commonsense.These are not Star Wars laser guns. They ae simply well made reg'r ole guns such as are carried by millions of soccer-moms in the rest of America--and perfectly legal there. They have small frames for easily fitting into a purse and fitting easily into small woman hands. This kind of reporting is just stupidity. Do they just pull this stuff out of marijuana-filed air? Unbelievable.
Then they say that Major Bloomberg said THAT the shooter LIKELY USED HOLLOW-POINT ammunition. No. There was no indication nor reason to assume this. Bloomberg doesn't know this and he surely isn't a gun expert. Bloomberg is rabidly antigun--ignoring the fact that crime is automaticalyl a fraction of that in NYC.Bloomberg should confine himself to more important stuff for which he is known, like controlling sugary drinks. People in the rest of America don't want to be saved from themselves. They want to be saved from Big Government.
New York Daily News
Weapons used by Adam Lanza, 20, alleged shooter in Sandy Hook elementary school rampage.
They were his mother's guns.
The 20-year-old man who massacred at least 26 people in Newtown, Connecticut Friday was brandishing at least three heavy-duty firearms, all of which were registered to his mother, several news organizations reported.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ct-school-shooter-made-combat-weapon-article-1.1220431#ixzz2GJiN5bIM
Every capable adult has been drafted into the service of protecting those little ones who depend upon us for protection. In times of war, cowardliness and complacency is treasonous, and this is war. It always has been. When did responsible adults abdicate there responsibilities to protect the innocent. When did cowardliness become us. But I guess this is just me--me an the more than half the population who still has some sense of gumption and pride in living.
There are more reasons I can cite for chicken-squat newspapers not publishing lists that harm people--but if you don't get it yet I should move on to other points of general reason regarding the useless plans being proposed for curbing violence. In Greece, policemen in riot gear face-down disenchanted citizens who cannot comprehend the concept of, "It's gone there is no more." Some of us with rural roots recognize this condition of gonism as basic as, "You cannot able to get blood out of a turnip." Whomever it was who first felt the need to say this was far more clever than ever I formerly believed.
Modern folk-understanding, being what it is, now has it that this once immutable law of physics is no longer applicable--I suppose by presidential decree. No wonder some are confusing our politicians with deity saviors. These same confused individuals, likely with the help of a public education system and/or decriminalized marijuana, now believe that bad things won't happen if they think it hard enough. It has become the best wisdom for everyone to bury their heads as does and ostrich when it comes to their personal protection--but eve more dangerously, our children.
Denying the existence of evil has never made evil go away. This attitude has always added to the problem, emboldening evil, rather than curbing it. Our world is not quite Shambala. Not even the bergs of the North-East.It is said that the natural cliff caves in one area of Tibet are full of the naturally mummified remains of Buddhist Monks who starved themselves to death in a bid to astro-travel there. Although they may have believed that they did, their emaciated bodies found within those caves prove that they did not really reach their destination.-
But from where the idea comes apparently held by so many that making it illegal to buy nitro-glycerine used to treat heart attacks in order to reduce deaths by cancer pretty much takes the cake. This is fairly equivalent to what liberal anti-firearm activists are proposing while supporters such measures blindly line up behind them, shaking their signs and hurling their insults at the NRA as if they are doing some tangible to curb school violence. Just as many people will die of cancer if we ban nitro-glycerine as a heart medicine, plus a lot of people will die of heart attack to boot. This is exactly how ridiculous the proposed measures to reduce gun violence are. Before you huff off in anger, give me the chance to back up my claim, as I certainly can.
First of all, so-called assault weapons are not the only weapons available to people who want to harm children. Secondly, even if reducing these so-called assault weapons in general circulation or in th ehands of the legal public truly would reduce this kinds of violent acts, the threat of passing laws to stop such sales has the exact opposite effect. With the very first outcries regarding banning these weapons, sales of these rifles sky-rocketed. By the second or third day, all the existing inventory of such rifles were completely sold-out. Additional orders were placed by dealers and suppliers and manufacturers went to work racing the fill all these orders.
The gun-ban enacted under President Clinton had no demonstrable effect upon gun violence. What it did, was create greater interest in those rifles already in the marketplace. Congress does not stand a chance of passing--even in the current hysterical environment--a law to outlaw the ownership of such weapons outright, or to have them confiscated. They just don't no-one who understands the issues even thinks there is a remote chance of doing so. Congress will not even try to do so. So everyone who thinks they might want one of these rifles--all for legal and acceptable purposes is rushing out to buy one or more of these. It is a no-brainer from an economic standpoint, as future supply and demand will drive the price steadily upward.
Secondary fallout of such a ban is that these non-military sporting rifles erroneously nicknamed assault rifles immediately become more valuable. The demand and the price is driven up on the mere speculation of a reduced supply. This makes existing rifles more desirable targets for theft--increasing burglaries, theft, and black-market sales, thereby placing greater numbers into the hands of violent criminals--rather than in the hands of responsible citizens. The very saddest aspect to this is that thes rifles are NOT the typical culprits used in violent gun crimes. A few public events in our recent memory notwithstanding, only a very small percentage of these weapons are actually involved in violent gun crimes. They simply are not very practical for such crimes.
There are so many alternative guns available that crazed shooter types have only to pick another model. Interestingly the probable reason that these guns are the ones chosen in the recent shootings probably have little to do with their quasi-military design. It reasonably has more to do with the fact that these are the weapons depicted in violent video war and shooting games. I am not suggesting that video games are to blame for school violence--but it is apparent that those who do play video games seem to want to emulate the weapons depicted there. These so-called assault rifles, which our president and others erroneously call military weapons (they actually do not have much in common with real military weapons), are probably also chosen for mischief, because of their wide availability. This type of "black rifle" is currently the most popular rifle made. Even so, FBI records of which I will insert a chart graphically showing within this post, clearly indicates that of all crimes involving guns and shootings, less than 4.5 % involve the use of these famously misnamed assault weapons.
You tell me, is this the best that Congress can do? Probably so; our politicians are not stupid. They know the score; they know that they will very likely be viewed unfavorably by a segment of their gun-challenged voters if they don't DO SOMETHING in the wake of this gun hysteria. The gun-ban previously enacted under President Clinton, but which was allowed to sun-down without being renewed due to its demonstrated ineffectiveness, and due to its unpopularity among another segment of their voters. It is an easy charade for politicians to play like they are doing SOMETHING about the problem of school shootings without really helping the problem even a little bit.
In lieu of this type of firearm, some other type of firearm will be used, many with greater effectiveness. If firearms are not available, maybe a car will be used to plow nto a bunch of little kids waiting for the bus. The intelligence and mental capacities of these last two prominent shooters certainly gave them the ability to learn from the Internet and make far more destructive methods for killing people. In the case of the Colorado theater killings, the shooter actually did wire his apartment with powerful homemade bombs--which required bomb squads to disarm before entering. In countries where firearms are not readily available very destructive homemade bombs are the weapon of choice for the disaffected, terrorists, or other public enemies.
In England, where firearms have never been widely legal to own, and where now exists some of the most restrictive gun-ban laws in the world, destructive crimes of hate or misplaced vengeance continue to happen. It is illegal to make bombs, of course, but bombs have killed numerous people even in recent history. The first time you fly into Heath-row Airport near London, most Americans are shocked to see the major presence of armed guards decked out fully in military special ops uniforms and berets and carrying real fully-automatic military weapons. And yet violent crimes that savagely kill people on a wholesale level still happen. I am amused, although again sadly, that serious consideration is currently being discussed that will ban most sharp kitchen knives beyond four inches long. To a lessor degree, this is the kind of useless legislation that is being considered in the USA.
It reminds me of those who make native plants capable of creating a high illegal to grow. Plants don't know they are doing wrong, nor are they much observant of man's laws. It would be so much more productive if emphasis would be placed somewhere that would make a difference. Although I am pretty sure that no amount of restrictive laws will stop violent, wicked, and crazy people from doing harm to others--I am absolutely positive that the currently proposed steps being posed to ban guns will have no effect upon gun violence.
So what about high-capacity gun magazines. Won't banning them also help prevent such indiscriminate shooting violence? One more Fox announcer during the current anti-gun discussion made an incorrect observation when she declared that reducing how many shots can be fired will certainly reduce the numbers of victims of gun violence. No, it won't. This erroneous belief points to another typical failure to understand the problem among those people who have never actually had firsthand experience with any of these guns. If they had any experience, they would know the fallacy in the push in favor of banning high-capacity magazines. Do they know how long it takes to change out a gun magazine? (One uninformed "expert" called them cartridges during this discussion. If this doesn't make you laugh, never-mind.) It takes less than a second. If high-capacity magazines provided any edge whatsoever to a shooter, you'd see them hanging out of every law officer's and every soldier's handguns. No! What you do see are multiple cartridges preloaded that can be easily concealed and carried and handled and exchanged after one is emptied. So once again, whether through the influence of the dramatics of Hollywood, or blindly uninformed gun-banners leading other blindly and poorly informed anti-gun activists--or some other misunderstood notions regarding these high-capacity magazines--these measures will have no effect upon hateful people's ability to inflict harm upon others. Zip, zilch, zero.
I believe it was this same Fox contributor who cited the oft-cited story that on the same day, in China, a crazed man with a knife attacked and injured twenty-three children--but none of them died. The triumphant look on this woman's person's face seemed so believably authoritative. No! This is not right. First of all, this same story and unrealistically appropriate variations thereof, have been surfacing parallels to every shooting beginning with Columbine. They always happen in places like the anterior of China, where there is no free press, no reasonable expectation of confirmation, no names of perpetrators, victims, doctors, police, or other officials. These stories usually are declared by the AP, but they can in no way be verified. Whatever happened to providing sources to stories. AP or anyone else who has the bogus brass to do so, can pull these stories right out of the air--and the coincidental nature of the time when they supposedly happen, so closely resemble those events in America--to me are a strong indication that the AP did just pull these stories out of the air.
I researched the incidence of knife slashing in China. The few that I was able to find any verifiable accounts of--involved twenty fatalities! For those who know about the effectiveness of edged weapons, this is no surprise. Up close, a knife is far more desirable than a gun--especially a rifle. There is still some mystery surrounding what happened in Connecticut. It has been reported that the so-called assault-rifle was found in the guy's car. The guy did not return to his car. He was reported to have had two semi-automatic handguns as well. It makes very little sense that he would have used the rifle to shoot his victims. The coroner supposedly said that the gunman systematically and methodically went from one child to the other shooting each multiple times. If this was the case, it is hard to fathom how he could have managed this with a rifle. The kids were presumably crying and struggling. He would have had to have held each one while he shot them. As horrible a picture as this paints--it does not add up that he would have used the rifle in lieu of the handguns. I find it very hard to believe, especially in view of the reports that the shooter had left the rifle in his car.
The details of Connecticut school shooting have been kept under pretty close wraps to date, as they should be until the investigation is over. This is standard police procedure and it is the only way to have a breath of a chance of presenting some sort of factual reporting of the event--well after it has been processed. However, certain details have supposedly been leaked to the media. Initial accounts by direct observers indicate that the rifle was found in the shooter's car. Yet, it has also been widely reported by the media that the coroner believes that the shooter used the rifle in commission of this heinous crime. So what are we to believe? Surely the coroner knows the difference. Or does he? I think he does. But is it even remotely possible that someone involved in the layers of media coverage does not know the difference. In view of how the NYJ has irresponsibly responded to the these shootings by publishing their list--I would not be at all surprised that someone has reported the facts incorrectly, either because they did not really know the difference, or because they feel the end justifies questionable means. Never-mind that there beliefs are based upon bogus information. Sure, further vilification of so-called assault-rifles could easily cause a liberal reporter, or for that matter an official, to feel he is justly helping the cause by inaccurately reporting the details. I mean after-all deny-ability is built-in since the police have shut down the actual details regarding the event.