Response to notes concerning gun control…

Wow, nothing gets people riled up and the notes flowing than a spicy piece of politics. That being said, I’d like to thank most of the people who left polite and sincere notes in my diary. Whether or not your views side with mine, ever note was read and every link checked out… and I thank you for your contribution. Now let’s move to a few points I want to make about yesterday’s entry.

– The title seemed to cause the biggest stir. I admit it was put there to do just that, but only with the hope that debate would be the result. I am very well aware of the fact that the 2nd ammendment will never be tossed out because no President or Congress would be able to meet the two third’s majority needed to make any changes to the constitution. So any anger about tossing out the second ammendment is childish since everyone who knows anything about the constitution would be well aware that it will never happen, not while the NRA is around anyway. The title was a tad sarcastic, and if people took it too seriously… I apologize for pulling your leg.

– One reaction I got from a few people was over the fact that the post was too soon after the tragedy. That I should have given people time to greive before shouting out an anti-gun rant. I respectfully disagree. Unless we stick the noses of the politicans in the results of their inaction, it’s the only way to prompt the necessary changes to prevent this from happening again. It’s not like I was holding a rally outside VT, I was merely stating an opinion.

– Screw your rights. Yeah, that’s right… I said it. The right I was referring to was the alledged right to bear arms. Since when was that right higher on the food chain than someone’s right to exist? I never said in that entry that all guns should be banned, but I think a person’s right to live and enjoy life is a lot more imporant than someone’s right to own a Glock 9mm automatic. Don’t you?

– The fact is the killer who gunned down 30+ students got the guns legally poses a serious problem. If someone wants to buy a new rifle or get something for the buddy for his birthday, that’s cool. But if a quiet kid walks in and wants to buy two automatic hand cannons, someone should have paused for a moment and tried to find out what he wanted to do with these guns. One of my favorites pointed out yesterday (I’m not sure if it was intentional or just to compare to his own state) that Virginia has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country. Chances are if the gunman tried to purchase these pistols in another state, he likely would have been denied based on his mental history and prior investigations for stalking. In a way, he admitted (on a minimal level) that at least a little gun control (in the form or a more detailed background check) might have denied this kid from getting his weapons and thus going on his shooting spree. Yes, he could have tried to gain them through less legal channels, but I doubt he would have been able to afford them. His bitterness towards the rich suggests he likely didn’t have the funds to obtain them that way…

– Regardless of how many sources people toss my way, they will never convince me that more guns is the answer. All the evidence you need to kow that gun control works is to look at the homicide rate between all developed nations… and then compare all the ones that have that control to the nation that has the right to bear arms. The result is staggering and shocking:

source

This statistic is absolutely staggering. The murder rate jumps from around 1 per 100,000 to well over 4 per 100,000 … in Canada’s case just from crossing a border. Nations like Norway and Canada have very strict gun control laws, and stats like this cannot be ignored. For those who want specific stats with regard to actual deaths by firearms, here’s one that will make people scratch their heads:

source

I’m sure many will try, but how can you dispite this statistic? The murder rate per catia jumps up five times just by crossing the border between Canada and the US. This actually proves that music/TV, often a whipping boy when people are looking for anwsers to many of the school shootings doesn’t make a difference cause Canada listens and watches the same crap and you don’t see kids shooting up their schools as often as we’re seeing done by our neightbors to the south. The United States’ overall firearm deaths (8,259) is actually the fourth highest in the world, falling behind only Thailand, Columbia and South Africa for the top spot. Not exactly good company and enough to make the US #1 for developed nations. Compare that to Canada’s deaths via firearms (165) and you can’t help but marvel at how the numbers change from one side of the border to the other.

Yet what many people don’t realize what makes the above numbers that much more surprising is that gun ownership is actually quite high in Canada. Many people own guns in Canada, and they are purchased legally and all registered with the government. The only difference is we wouldn’t be allowed to purchase the Glocks or other automatic pistols that were used in the shooting at VT this week. I’m not saying Canada doesn’t have their major shootings, but we’re talking one every ten to fifteen years (mostly in Montreal, go figure)… which is mild in comparison to the one or two every year in the south. You can’t even buy ammunition in Canada without a legal gun permit, so even if you could get your hands on a gun… even bullets would have to be obtained through other means making things that much harder for people to use a gun in our country.

I don’t expect people to be converted, but the numbers don’t lie. Less access to weapons can lead to less murders, and even considerably less firearm deaths. If Virginia has a more strained background check, then this week could have been a lot different for a lot of people. In many other nations, this kid wouldn’t have been allowed to own a gun at all and would have had to access them through other means. Unfortunately, there are some people that think one kid’s right to own a 9mm Glock is more important than 33 people’s right to live. What is wrong with this line of thinking? I’ll leave that to you to answer.

Peter