Anti-2nd Amendment Op-Ed: Why Aren’t We Doing Something About Gun Violence?

A bit of insensitivity to start this Saturday morning, since the op-ed writers, Mark Barden and David Wheeler, both lost their sons to the Sandy Hook nutjob. Yet, if they are going to jump into the political realm in order to call for restrictions on our Constitutional Rights, and use Father’s Day as an excuse, there is every right to respond.

A Father’s Day gift for kids: Protect them from gun violence

This is the second Father’s Day we will have spent without our sons Daniel and Ben, who were murdered a year and a half ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But unlike last Father’s Day, when we grieved quietly, passing the day in solemn remembrance with our families and surviving children, this Father’s Day we feel compelled to speak out.

What has changed since the Sandy Hook shooting? There have been 74 more school shootings, according to the group Everytown for Gun Safety, which tracks news of firearms being discharged at schools as a result of assaults, homicides, suicides and accidental firings. Seventy-four, including tragedies such as those just this month in Seattle and Troutdale, Ore. How could that number not make you outraged? Incensed? Incredulous? How is it that after our beautiful sons were murdered, along with 18 of their classmates and six brave adults, we have seen no major federal policy passed to address this problem? Why is it that we now see summer not as a time of celebration and vacation but as a relief from having to read about new school shootings because kids are no longer at school or on campus?

And now so many school shootings later, with so many families facing the same agony and pain we face this Father’s Day, we have to ask a question. (snip)

Our question is the same (as Obama’s): Why aren’t we doing something about this?

First off, let’s consider how many of those shootings were suicide and gang violence. Nor had anything really to do with schools. Nor injuries. And were even caused by knives. Nor occurred on school property nor during school hours.

Getting beyond that, it should be noted that they did try to Do Something: they made schools gun free zones. How’s that working out? About the same as with liberal cities with heavy gun restrictions. Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and NY City are among those with the most gun violence. Gun violence in states tends to be driven by the urbanized areas, which tend to lean and vote Democrat, and have the most gun restrictions.

A better question to ask would be: why aren’t heavy gun restrictions and gun free zones working?

Another would be: why are anti-gun forces focusing on legal citizen ownership instead of criminals?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Anti-2nd Amendment Op-Ed: Why Aren’t We Doing Something About Gun Violence?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Banning or strictly limiting handguns and limiting long guns to 3-4 round clips would definitely significantly reduce gun deaths in the US (as it has in other nations). Will this ever happen in the US? Of course not. Banning handguns has been ruled unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. Guns ARE more widely available now than ever.

    According to Politifact, 10 incidents (CNN reported 15) in the mode of Sandy Hook or Columbine have occurred since the Sandy Hook Massacre (or hoax, if you’re an idiot), not 74. That’s only 1 every 6 weeks.

    2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Our Supreme Court has concluded that our governments CAN infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, ruling in 1939 that sawed-off shotguns could be regulated. We have laws (largely untested in court) that limit clip sizes in hunting rifles and shotguns during hunting seasons; regulate the actions (regulate fully automatic); calibers and type of gun for certain hunting seasons (can hunt deer with rifles in Missouri but not in Illinois); regulate rocket launchers, flame throwers, armor piercing bullets, exploding bullets, atomic bombs and grenades.

    If, as Mr. Teach teaches, the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to enable ‘patriots’ to overthrow the government as needed, shouldn’t citizens have access to tanks, rocket launchers and A-bombs? What brave ‘patriot’ will fall on his/her sword and take their surface-to-air missile launcher case to the Supreme Court? What chance do we have against Federal tyranny when they have all the tanks, missiles and machine guns? Shouldn’t we demand immediate and absolute access to the same weapons systems that our military uses and that we paid for??

  2. john says:

    I liked the old westerns where the sheriff banned cowboys from coming into town with huns.

    You talk the talk Teach but fo you walk the walk? Do you openly carry your pistols at work ? Or are they meant to be just fondled at home?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Banning or strictly limiting handguns and limiting long guns to 3-4 round clips would definitely significantly reduce gun deaths in the US (as it has in other nations).

    Banning long driving trips would decrease deaths as well. Are you for that?

    The fact of the matter is that more people are saved by weapons than are killed by them. The ratio isn’t even close. And while there have been shootings, that view excludes the fact that those shootings took places on sites that ban guns. No one was able to fire back, protect themselves or their loved ones or anyone else because under the guise of being “safer,” the government made people victims.

    Limiting “clip” or magazine sizes would do nothing but deprive innocent people of the right to defend themselves.

    Liberals like Jeffery and john like victims.

    John, of course, trots out the old “do you do this…” meme that he has tried before. John doesn’t understand that believing in a right means that the person has the freedom as to whether to exercise that right or not. If Teach or anyone wants to carry a weapon, that is their choice.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Mr. Barden and Mr. Wheeler wrote:

    “Since the shooting that took our children, we have been working with Sandy Hook Promise to advance common-sense legislation that could prevent incidences of gun violence and educate Americans on the causes of gun violence — with a focus on mental wellness, community connectedness and gun safety.”

    What specifically did they advocate that was anti-2nd Amendment? What does their group Everytown, advocate that is anti-2nd Amendment?

    In a country of over 300 million citizens where over 500,000 die too soon each year from cigarettes, alcohol and gluttony, it’s hard to get too worked up over only 31,000 dying from firearms (10,000 murders, 20,000 suicides, 1000 accidents). The horror arises from shooting involving children. According to the FBI about 100-120 children under 12 are killed each year in non-accidental shootings.

  5. david7134 says:

    Mark Twain pointed out that lying in bed was a hazard as most people died doing so. Maybe we should ban lying in bed? The fact is that the liberals started this with the restrictions on mental health treatment that started in the 60’s. I believe that there were stats on numerous school shooting taking place in the late 1800’s. In fact, I once saw that when corrected for population, it was worse than now. Noted that magazine loads were less.

  6. Jeffery says:

    gc,

    “The fact of the matter is that more people are saved by weapons than are killed by them.”

    If by ‘saved’ you mean ‘not killed’, then nations with more restrictive gun laws should have higher murder rates than the US since the more restrictive nations will have criminals with guns assaulting unarmed citizens. Are you really making the argument that more restrictive gun laws here would lead to MORE firearms related killings?

  7. Jeffery says:

    gc and d,

    Ban driving and sleeping? As I’ve said before I do not favor banning handguns because in the US it’s politically intractable.

    But both driving and sleeping have significant societal benefits. Banning driving would immediately destroy the economy. Plus, we already have a highly regulated system for driving – we regulate (license) drivers, regulate the activity (speed limits, road signs, dedicated traffic police,), regulate the devices (safety equipment in cars, seat belts, air bags, child seats, door reinforcements, motorcyclist helmets and on and on).

    What would be the impact of banning all handguns? Impact on economy? No. Handgun related deaths would go down. 100 fewer accidental killings of children. Based on the evidence from dozens of advanced nations, the overall murder rate would likely go down, with no increase in violent crime.

    Most gun owners are responsible. Most gamblers are responsible. Most oxycontin users are responsible. Most drinkers are responsible. Most drivers are responsible. But in all cases, limits are placed on the responsible to protect society from the abuses of the irresponsible.

    The ONLY legitimate argument in favor of easily available handguns in the US is the 2nd Amendment, which is, importantly, part of our Constitution.

    ” A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The Supreme Court has interpreted this Amendment to allow Americans to possess handguns for protection. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether limiting clip capacity is Constitutional (I suspect limiting clips to 10 cartridges would be deemed Constitutional).

  8. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Are you aware of the stat that says if you eliminate the violence caused by our black population, then the US is one of the safest places on earth?

  9. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    I’m trying to understand the relevance of your question, but have become accustomed to your style.

    Do you think Black folks are genetically violent?

    Do you think the whites are genetically predisposed to lie, cheat and steal?

  10. david7134 says:

    Look up the stats Jeff.

    As to pre-disposed to violence, hell yes. This is substantiated in stats as well. One a world wide basis, blacks are three times as likely to commit an act of violence as opposed to any other group. In the US, the number is 7 times as likely. This is not racist, it is cold hard fact.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8806 access attempts in the last 7 days.