We’re still waiting for a plan from Democrats that will actually reduce gun violence. Let’s start off with Nicholas Kristoff, who thinks he has a new way to tackle gun deaths
What we need is an evidence-based public health approach — the same model we use to reduce deaths from other potentially dangerous things around us, from swimming pools to cigarettes. We’re not going to eliminate guns in America, so we need to figure out how to coexist with them.
Um, OK? He compares them to cars, and making them safer, before diving into
In Great Britain, people used to kill themselves by putting their heads in the oven and asphyxiating themselves with coal gas. This accounted for almost half of British suicides in the late 1950s, but Britain then began switching from coal gas to natural gas, which is much less lethal. Sticking one’s head in the oven was no longer a reliable way to kill oneself — and there was surprisingly little substitution of other methods. Suicide rates dropped, and they stayed at a lower level.
The British didn’t ban ovens, but they made them safer. We need to do the same with guns.
First, it wasn’t the ovens, it was what the ovens used for. Second, how does one make a gun “safer”? Most guns are extremely simple things. Complicate them!
We should also be investing in “smart gun†technology, such as weapons that fire only with a PIN or fingerprint. We should adopt microstamping that allows a bullet casing to be traced back to a particular gun. We can require liability insurance for guns, as we do for cars.
Criminals do not care about microstamping. Those who are killing each other in the streets of major Democratic Party run cities typically did not obtain their guns legally. Smart gun tech has it’s pros and cons. Criminals will not purchase liability insurance. That’s simply something that will harm the legal owners primarily, and you know that the cost will be so exorbitant that people will say “forget it” and not buy the gun. That’s his real point, finding a way to stop people from purchasing.
Let’s move on to something else from the NY Times, an article which explains how 14 killers in mass shootings obtained their guns. In every single instance, they obtained them legally via a federally licensed firearms dealer. Aaron Alexis, the Navy yard shooter, was the only one who was stopped, failing the background check to purchase a rifle, and, instead, legally purchased a shotgun. Two points here. First, for all the caterwauling about the “gun show loophole”, none of these people obtained them from a gun show. In fact, most dealers at gun shows are federally licensed dealers, and must perform background checks. Dana Loesch schooled Senator Cory Booker on the subject.
Second, this seems to be thinly-veiled method of blaming the gun stores, so, of course, this gives people the idea of banning gun stores. Which has worked really, really well in Chicago, right? (six more were shot since Saturday morning)
Let’s remember that Mr. Obama stated
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it,â€Â said Obama.
George Soros funded Think Progress goes the same route, in telling us that Australians are disgusted or something
In 1996, a gunman opened fire at a popular tourist destination on the Australian island of Tasmania. Using a semiautomatic rifle, he killed 35 people.
Australia responded by reforming their gun laws. High powered rifles and shotguns were banned and uniform gun licensing requirements were imposed for the guns that remained legal. The country also implemented a buyback program which resulted in the destruction of more than a million firearms.
In the last 19 years, there have been no mass shootings in Australia, defined as five or more people being shot.
In other words, this whole thing, which follows up with stories in Aussie papers that are “disgusted” is about pushing the Aussie solution, namely, banning most private ownership of guns, doing buybacks/government confiscation.
NY Magazine likewise pimps the Aussie solution, and then wonders if it would work
Still, gun-control advocate Rebecca Peters, who campaigned to tighten Australia’s gun laws, argues that the U.S. could take some cues from other countries’ successful efforts to combat gun violence — such as banning assault weapons, expanding background checks, and increasing waiting periods — without implementing gun-control laws as strict as Australia’s. “When you’re talking about reducing motor vehicle accidents, you don’t only rely on seat belts, you don’t only on speed limits, you don’t only rely on highway design, you don’t only rely on motor vehicle standards, but you have a set of them,” Peters told ABC News. “Similarly, they’re a set of measures that together constitute regulation to prevent gun violence.”
Remember, the Navy yard shooter was denied an “assault rifle”, and used a shotgun. For the most part, this only limits legal owners who aren’t hell bent on violence. As for increased waiting periods? Well, if they are good enough for guns, why not for abortions?
Expanded background checks? To what? They are already expanded. Shall we included credit ratings? What, exactly, are we expanding them to cover? That part never gets covered.
Anyhow, many, many outlets are “discussing” the Aussie solution. I dare the anti-gunnites to attempt it. You know you want to. Stop pussyfooting around. Show your true colors.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Anti-gunnites More Overtly Reaching For Ban On Private Gun Ownership »
