We have had another attack where multiple lives we lost by a douche with a gun….in this case many guns….and of course the debate has started again…all the political theater that this subject can muster.
Now is the time to look at the laws…..NO! Now is not the time we should wait for calmer heads….
Gun Control? Is that truly the conversation we should behaving right now? Maybe not……
Statistician and writer Leah Libresco used to yearn for what she once considered “common-sense gun-control reforms.” Then she and her colleagues at FiveThirtyEight spent threemonthsanalyzing all 33,000 gun deaths the US sees per year, and her whole perspective changed. The sad truth is that the broad policies many people call for, like “banning assault weapons,” actually wouldn’t save the vast majority of those people, she writes. In the Washington Post, she delves into specific reasons why—in the case of an assault-weapons ban, gun hobbyists can easily turn a semi-automatic into an assault weapon, while skilled shooters can change magazines so quickly that limiting them might be “meaningless.” She also explains why it’s actually not useful to compare US gun laws with the strictly tightened laws in Britain and Australia.
So what could work in the US? “Narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.” That means individualized attention, like identifying gang members for intervention, putting police priority on women who are endangered by specific men, or getting older men (who make up the biggest share of gun suicides) access to care and help. In the end, Libresco “was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners,” she writes. “But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. … We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.” Read her full column.
Personally, I think this whole conversation that we seem to have with each attack….is not the conversation we should be having.
In closing I want to offer up some red meat for all those liberal haters (and there are many)….it comes from the most hated liberal…Michael Moore…..
In a move highly unlikely to be approved by the NRA, Michael Moore has come up with a replacement for what he says is the “ancient and outdated” Second Amendment. In a Facebook post Wednesday, Moore offered a 28th Amendment that protects the right of people to “be free from gun violence,” Hot Air reports. “A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed,” it reads.
“The public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun,” wrote Moore. He said under the new amendment, it will be possible to pass laws requiring people to keep their guns at government-regulated storage facilities instead of at home, the Hill reports. He also suggested limiting clips to six bullets, banning semi-automatic weapons, and requiring men buying guns to obtain waivers from current and former spouses. This approach, he wrote, will meet the needs of everybody except the “serial killer, the mass murderer, the violent ex-husband, the disgruntled employee, or the disturbed and bullied teenager.” (Lawmakers want to ban a device the Las Vegas gunman used.)
Let the yelling begin…..please have a medical specialist stand by.