The problem with laws against gun control is several fold:
1) It Gives Criminals the Advantage: There are already so many guns out there restricting ownership by the law abiding places the guns Solely in the hands of the law-ignoring such as in the city of Chicago where gun murders average one a day. The Oregon Mall Shooting and the recent San Antonio Theater shooting were both stopped by someone in the public who just happened to have a handgun. So for each Sandyhook that runs Amok there is a story where it is prevented by gun owners.
2) Lesser Guns May Not Offer Sufficent Protection: The recent home invasion attack shows that even five shots by a .38 special barely stopped one intruder and he was still able to get up and drive away. In a situation with two or three intruders a single handgun may not be enough to protect your children
3) It is a Check Against Government Tyranny: One of the things that hasn’t happened in the Piers Morgan debates is no one has mentioned the NDAA and Patriot Act. The government has the right to spy on you, charge you with charges that remain secret, and lock you up without a trial, or murder you. These are not the policies of a free and normal government of the people these are the policies of tyranny and it is because of these increadible laws which go against everything America stands for that Americans are flocking to guns.
The big problem with the left is they IGNORE those new laws and say they are no big deal that they are only meant for “terrorists” but the reality is that they apply to all Americans and they are not only a big deal they are a MASSIVE FRIGHTENING HORROR. They are Hitler’s Enabling act waiting ONLY FOR an evil government to begin using them.
The Problem WITH guns like the AR-15 if we can summarize Piers Morgan’s position, is:
A gun like the AR-15 if it falls into the hands of a bad person has such killing and violence potential that it should be banned – it has no conceivable purpose for non-military use.
The problem with this argument is that it never ends. If an AR 15 is dangerous so is an AK-47 so is a SKS and so are all non bolt action rifles. Then the first time someone kills children with a bolt action rifle and proves that in an unarmed building that it is more than possible to kill the same number as died in Sandyhook with a bolt action as they did with a AR-15 then what?
In fact, many are pointing to the fact that the early story on the Sandyhook shooter was that he used simple handguns the AR-15 was found in the trunk of his car. But they changed that quickly. And even if he didn’t what happens when the same thing happens with just handguns? Handguns are responsible for the majority of murders in this country.
So the problem with the left’s position on guns is that they simply are not addressing a real target – the crimes at Sandy hook could have easily been committed with one handgun and four or five loaded clips all containing 10 or less bullets. So is banning clips larger than 10 the answer? How could that possibly be the case?
In September last year in China a madman went into a school and stabbed 23 people with a knife. So is it the AR-15 or is it something else that is really at work here.
There were only 35 Gun Deaths in Britain in 2012
This doesn’t hold water either. First several reports have come out that gun deaths are not counted unless cases are actually solved in Britain whereas in America they are counted regardless. That’s a huge difference which if you subtract Gang related violence (the solution to that is to end massive legal and illegal immigration and tighten the borders not guns) the number of gun deaths goes down to 3,000. But if you were to reduce them to solvable crimes perhaps that goes down to only 300. Piers says it’s 35 gun deaths a year in britain but the real number is 64. So 64 vs. 300. America’s population is five times that of Britain so its not so huge a difference really. But did banning guns solve VIOLENCE and here the big answer is NO. Violent crime in Britain occurs at THREE TIMES THE RATE it does in America and in fact it’s more than 2,000 incidents per 100,000 people while in America it’s only 654.
A Technology Solution to Reduce Gun Violence:
Finally, is there something that can happen technologically to help the situation? I think there is. Requiring all people who have children to purchase gun safes and locks would be a restrictive but BETTER law and a compromise that NRA type activists might better be able to live with. Because that is what happened in sandyhook, the guns were not locked up in a household with a child on psychotic medication. And that should never ever happen.
A second step, if the technology can be made secure and reliable, is to allow guns to have a fingerprint activation system so only the owners can use them. This would further remove guns from criminals. The worry is that in a emergency situation when a kid may need to grab the gun to save their parents, they wouldn’t be able to fire. Still, I think this should be OFFERED not MANDATED to families as one solution and those who find it workable should be able to go out and get such limited guns. Is it going to satisfy the Alex Jones’ of the world? Probably not. But it also has the advantage that your weapon can never be taken and used on you, which is another big advantage of this james bond level device. It will take a few years to prove the reliability and it will never be perfect (maybe a manual combo as a backup?) but it is a step in a sensical direction that is better than simply banning all guns. Apple scooped up fingerprint sensor maker AuthenTec for $356 million last July it’s a proven technology.
If we already have this technology working for GUN SAFES the why not put it on the guns themselves?