Former Congressman Gabby Giffords testified before Congress today. As a victim of gun violence, she looks to be an ideal person to call for gun control, much like Jim Brady in the wake of his injury during an assassination attempt against Reagan. However, the big push is for a new assault weapon ban while Ms. Gifford was shot with a handgun. So, she is testifying purely for the emotional optics, not because anything the Congress might do would have prevented what happened to her.
What of the proposed ban? If it had been in place last year, would Adam Lanza have been prevented from taking his mother's guns and shooting children at the elementary school? No. If the law being proposed would not have stopped the crime that prompted its passage, what is the point?
The vast majority - over 90% - of gun-related murders are committed with handguns, not 'assault' rifles. Imagine that 90% of car accidents were caused by drinking while 3% were caused by smoking and the Congress seeks to outlaw smoking while driving to address the carnage on the roadways. Would that make sense? So, wouldn't it make more sense to outlaw handguns?
Are these Senators and Congressmen stupid? No, they know they can't get handguns at this time but they might be able to pick off 'assault' rifles. Maybe next time they will press for a limit of 6 bullets in a clip or magazine. It is a piecemeal approach. If guns can be restricted bit by bit, eventually all guns will be illegal and the 2nd Amendment will cease to exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment