Come on, people there’s an obvious solution to these killing sprees…ban the guns. Don’t let companies make them, don’t let retailers sell them and don’t let people buy them. Think about it: no guns = no violence. The Colorado killer never would have been able to blow away all of those people if he didn’t have a gun. It would have been hopeless so he probably would have decided a killing spree was just too much hassle. Bombing as an alternative? No way, bombs aren’t sold in stores either. And this PhD student couldn’t possibly have made one big enough to take out that many people. Only Taliban members in third-world countries make those. A normal US citizen just doesn’t have that kind of sophistication . . .
Buying a gun on the black market? Nope, that’s illegal. He wouldn’t have the balls to break a gun law like that. Few do. That’s why we’ve outlawed drugs and look how well that’s working. So if you take away his gun, you ake away his ability to kill.
OK, OK, maybe we don’t want to ban all guns. I mean, I still want people to be able to hunt for pheasent, deer, elk, bear, etc. Let’s just ban the bad guns. Like ARs and AKs. They’re a lot more violent and capable of dealing death than a semi auto rifle designed to take down an 600 lb grizzly at 200 yards. Or maybe a 12-gauge that’ll knock 4 birds out of the sky mid-flight. Yeah, let’s just ban the bad ones, especially the black ones.
But we also ban high capacity magazines. No one needs anything over 10 rounds. That’ would have really hindered that Joker guy’s killing efficiency. If he can only carry a 10-round mag then he can only kill 10 people at most, right? It takes sooooo long to reload with spare magazines that the people who aren’t dead can close the distance during the reload and stop him before he inserts a new magazine.
And don’t even get me started on ammo. C’mon, 6,000 rounds? Seriously? This guy was preparing for all-out war. If you want to defend yourself all you need are a few bullets. We shouldn’t let people purchase more than a small number of rounds each month. Forget about shooting competitions. I don’t even think anyone actually participates in those anyway. They’re never on TV. And do you really need to practice? A gun’s pretty much point and shoot, right?
Plus, let’s be real here. The police and military really are the only ones who need guns. Their $50,000 salaries guarantee they’d take the bullet for me, or shoot the bad guy first. And if they don’t, I’ll sue them. Or protest and spit in their faces until they mace me…then I’ll sue them again for brutality. But they better not shoot someone I don’t think they should shoot or I’ll sue them for that too.
Maybe I’m being overreacting here, but all the TV stations, newspapers, and some of our political leaders think we need more gun control and they can’t be wrong. They’re all really really smart. Some of them have even written books. Plus they wouldn’t be able to say those things on TV if they were wrong.
They all seem to be handling the economy pretty well, so why would you think they’d mess up our gun laws? Just look at Chicago – some of the strictest gun laws in the country and it’s a great place to live if you don’t mind keeping your head down and staying close to a police cruiser. Chicago politicians only need armed escorts because they’re politicians.
Seriously, the arguments against civilian firearms ownership are invariably put forth by those who are ignorant of the topic. It’s not really their fault, of course, they just don’t know any better. It’s the responsibility of responsible gun owners to make sure the anti-rights message is offset by an effective pro-firearms conversation that supports exercising our second amendment rights.
Zack Pike runs triggercraft.com