In Carol Shea Porter's column "Time For Action" she spells out her simple plan to end gun violence. I'd like to share and evaluate each of her simple steps, I'll skip the first few paragraphs where she skillfully invokes the poor children in an attempt to muster up emotion over factual discussion. After all it's more important that we "feel" safe.
Some in Congress were upset at even the mildest suggestions, such as doctors asking if there are guns in the house so they can talk about safety issues involved when there are children in the residence. Doctors ask if somebody smokes around children. They talk about being safe and careful with candles and stoves, but apparently, they should not ask about a huge killer of children—guns.
If a doctor wishes to ask questions of patients there is no problem with that. Doctors are just as entitled to free speech as anyone else in this country. However, the problem is when the same government who requires business to provide "free" birth control and requires doctors to perform abortions even when those things go against their religious beliefs push the "conscience objection" clause to allow doctors to refuse to treat families who own guns. Carol, you aren't a doctor so don't play one. Let doctors do their jobs and ask what questions they want, not which questions you force them to ask.
The easiest step should be to require background checks for gun sales. This means gun sales involving most private sales also. The majority of Americans support this plan. We also need to make sure that critical information is available when there is a background check. Records right now are too often incomplete, and do not identify a buyer’s criminal history or a dangerous mental illness.
The reason records are often incomplete is because Democrats continue to push laws protecting criminals.
What's interesting is how the left push for privacy of medical records, they bend over backwards to allow women access to abortions even when they are in their teens with total privacy including from their own parents. They fight to protect the privacy of criminals and illegals. But then when it comes to gun registration they're the first ones to push to print names and addresses of legal gun owners in the news papers.
It is time to end high-capacity magazine sales. It used to be that citizens had a chance to get away from a shooter when he had to stop to reload. But with high-capacity magazines, the killer can just keep firing away a lot longer, murdering many more innocent folks. Hunters do not need to fire 30 rounds. Neither do citizens exercising their right to defend themselves. I support banning magazines holding more than ten rounds. This will help law enforcement and the public to disarm a mass shooter, and it will give people a better chance to escape a madman.
It's statements like this that show how out of touch Carol is.
Again she's high on emotion but lacks factual data. For starters, with new 3D printing technology a killer no longer needs to buy a 30 round clip. Just print one from your home.
Secondly, the idea that you'd be able to somehow get away when a shooter has to stop an reload is something that only happens in movies.
Look at the shootings that Carol and others publicize. Sandy Hook, the killer had 4 guns with him. In Columbine they carried four weapons between the two of them. Even if it did take a while to reload, when you are dealing with people carrying multiple weapons, the reload time is irrelevant.
And speaking of reloading time, take a look at YouTube, there are several videos showing people dropping a cartridge and popping in a second one in 3 seconds time. When you have a school full of children hiding in bathrooms and under tables without and defense and as in the case of Sandy Hook it takes police over 20 minutes before they enter the building from the time the first shots are fired, do you really think that 3 or even 10, assuming the killer is slow, seconds to pop out a clip and pop in a new one is really going to make a difference? They can do that while walking down a hallway from one room of innocents to the next.
Carol's suggestions sure feel like they would make us safe but in reality would they accomplish anything? Would they even save one life? Or by creating a false sense of security would they cost lives?
I support President Obama’s call to close loopholes in gun trafficking laws, and to beef up law enforcement in communities.
Let’s also step up mental health services, and work together to encourage a reduction of violence in video games and television and movies.
Since many of those same Hollywood liberals who make the violent shows on TV and movies are Obama supporters, I'm sure Carol and the rest of the Democrats will have no problem getting them to stop making movies like they do.
And as I pointed out, it's Democrats who passed law after law over the years to protect our privacy that now also prevent medical professionals and others like the FBI, access to information that would otherwise prevent someone mentally unstable from having a gun in the first place.
There is another step, an assault weapon ban, that will require more political debate, but these ideas listed here are common-sense ideas that should have no political test of courage attached to them. Can’t we at least get this done now? Let’s get it done now. It already has been a long and deadly wait.
And there you have it, she artfully saves the best for last... the ever so popular suggest from the left, the gun ban on "assault weapons", which of course gets silly when you begin to define what makes a regular weapon an "assault weapon".
If Carol wants to have more political debate then let's have it.. let's discuss safety and what we can do to really make us safe, not what makes everyone "feel" safe.
Here's some idea...
3 out of every 5 of all gun deaths in this country are self inflicted suicide. Democrats claim to be in favor of doctor assisted suicide so supporting that belief, shouldn't these deaths be viewed as ok?
When you look at 2011 numbers, of the 32,163 total gun deaths, 19,766 were self inflicted and only 12,397 where not. Compare that to the fact that 19,741 people in a given year (1999 in this case) die due to accidental poisoning.
So you have a higher chance of being accidentally poisoned then you do being shot.
Roughly 3,000 gun deaths every year are "children", that makes up about 10% of the total deaths. Now I say children in quotes because most of the government agencies that report on statistics of gun deaths use ages 0 to 19 as children. This is important because taking 18 and 19 year olds out of the mix cuts that number in half and at 18 and 19 many "children" have graduated and moved on to full time carriers in crime as drug dealers or gotten involved in gangs.
In fact when looking deeper at numbers by cities, some cities report that between 60 to as high as 95 percent of all gun deaths are gang related.
Given these statistics, how exactly is anything Carol suggests going to fix the problems leading to gun deaths? When you have 5 or 10 gang members all carrying weapons do you think a victim will have more of a chance if those 5 or 10 people only have clips with 10 bullets instead of 15?
Here's another statistic for you to consider, 82% of all gun crimes are committed with stolen weapons. Of the remaining, 11% guns received from "unknown sources".
So registration and background checks might effect a total of 7% of all gun crimes. And that assumes that the people who would actually conduct that 7% wouldn't be able to pass a background check in the first place. A husband who snaps because his wife is cheating on him wouldn't have a mental health issue showing in his background check.
Let's also think about what that 7% actually amounts to... Of the 12,397 gun deaths that were not accidental in 2011, 7% of that would be 868. So 868 gun deaths were actually committed with legally purchased guns that may have actually gone through background checks.
These are facts with no emotion driving them.
I'm open to people like Carol suggesting we should have political debate but if you want to do it, stick to actual facts and when you propose a solution explain how, using those facts, you suspect your solution will fix the problem without infringing on the rights of the rest of us.