That always happens, and I honestly don't think it is an act or being opportunistic. People truly believe these things, so when they happen, they feel that is their validation. Those on the left have been saying for quite some time that all the anger and vitriol that is being spewed by the right could incite violence. Is that what happened here? Maybe, maybe not.
I still say opportunistic. The time for political debate is in the halls of Congress and among our pundits. It is not during scheduled memorials of innocents who were gunned down mere days ago. I do appreciate our President's stance on not participating in the rhetoric from both sides while at that event, but I find it in poor taste that others saw fit to print political propoganda, wear political tshirts, and have organized debate on the grounds.
I hear that argument a lot in gun control arguments, but I hardly ever see any proof. Are there illegal or unregistered guns out there? Of course. But those who are anti-gun control often try to make the argument that it is so easy to get an illegal gun. I'm not convinced that is the case.
I'd suggest you check some of the figures for illegal vs legal gun crimes. In 1997 the ACLU reported (
From Words to Weapons)that 25% of LA Highschool students could obtain a gun illegally for less than 50$.
A Survey of State Prison Inmates released also in 1997 reported that among those committing a crime with a firearm, the source of of the gun from "family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source" was 80%. Even if the gun started out as legal, the second it was loaned, borrowed, stolen, or bought without regulatory practices it is illegal. The same report shows only 12% purchased from a "retail setting or pawnshop". (source:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/firearms_and_crime.shtml)
That argument is used over and over as well, but once again, never proven. I can honestly say that if I was carrying a firearm at all times, I would have killed someone by this time. In that split second of rage when someone does something horrible to you, whatever it may be, it would be natural for many people to grab the gun and kill them. 5 seconds later, you're realizing what you just did.
You're also using an unproven generalization which you accuse me of. You haven't had a firearm on you at all times, thus you
really dont know how you would have behaved. If you have truly been angry enough to take someone's life, you probably would have been angry enough to punch them in the face, or pick up a pipe and hit them, has this also happened? It's the same basic assumption of saying that people with guns will use them. You always have your fists with you, they are always capable of assault, but do you assault those who anger you often?
I think if more people were carrying guns, we'd have more stories of kids killing themselves with their parents/family members weapon. More stories of kids killing each other "accidently". More stories of people in general killing each other.
Let me clarify my position on gun control. As it stands, I think its perfectly reasonable to have to undergo a background check and a waiting period to purchase a firearm. That said, I
really dont think it's all that hard for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a firearm. If I wanted to, I could get one within two weeks and wouldn't be all that bothered by it. so in this case I dont think that you're going to experience all that many more of these type of incidents as they seem to occur pretty regular as is, and people who want guns right now generally have them. This would probably fall into the category of people being irresponsible with firearms, which if someone is willing to be irresponsible around things that can potentially kill, maim, or injure their children--it becomes an issue of are people responsible enough to be a parent (which i'm not convinced everyone is).
That's a great disclaimer. Same applies to my responses
Thanks, I think more people should realize what their opinion is worth to other people
