Like all parents of young children, I was shaken by the tragedy in Connecticut, especially as the events unfolded while my kids were at their own elementary school.
I cannot imagine the pain the parents of the victims must be feeling, and hope the outpouring of support from the nation lets them know they are not alone in their mourning.
Since the tragedy, much has been written and said trying to make sense of the events of Dec. 14, and the seemingly increasing senseless violence in our country. Over the past six years, the United States has seen some of its worst mass murders in history:
•April 16, 2007 - Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Va., 32 killed;
•Dec. 5, 2007 - Westroads Mall, Omaha, Neb., 8 killed;
•Feb. 14, 2008 - Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Ill., 5 killed;
•April 3, 2009 - American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY, 13 killed;
•Nov. 5, 2009 - Fort Hood, Texas, 13 killed;
•Aug. 3, 2010 - Harford Beer Distributor in Manchester, Conn., 8 killed;
•Jan. 8, 2011 - Rep. Gabriel Giffords appearance in Tuscon, Ariz., 6 killed;
•July 20, 2012 - Movie Theater in Aurora, Colo., 12 killed;
•Aug. 5, 2012 - Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wis., 6 killed;
•Dec. 14, 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., 26 killed.
Each event featured one sole assailant, and these murderers of the 129 victims have one thing in common -- they all used legally purchased semiautomatic weapons to conduct their killing sprees. In nine of the 10 cases, the semiautomatic guns were purchased by the perpetrator himself (the Westroads Mall shooter stole the gun from his stepfather). Assault weapons serve one main purpose -- to kill multitudes in a short amount of time. It’s how 10 killers single-handedly murdered 129 people in the aforementioned tragedies.
In 1994, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the federal government passed an assault weapons ban. The ban expired in 2004. During the 10 years the law was in place, there were eight mass shootings resulting in 51 deaths. According to the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, six of the eight massacres involved semiautomatic weapons purchased legally before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The two mass shootings featuring illegally acquired weapons -- Columbine in 1999 and Edgewater Technology in 2000 -- resulted in 20 combined deaths.
Doing the math, over the past 18 years, mass shootings involving legally purchased assault weapons resulted in 160 innocent deaths, while mass shootings involving illegally purchased assault weapons resulted in 20 deaths.
Obviously, assault weapons and the ease of purchasing them is not the sole reason 160 people have lost their lives. However, one cannot deny the link between the spike in mass killings and the expiration of the assault weapons ban.
For the 20 children shot multiple times in a matter of minutes last Friday; for the 129 murdered over the past eight years by legally purchased semiautomatic weapons; and to reduce a legitimate threat to safety of all Americans, the government needs to restore a ban on semiautomatic weapons.
512 deaths /murders with mostly semiautomatic weapons.
Oh My God!!!! You mean criminals aren't paying attention to the laws? What is this world coming to???????
Do away with all laws and there's no crime.
This says pretty succinctly why everybody should be able to own an "assault" weapon. And yes, it's in quotes because I've noticed that nobody out here really knows what an assault weapon really is. Seems to be, if it's scary, it's an assault weapon...
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847 The UK is even worse. Break ins, assaults - especially against the elderly, even the murder rate has stayed steady. This is despite a lack of guns in the country. The difference is, now it's just the victims dying, rather than a mix of victims and criminals. The criminals love it there now. They have nothing to fear....
No you're not. You've already made up your mind. Lots of stats here to support the idea that gun control is ineffective. Or, how about this one - Vermont. No permit required for carry if you're a resident of the state. None. No registration, either. Third safest state in the nation. Wonder how that could be with such a proliferation of guns?
I remember New Orleans did the same thing. And left guns alone. While that was the case, they saw a better than 30% reduction in crime. But you're right, I'm sure it has everything to do with the guns. Actually, come to think of it, New York would probably have seen a better reduction in crime had they left guns alone, too....
Did you actually read this statement before you posted it?
Like....
But yes, if you do away with all laws, there will be no crime. Because if it's not against the law, it's not a crime. Duh.....
The second sentence was a separate thought, but not intended to be snarky, just a little sarcastic. I'm surprised you didn't recognize that Karsten, as you're the Patch sarcasm king and proud of it, aren't you? And, didn't you get the memo about retiring "Duh"? ;)
So a dictator that can kill his people/slaves on a whim is a valid comparison? Well a broken analog watch is always right twice each and EVERY day too, but not really desirable timepiece in the real world.
GGY has a point on this one because that what's happening with our border policy RIGHT now, one regulation at a time...
Hey fella, if you choose to live in a penal colony, that is your decision but I don't think it qualifies as a reason for everyone to buy more guns and ammo and arm themselves to the teeth. You have the option to move any time you want. Stop blogging and talk to a real estate agent. And for the record, I have worked in Loganville and know people from there and they all aren't "registered" sexual predators, felons and criminals that are talented in other wicked ways. How about stepping outside your bunker and just smell the roses?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html