121214054741-12-newtown-1214-c1-mainI have no words to adequately talk about what happened in the US today.  My heart breaks for the victims & families.  Why America can’t you see the flaw in your gun laws?!

There have been 31 US school shootings since Columbine.  School shootings in every other country in the world combined since that time: 14.  In 2001 2,996 Americans were killed by terrorists. Almost 11,000 were shot dead by fellow Americans.

I know we can’t limit the crazy people in the world, but we can limit what they have access to.  Yes, people will find a way to do bad things if they really want to, but let’s make it as hard for them as possible.  We can at least limit the damage!  No one needs a .223 rifle (one of the guns used in the shooting).  No one.  For any reason.  Who needs to fire 100 rounds rapidly for any reason?!  Here is a picture of that gun.

A-GJSUFCUAANr51.jpg-largeAfter the Port Arthur massacre John Howard did a wonderful thing and banned all automatic and semi-automatice weapons.  No civilian needs those.

COME ON AMERICA!!!  There is no other way to save your children!

Although sadly as someone said on twitter this morning, “They’ll arm teachers before they’ll disarm the public.”.  True and idiotic.

The second amendment was written so that the military couldn’t gain control over the people.  And also, think of the weapons available back then.  They are nothing like the weapons available now.  This is not what the founding fathers had in mind.


3 Replies to “Newtown”

  1. Hi Megan,

    I think you have over stepped the mark a bit. You have made some emotionally charged and factually incorrect statements.

    1) There is no flaw in guns laws. It already illegal to kill people. There is a flaw in the deterrent and the punishment for committing crimes. Making a change to any gun specific law will not suddenly make it ‘more’ illegal to kill people, and only the law abiding people will follow it anyway.

    2) Lots of people need a .223 rifle, such as hunters and farmers. This is very small calibre (it is a 5.56mm bullet), and the minimum caliber required to kill a small animal like a fox, or sheep.

    3) The picture of the sniper rifle is very misleading. That type of rifle, with scope and bipod is already illegal for most of the US. Far and away the most common .223 rifle is a single shot, bolt action rifle used solely for farming and hunting.

    4) Since banning automatic and semi automatic rifles from people without a reason in Australia, 85% of firearm deaths have been caused by criminals using unregistered firearms (or so wikipedia says), so why would a ban be any more effective in the US?

    5) Plenty of people have lawful reasons to own an automatic rifle, even in Australia you can still legally own them if it is for use with your primary employment.

    6) There are plenty of other ways to save the children, such as wearing helmets on bikes, wearing sunscreen in the sun, preventing domestic violence, outlawing car crashes (10 times as many deaths as firearms), banning stairs in houses (2 times as many), putting up a fence at the beach, banning junk food, making obese kids lose weight (5 times as many), banning knives and only eating with spoons (3 times as many)…

    7) Wow. The 2nd amendment. These firearms have ligitimate civilian uses, and correct, a .223 rifle is nothing compared to nuclear bombs, Reaper UAVs, Aircraft carriers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    I am not trying to say that killing children is ok, but instead of taking out your anger on law abiding gun owners, how about you take some time to think about the real problems in society.

    1. I simply can’t understand how you can’t see that the gun laws are the problem.
      Before 1996 Australia had 13 gun massacres. Since 1996 (when auto and semi-auto weapons were banned) we’ve had 0. Those types of guns are completely unnecessary for most people. There may be some exceptions, but those people (as you said) can get special licences for them. Having such free and easy access to such high powered weapons enables people to do bad things. Your freedom to own lots of guns is NOT more important than the safety of children.
      Your justification of the right to arms is missing the point. Gun control WILL help. It has in every single country where gun laws have been tightened. Of course it can never solve the problem completely, but it can save so many lives. Lives are more important.
      And obviously there are other problems in society, and those definitely need to be addressed, but gun law reform is an excellent place to start.

  2. Wow,

    The death penalty has not proved to be the deterrent everyone thought it would be. I’m not sure how much more you could deter someone; make threats on the potential offender’s family ?

    Lots of people do not actually need a 5.56mm rifle. If you’ve needed an M16 to take out a sheep, then yours must be a whole lot better trained & equipped than the ones I’ve dealt with. Whilst local farmers didn’t want to lose their larger weapons some years ago, I seriously doubt many of them would attribute a farm’s negative business perfomance to it. Bating is a far more effecient use of a farmer’s time, although I would even admit, less fun.

    To describe the United States prime military round as a “very small calibre” is just a little insulting to all the people since the early 1960s who have ever felt the sharp end of one. It’s more accurate and far more reflective of its commercial deployment, to say it’s the minimum required to kill people.

    Scopes are neither misleading nor in my experience (fairly strict gun laws) illegal – so – point not effectively made.

    I’m sure it’s true that most firearms offences are made using unregistered firearms. This in itself does not address how many there are, or how many more there would have been if the laws hadn’t been tightened. This is where quoting a percentage is completely ineffectual. It simply acknowleges that criminals work in an illegal framework. Don’t forget that the other 15% were offences as well, and the firearms used were most likely subsequently de-registered. Good thing too.

    Only those charged (as in employed) to enforce law and protection of public and Commonwealth/national interests could justify use of automatic weapons. No one else does. No one. Ever. Anywhere. Ever. That’s it.
    Keep in mind, that once someone leaves the service of the government, they don’t get to take it home with them.
    If you’re going to invade a brown bear’s territory then face it like a man – take one shot and if you miss, admit you were stupid and run.

    Supply. It’s a very simple numbers thing. Criminals will find where legitimate guns are and will steal them. Have you never heard of this ? The less we allow out there, and the smaller they are, then the less risk they pose in the long run. And a gun safe is only inversely as effective as the amount of preparation and time the criminal has to break into it.

    How would you feel if a gun used to kill someone was first stolen from you, even if you were a ‘legitimate’ owner ?
    – don’t say it couldn’t happen.

    I’m glad there’s other people who are against killing children. Phew. A desire for criminals to have less access to guns however, is not born of anger, it’s common sense. I’ve used them and enjoyed it, though can happily admit that I’m more safe with them not being around.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s