From ABC News working with a police department on an experiment "to test the ability of average people without crisis training to react and protect themselves with a gun under stress".
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Friday, May 1, 2015
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU: Guns vs Jobs
Some, including Mayor Bloomberg and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, were disappointed that there was no overt mention of gun control in the 2011 State of the Union.
They missed the point. Apply some perspective.
Yes, gun control is a big issue. Yes, it's ridiculous to fail to restore restriction on the size of gun ammo magazines back down to a sane level as per the collective failure that's been going on since the assault weapon ban expired.
But the President of the United States can't ignore the big picture. We're living in a time of high unemployment. Too many people call for massive cuts that would likely throw us into an avalanche of crushing unemployment. Too many people call for insane moves like blocking the debt ceiling that would likely jam the entire world economy into a tailspin. These economic issues have the potential to bring widespread violence through collapse if the President doesn't talk them down from that fiscal ledge. If we went there, it would not be the first time that unemployment heated anger to boil over. The first priority of the President of the United States must be to keep our economy from grinding to a halt. Everything else depends on this. All the refinements of civil society to protect this or restrict that depend on our economy running at least well enough to keep our civil institutions going.
Gun control -- even the most sane and obvious restrictions like a cap on magazine size -- can be a very contentious and partisan issue. Maybe he could have pulled it off. But were the President to go there in the State of the Union, it would risk focusing his entire message on that issue. Yes, it's important. But even bigger concerns loom over our Union. We have 535 members of Congress who can worry about championing all of the secondary and tertiary issues. When the basic stability of the nation is at stake, the President needs to be focused on the jobs that make it possible to keep our society together.
They missed the point. Apply some perspective.
Yes, gun control is a big issue. Yes, it's ridiculous to fail to restore restriction on the size of gun ammo magazines back down to a sane level as per the collective failure that's been going on since the assault weapon ban expired.
But the President of the United States can't ignore the big picture. We're living in a time of high unemployment. Too many people call for massive cuts that would likely throw us into an avalanche of crushing unemployment. Too many people call for insane moves like blocking the debt ceiling that would likely jam the entire world economy into a tailspin. These economic issues have the potential to bring widespread violence through collapse if the President doesn't talk them down from that fiscal ledge. If we went there, it would not be the first time that unemployment heated anger to boil over. The first priority of the President of the United States must be to keep our economy from grinding to a halt. Everything else depends on this. All the refinements of civil society to protect this or restrict that depend on our economy running at least well enough to keep our civil institutions going.
Gun control -- even the most sane and obvious restrictions like a cap on magazine size -- can be a very contentious and partisan issue. Maybe he could have pulled it off. But were the President to go there in the State of the Union, it would risk focusing his entire message on that issue. Yes, it's important. But even bigger concerns loom over our Union. We have 535 members of Congress who can worry about championing all of the secondary and tertiary issues. When the basic stability of the nation is at stake, the President needs to be focused on the jobs that make it possible to keep our society together.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Gun Stances
In the wake of the assassination attempt on Rep Giffords that turned into a mass shooting, it is only natural that we're all reminded of the repeatedly forgotten issue of gun control.
There have been repeated mentions that Giffords herself is a gun owner and "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". At least one news reporter has made remarks claiming that Rep Giffords ironically supported the right of the shooter to buy the very gun with which she was shot. Take from it what you will, but that doesn't seem to be the exact case. The gun used was a Glock 19 semi-automatic with an extended clip.
Here's a line item from the list of principles Rep Giffords indicated regarding gun control:
Does anyone really think that pistol is hunting gear? If not, you can't honestly claim Giffords supported the availability of that specific weapon just because she is a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". While she has supported the right to own guns and owns one herself, she is on record for opposing specific guns, including semi-automatics.
Of course, we shouldn't necessarily base our policy on Rep Giffords' stance just because she was shot. And even if the shooter had not been able to get a semi-automatic, he might still have shot Rep Giffords. But we should be aware that if semi-automatic guns had been banned according to her stated stance -- or even if extended magazines such as the one that allowed him to load so many bullets at once were still illegal -- it would have made it significantly harder for the shooter to kill and injure as many people as he did without having to reload. After all, it was when his first magazine ran out of bullets and he tried to reload with a second magazine that he was tackled and disarmed.
"Is there a good reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun?" - Sam Stein
There have been repeated mentions that Giffords herself is a gun owner and "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". At least one news reporter has made remarks claiming that Rep Giffords ironically supported the right of the shooter to buy the very gun with which she was shot. Take from it what you will, but that doesn't seem to be the exact case. The gun used was a Glock 19 semi-automatic with an extended clip.
Here's a line item from the list of principles Rep Giffords indicated regarding gun control:
"Ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns, except those used for hunting."
Does anyone really think that pistol is hunting gear? If not, you can't honestly claim Giffords supported the availability of that specific weapon just because she is a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". While she has supported the right to own guns and owns one herself, she is on record for opposing specific guns, including semi-automatics.
Of course, we shouldn't necessarily base our policy on Rep Giffords' stance just because she was shot. And even if the shooter had not been able to get a semi-automatic, he might still have shot Rep Giffords. But we should be aware that if semi-automatic guns had been banned according to her stated stance -- or even if extended magazines such as the one that allowed him to load so many bullets at once were still illegal -- it would have made it significantly harder for the shooter to kill and injure as many people as he did without having to reload. After all, it was when his first magazine ran out of bullets and he tried to reload with a second magazine that he was tackled and disarmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)