As tragic as any death is, one or more deaths by a firearm seems to really spark outrage at inanimate objects. Why? It does not seem appropriate if you think about it rationally. The problem is that if someone despises an idea or concept then they feel they should thrust their ire and views on everyone by having laws changed etc. The real issue that this causes with guns is that, per the constitutions ‘Bill of Rights’ we are (and should be) protected from any sort of law that would deny us the availability and/or use of any firearm.

According to the National Archives website (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html) ‘During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.’

Now, if we look at the order of the Bill of Rights we see the following for the first 2 amendments:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is important to note that the very first issue that needed to be resolved was the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and to be able to petition the government. The 2nd Amendment states that we need a well regulated militia to maintain our freedom AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The second amendment was their to make sure that the first amendment did not get infringed upon.

Many have tried ‘interpreting’ the second amendment and have twisted and turned it so that it fits their own view but looking at it from the perspective of why the Bill of Rights was added to begin with was (according to the National Archives) ‘Opponents of the Constitution demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.’ which to me means that the original amendments were meant for individual citizens!

There are those who claim that this document was written at a time when arms were not as powerful as they are now etc. True, but their is nothing in there that is specific to any firearm of the time either which I interpret as meaning an individual should be able to arm himself with any firearm that anyone else may be able to use against them. If we apply the same principle to the first amendment then the government can say their is nothing in the 1st amendment about the internet so we can censor that! Freedom of press meant the printing press!! How would you feel if people tried using that argument for censoring the internet? I am sure you would feel its ridiculous yet its the same principle many use for their argument against the 2nd amendment.

I understand that there are those that do not like guns and think they should be outlawed but they are as protected as the free speech that we enjoy.

Lets think about this: If we take away guns from gun violence or gun crimes then we still have violence and crimes! This does not fix the problem. If we remove violence from gun violence then all we have is guns which by itself does nothing! Small steps of limiting certain guns or how many rounds can be in a clip are just the same type of infringement only in smaller doses. They think that they can slowly take away small pieces here and there and before you know it they accomplish their goal of no guns. This will not make us any safer, it will only make us more vulnerable to those who do not follow the law.

How about if the government said that ‘since the speed limit in my state is only a maximum of 65mph then there is no need for any vehicle that can travel faster than that! Lets submit bills that would require vehicles to have restrictors so they do not exceed the speed limit. Although you may think it sounds like a good idea I cannot think of anyone who would buy a car like that let alone allow that kind of law to be passed, its just ridiculous.

Guns are not bad.
Guns in the hands of citizens are not bad.
Guns in the hands of bad people are real bad!

Simple solution is to eliminate bad people then, dont you think!

The Newtown, CT shootings were a tragedy. something that should never ever happen in this world. Innocent children killed at the whim of someone who was obviously void of emotion, sympathy, compassion. We here at Sherrickworld are keeping all the victims of this tragedy in our hearts and prayers.

That said, I am none surprised that the gun control rhetoric has hit the media full steam ahead. some of the arguments you hear are, why do they even sell guns that shoot that many bullets, etc. Well, realistically, the answer is because we can! We sell cars that can go faster than the speed limit, why? Is it not the same since ‘speed kills’??!! We sell gasoline and matches that can do extremely large amount of violence and damage in a very short period of time. We have all kinds of weapons in this world, some not as powerful and some much more powerful – all have been used at one point or another in time. The problem as I see it is that the weapons, by themselves, do not do anything. They require a human being to bring out any good or evil that will come of their use. Why is it that we so quickly and easily blame the evil in this world on souless possessions and not on the evil being that made the item do the evil?

Then there is the hypocracy. what I mean by that is this – a gun is used to kill people and all the gun-haters want guns banned. What about when a car is used in an evil way where someone decides in a fit of rage to plow into a crowd of people (yes it happens more than you would suspect). I have never once heard anyone call for a ban on cars! Why? because most people use and rely on cars so they think that is an acceptable part of society. Not everyone uses guns so it would not inconvenience them at all if guns were banned.

Then there is the numbers game. If there is a gun tragedy where 20 kids are innocently killed by a gun then there is no need for a gun that shoots 30 rounds. Does that mean that those people have a magical number of deaths that is acceptable? Is it ok to shoot just 2 people without it being a big deal?! Is it a bigger tragedy when one person dies from a drunk driver than one person from a gunman – of course not, they are both a tragedy of the same magnitude but somehow the shooting is used by the media to be a bigger deal and that starts all kinds of laws and bans to be mentioned. Why again is their no talk of a ban on cars? In the case of the car, the driver is (rightfully) blamed and the car was just the means they used to do their evil. Hypocracy!!

Some would say that it is the ability to get guns that can shoot hundreds of rounds in mere seconds – they cause too much destruction and death too quickly so they need to be banned. What about gasoline then, why is it not banned? It can (and has been many times as well) used to start fires by arsonists that may kill literally hundreds of people at a time. Why no ban on gasoline? Matches?

In all these cases except the gun deaths, the media and general public thinks the crime is tragic but ultimately blame (and rightly so) the person doing the evil, not the method of their evil. In the case of guns it never seems to be the same though, there is a double standard when it comes to guns, too much hypocracy when it comes to guns yet we have many more dangerous ‘weapons’ that we use everyday. We do not want them banned because it would make life inconvenient for us – pure hypocracy!

The real issue is the human who is doing the evil, they are the ones that should be held 100% responsible no matter what method they use to do their evil. Make it hard for the evil doers to get any weapon of destruction because if they could not get guns I am sure they would find something else to use.

2009 Statistics from the CDC - Mortality
All injury deaths
    Number of deaths: 177,154
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
    Number of deaths: 34,485
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2

All poisoning deaths
    Number of deaths: 41,592
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5

All firearm deaths
    Number of deaths: 31,347
    Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

As you can see firearm deaths are lower than both poison and cars for total deaths and deaths per 100,000 people. The epidemic is not handgun deaths based on statistics, yet we can readily get both poison and cars just as easy if not easier than we can get firearms. Stop blaming guns for the evil that people do, blame the people and hold them accountable and try to determine what caused them to do the evil. That is the only real solution – figure out why people do evil things and then stop them from doing the evil!