Gun laws would not have stopped the bombers

As an Australian it is not my business to enter into the gun debate in the USA but that does not mean that I cannot take an active interest :). For reference here, during the 1960s my first cousin Dorn was kidnapped raped and murdered by someone who owned a shotgun. She was shot in the head so it would not have been a pretty sight. Yet, that incident has not in any way shaped my own thoughts on the subject of gun control.

Australians do not have something like the Second Amendment. We have not felt the need to possess guns to protect ourselves. Most of the gun violence comes from people who hold illegal firearms and a lot of the murders are by means other than with guns. It seems that knives are very popular as a murder weapon, and fists are probably the next most popular murder weapon, followed by an assortment of other unlikely objects, including a kettle.

Since the Sandy Hook shootings the Australian media have done their best to give what I consider to be an inaccurate picture of violence in the USA. Even when they babbled on about the death of that girl in Chicago they forgot to add that Chicago has very strict gun laws that prevents citizens from protecting themselves from the hoods and that the girl was in fact shot by someone who had a gun illegally.

So, it should come as no surprise to learn that the Tsarnaev brothers, who were in possession of some guns and ammunition – used to kill Officer Collier and wound the other officer – did not have a permit to own any guns or ammunition.

It seems to me that the laws the push to limit second amendemnt rights is a waste of time and yet again I see proof to support my own understanding – that licensed gun owners are far more responsible than those who do not have a license and hold their weapons illegally.

By all means there should be a crackdown on the illegal gun owners but there is absolutely no need to draft useless draconian laws that infringe the US Second Amendment.


Comments are closed.