Gun control saves lives

  • Follow Letters

In our national gun debate, gun-rights advocates have misrepresented the intentions of President Obama and those who seek tighter restrictions on guns.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. Citizens are not allowed to own chemical weapons, for example, even though they fall under the extremely broad category of “arms.” So our national debate is not over whether Americans may own guns but over what kind of weapons have a justifiable civilian use. Even the First Amendment is not absolute. It does not protect defamatory speech or, famously, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Why should we consider the Second Amendment absolute?

Assault rifles are designed by the military to effectively wound and kill human beings. After all, they are not called “hunting rifles” or “self-defense rifles.” Self-defense is one thing, but why does any law-abiding gun owner need armor-piercing bullets? One study, reported in the Southern Medical Journal in 2010, found that a gun is 12 times more likely to result in the death of a household member or guest than in the death of an intruder.

President Obama has not advocated the confiscation of assault weapons or even universal registration. Gun-rights proponents who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the president’s position. The president has made the case for limiting only the future sale of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Also, like guns, cars are responsible for a staggering number of deaths each year. That is why cars are subject to strict controls and may only be driven by registered citizens of a certain age. Why, when we have such a sickening number of gun deaths each year, do we not have similar regulations?

Gun-rights advocates are correct in saying these measures will not solve the problem of gun violence in America. But if commonsense legislation is passed simply to reduce gun violence, then we will be saving lives.

Daniel Barden


Comments (24) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Darby 01/28/13 - 04:03 pm
Shrimp - It's not paranoid if they really are....

out to get you.

As for ASSAULT RIFLE, I defy you to define it legally. Congress tried in their last laughable gun control bill and FAILED miserably. That was one reason attempts to extend the ban collapsed. That and the fact that the bill accomplished nothing.

The Assault Weapons bill was in fact an ASSAULT on freedom.

Stupid things such as, a flash suppressor on a rifle made it an ASSAULT weapon. The EXACT SAME rifle without the suppressor was just fine. The old M-1 Garrand was an ASSAULT RIFLE because it had a bayonet stud, but file that stud off and the weapon became legal.

Stupid people make stupid laws. There really is no such thing as an assault rifle. At least in 27 years of military service, I never encountered one.

ALL military weapons are designed to be used in an assault. That would include the old 1903, bolt action Springfield rifle and the M-1911, 45 caliber pistol. But our illustrious congress didn't see the need to lump them in with other ASSAULT weapons.

Back to Top
Search Augusta jobs