Here’s yet another article I found online, It’s basically comparing firearm-related deaths to automobile-related deaths. Naturally the message in this article isn’t that we shouldn’t do anything about gun violence, but mostly to point out that people are directing their attention towards the wrong problem for the wrong reasons.
Countering Couric: More People Die In Traffic Accidents Than Gun Violence
April 8, 2009 - 12:26 ET
By Mike Sargent
CBS’s Katie Couric, formerly queen of “Today” show sunshine, has written a very anti-gun piece on her blog, Couric & Co. It seems worthwhile to do a point-by-point response, so below, please note that italics are from Couric's blog, and the response is in normal font.
Thirteen people shot dead in Binghamton, New York.
Four people crushed to death near the Georgia-Tennessee state line.
Eight killed at a North Carolina nursing home.
Four more people crushed or burned to death in Polk County, Florida.
Ten murdered across several towns in southern Alabama.
Seventeen people killed in Coalinga, California.
In the last month, seven mass shootings have claimed the lives of 53 people.
We all know the dangers of driving, but not many of us stop to think about it. Sometimes, a really bad accident can claim the lives of multiple people.
The enormity of these tragedies makes them front page news. But, on average, 32 people die every day in gun-related violence.
The enormous tragedy is, it's not front-page news. But, on average, 113 people died every day in a vehicle-related death in 2008. This is down about ten percent from the previous year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Gun control advocates say it is too easy for the wrong people to get their hands on a weapon.
Some say that it is too easy for the wrong people - young and inexperienced, old and physically unable, illegal immigrants, or even those convicted of driving under the influence - to get behind the wheel legally.
Background checks are meant to keep criminals from owning guns. But just
about anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a weapon from a private dealer, no questions asked.
Testing is meant to keep the woefully incompetent from driving. But in reality, just about anyone can walk into a state's Department of Motor Vehicles office and pass a basic proficiency test - no questions asked.
The Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence reports that 83% of Americans favor background checks on all gun sales.
There is no comparable campaign to prevent driving-related deaths. There are niche groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but nothing that deals with the entire problem of vehicle deaths.
Legislators have an obligation to protect the Constitution.
They also have a responsibility to protect citizens from more of the tragedies that keep replaying themselves in communities all across America.
But government has no obligation, or right, to deny firearms to law-abiding citizens for the sake of weeding out the minuscule amount of people who are depraved enough to go on murderous rampages. Like owning a vehicle, its proper operation and use can be beneficial and enjoyable - and improper operation and use can be deadly.
That's a page from my notebook.
Katie, your notebook is biased.
________________________
To visit the web page I found this on, click here. Link is to NewsBusters.org
9 comments:
Sheesh!
hi just read your post.
i was wondering what your thots were on machine guns
the government restricts them and thats a good thing.
dont you agree
the government should stop people from doing things that could hurt them
Dear Mr. Anonymous, Thank you for your comment! :-)
I respectfully disagree. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states this: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Last I checked, fully-automatic firearms are "arms" and therefore it is the right of the people keep and bear them. I would even go so far as to say that the people should be allowed to buy tanks, or missiles for that matter. As long as the owner doesn't hurt anybody (who is not breaking the law and endangering the general populace), the owner of said weapons should be able to keep owning them.
I myself would not take a fully-automatic firearm out in public or otherwise advertise that I had one, but if I had the money I would definitely purchase a machine gun for use as a home-defense weapon and for recreation.
I will also say, in answer to the last line in your comment, that it is not the governments job to keep people from doing things that could hurt them. According to the Bible, the government's job is the punish the wrongdoer, and to reward the righteous. With all due respect, I say that because nowhere in that sentence the phrase: "keep people from hurting themselves", it should NOT be of the government's concern.
I know this answer is getting kinda long, but I will conclude by analyze a one point.
Basically, if a gun is made illegal, the general, law-abiding populace cannot own them legally. However, criminals don't care about gun restrictions and they get the guns anyway. Now, if said criminal breaks into a house or robs a store, no one in the house or store has a weapon that compares to the criminals gun and no one can stand up to him! The people in the store will be killed and the criminal goes free (for the time being)
On the other hand, let me bring to light a story about a man who tried to rob a gun store... where half of the customers carry concealed weapons... how long do you think that criminal lasted?
Rule of thumb: if you criminalize guns... only criminals have them.
Once again, thank you for your comment! If you have any questions or counter points, please feel free to comment again!
Hang tight, man!
-Graydon :-)
P.S. Fully automatic firearms have just been made legal again, but under the Obama administration, this isn't expected to last long. too bad.
but wouldnt you say that by owning, say, missles is a threat to the general populace in and of itself?
do you think that people should be able to own nukes? those are "arms" too
if you give people too much freedom they endanger even themselves
some guns are ok but tanks and missles are getting a little carryed away
BTW I lv your profile pic. the coat makes you look totlly stoked
Thanks for commenting again! This is getting to be an excellent discussion! :-)
Maybe they do endanger themselves... so? As I have established, it's not the governments job to keep people from doing things. People do dangerous stuff all the time (driving being one of them) Besides, there have been plenty of nuclear bombs set off that didn't kill anybody, and even if someone had enough money to purchase a nuclear bomb, the company that made them probably wouldn't sell them to just anyone. If they did, I'm sure there would be an extensive users manual about where and when to set it off ;-)
But Seriously, there can be laws about the use of nuclear bombs, missiles, tanks or any other weapon. I mean, there are plenty of laws about the use of things already. The most obvious is to not kill anybody with it, but there could be lots of other ones that would make things safer. I'm not against laws, I just don't like laws that say certain things are illegal from the start. I would be more than happy with a law that says you're not allowed to keep nuclear bombs within 50 miles of a city or something else of the kind.
But we're kinda getting off track here. I suggested Tanks and Missiles for emphasis on the point that all guns should be legal.
I still don't quite see why tanks and missiles are carried away. I like blowing stuff up, as do most people (this is proven by the action/violence movie industry), and if I had the money laying around, I'd buy a missile or a tank for the 4th of July or something. Once again, I say that I'm fine with specific laws concerning weapons; maybe there should be a special type of drivers license for tanks, or a background check to buy rockets etc. You get the idea.
Anyway, as I said the point is that Guns don't cause crime, criminals cause crime and it's not the weapons that should be outlawed, it the misuse of them.
I hope I brought some good arguments to the table. As before, if you want to continue discussing this issue with me, feel free! :-)
Thanks for your comments!
-Graydon :-)
hi, interesting discussion were having here
i guess i just dont see what were arguing about here; you just said (quote):
"Once again, I say that I'm fine with specific laws concerning weapons..."
if youre fine with the government restricting the use of weapons, arnt we just arguing over what laws are good, and which ones arnt?
you also are contradicting yourself. before you made this point you said in the first paragraph (quote) :
"...it's not the governments job to keep people from doing things..."
if you dont think that its the governments job to keep people from doing things, why do you support the government restricting weapon use?
--------------------
P.S. Sam is such a jerk.
I am not!
;-)
good point, Anonymous, but that's not quite what I meant. I didn't mean that I'm fine with the government restricting the use of firearms, I was intending to put emphasis on that my belief that for something as massive as a rocket launcher, perhaps the buyer should have to get a permit for it, or use it outside city limits etc. But it shouldn't be entirely illegal (I think having to use it outside city limits sort of defeats the purpose of a home defense weapon, but who wants a rocket launcher as a home defense weapon?)
Anyway, the point of the article was that guns should be legal and they're not as dangerous as people think, and I'm afraid you really haven't brought anything up that proves that's wrong in any degree.
I hope I don't sound too mean or anything, I really am enjoying this discussion a lot! You've brought to light a lot of the holes in my arguments and I hope we'll both be better at stating our views after this discussion!
"See" you around?
-Graydon :-)
P.S. I think Sam is a jerk too ;-)
Actually, I was just kidding, but you can think that if you want. I'm not in your head ;-)
btw, I only said that 'cause I was catching on to Sam's anonymous-y comments. Nice one, by the way, Sam. I had no clue it was you until your "Sam's a jerk" line :-)
Post a Comment