The Newtown shootings changed Alex Yarde’s sense of safety. Now he’s even more shaken as the Assault Weapons Ban has been cut from the gun control bill.
Yesterday I woke to news that sank my heart. The Assault Weapons Ban was excised from the gun control bill. Senator Reid claims that in this political climate, he simply didn’t have the votes. Just three months after the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, he did not have the votes…stunning. Diane Feinstein was disappointed as well. As author of the first ban, she knew the window of opportunity for passage of a new ban was small. I am sure that checking the pulses of Mayor Moscone and Gay Rights Advocate Harvey Milk while they lay slain by assassin’s bullets and seeing coroner’s photos of the dismembered bodies of the Newtown school children motivated her. Where is everybody else? What is motivating them?
The morning of the Newtown shootings, I had the same sickening feeling I had on 9/11 (9/11 for me was a long commute on a bus and walking home while desperately trying to connect on the phone with my wife, who worked in the financial district). The early media responses from Newtown immediately made me think about my own children in school, as I’m sure all parents did. That night, I hugged by children extra tight and watched the coverage of unthinkable events (not so different than 9/11 when I hugged my wife, covered in soot, extra tight and watched the coverage of unthinkable events). I think that is where the analogy stops, however. After 911, there was unity that led us to a “war” with the terrorists, because we wanted to protect our way of life.
Newtown, however, has also changed my way of life. Fully understanding how the easy access of weapons could impact my life makes dropping my kids off at school every morning a challenge. I wonder all day: is the building locked, is the classroom locked, are visitors being buzzed in all the time, when will school let out (so I can breathe a little easier)? I also wonder who in my town owns guns and whether they are locked. I know that I need to ask this question before play dates. It is certainly a new dialog.
Yet, somehow, in this case, the way of life that seems to be most protected and advanced is the ownership of guns, not our safety. Since Newtown, 2,793 Americans have been killed by guns in the United States*. In fact, according to a UN study from 2003 -2010 88,000 people were killed by guns in United States.
Given our response to 9/11, I would think that if 88,000 Americans were killed we would move heaven and earth to rectify the situation and become proactive to protect our way of life. Wouldn’t we?
*as of my writing of this article, according to @gundeaths
Ray – limiting weapon sales to certain profiles clearly doesn’t work. Lanza and the Sandy Hook killer both grabbed guns legally purchased by family members. Not having guns in the equation is the only way to be sure (see the UK, Australia, Japan etc for how this works). Alice – I’m aware of the terminology, which is why I never used the term “assault” weapons. Mass shootings may not rack up a lot of bodies compared to other violent crimes or accidents, but you don’t seem to be considering the other costs – like say for instance when nearly two… Read more »
No kind of gun ban will take guns off the streets and out of the hands of the general population. Weed is illegal, and a lot of people have no problem getting it if they want. Weed, crack-cocaine, heroine, prostitution are all illegal but they are still readily available. Banning assault weapons or guns will not stop crime. At the end of the day, much violence is gang related, and I doubt if thug boy is going to comply with any gun laws. Even if worse come the worse they could always buy them from cartels. Most places in America… Read more »
Gun control measures – of any kind – would be a step in the right direction, and get the US more in line with most developed countries (places which don’t see the ridiculous and ongoing mass-shooting / home accident phenomena). Having people accept further restrictions on weapons than currently exist would allow for even stricter controls in future. Then, when 47% of US homes no longer contain guns and the rest of the first world doesn’t have to choose between shaking our heads in disbelief / resignation or laughing out loud every time we hear about *yet another* person who… Read more »
I think u all r trippin over the word assault. if u look at it most every gun is simi auto……alot of huntin guns are to. all these guns can do the same thing to a human body….it DOESNT take an assault weapon. u cant just ban a gun or type of gun when theres nothing wrong with it……just gotta make it to were NUT JOBS cant buy a weapon period.
Like it or not, the fact is the assault weapon ban would not have done a damn thing, for several reasons: First, most gun violence is done with a handgun. Second, Conn. already has an AW ban modeled after the federal ban that expired in 2004. Even if an AW ban would work, the current bill banned weapons by name (such as the Bushmaster), but it left out other weapons that fired just as many rounds just as quickly. The ban was mostly based on guns that appeared “scary” and not those that were in in any way more dangerous… Read more »
Less than 3% of murders in the U.S. are committed with rifles of any kind. Even if you could magically make all ‘assault weapons’ disappear and that stops every murder that would have used one you have no chance of reducing violent crime by more than 3%. That’s not effective at all. How about getting people to stop acting violently? It’s a cultural and socioeconomic issue that influence individuals to chose to commit violent acts, not weapons.