How dare he? What in the world is he thinking? How could anyone have the audacity to challenge the mainstream Media's coverage of violence and crime? How could anyone muster the courage to call them out on their lies and hypocrisies? Everyone knows that the solution to school shootings is an assault weapons ban, because that is what the media has been pressing for years. Everyone knows that guns are evil. Well, they do find some obvious exceptions; like when they are used by the secret service to protect the President, the police when responding to a shooting in progress, armed security at professional sporting events. (after all the fans must be protected right?) Yet, Wayne LaPierre must surely be off his rocker now. He claims that guns must also be used to protect our children. Why, how dare he? He almost acts as if they are young, defenseless, and innocent. The Executive Vice President of the NRA also made some other insinuations. Can you believe that someone could possibly believe that young people's addiction to violent video games could lead to...(gasp) violence? Then to think that the media's glorification of Hollywood and Hollywood's obsession with violence could somehow be linked to a violence filled society. Then to accuse the media of silence on these "non-issues" right in front of them. Surely, this was an accidental oversight. They were covering more important things, like gun control. Because everyone knows that if you take away guns, you take away crime.
Enough sarcasm? Except the problem is, this is not sarcasm. This is the media's response to the NRA's press conference earlier today. Actually, their response was primarily focused on those which some how found their way into the event to protest; holding signs which accuses the NRA of the CT shooting and children dying. Because, they felt like protesters calling the NRA child killers was more newsworthy then the NRA's multi-million dollar investment to start a program offering school solutions to discourage these types of crimes from occurring in the future. This program was yawned at, because they have already successfully convinced the majority of American people, that the only solution is an assault weapons ban.
What is wrong with an assault weapons ban? Nothing, if there was actually a definition of assault weapons and a logical plan to enforce the law; without violating individual rights, that could be presented for debate. Yet, debate is exactly what the media wants. A debate that they can dictate and moderate. A debate that they can spin as being one-sided and one with only one obvious solution. The very term, "assault weapons", was coincidentally formed by democrats several years ago on capitol hill. The term has never been defined and what constitutes a gun being placed in this classification is up to individual opinions. The media talks of them like they are clearly marked on the box which holds the gun. "WARNING- THIS IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON." So let us outline these problems in simplicity.
1.) Their is no such thing as an assault weapon. A 22 used to hunt squirrels can be used as a weapon which assaults another person, just like: knives, (primary murder weapon in countries that attempts to ban guns) box cutters, (only weapon used on 9-11) ball bats, and even toilet plungers. I can hear it now...The NTPA. (The National Toilet Plunger Association) Some have suggested that any semi-automatic gun should be classified in this category and thus banned. Here is the problem...The people that are suggesting such laws do not even know how guns are manufactured. Almost any hunting rifle can be easily turned into a semi-automatic and their is no way to stop this, without eliminating the Second Amendment. Are their some types of guns that are on the streets, which should not be there? Absolutely, but they must be clearly defined.
2.) Enforcement of such laws are nearly impossible to enforce, except after a violent crime has been committed. Let's take the shooting at Columbine for example. Their was already an "assault weapons ban" in the books and being "enforced" at the time of that terrible shooting. How quickly people forget that Bill Clinton signed such a law back in the 90s and that the law did nothing to cut down on gun related violence. In fact, up until this year, gun violence has been rapidly declining since the ban was repealed. Is their a need for better enforcement of gun laws? Absolutely, but the focus would have to be shifted to law enforcement. Solving questions like: How do we get guns out of the hands of the mentally handicapped? How do we stop the sales of some of these dangerous weapons?, without violating or restricting the lawful gun ownership of law-abiding citizens for self-defense and hunting. Let's not forget that what took place in CT broke almost every law in the book. The revolting act took place despite having clear laws banning guns from the school property, "assault weapons" banned in the state, and not to mention that old law about murder. New laws may be great and perfectly in order, but in a lawless society, laws will always be broken. I have become nauseated by this gullible notion that new laws will immediately stop that which has been outlawed.
The problem with this is that it takes the focus off of gun laws and onto enforcement and this is not what the gun blamers and media wants to talk about. Of course, the media gets to choose what they talk about and what the American people consider the news for the day. If they do not want want something discussed, then they stay silent. The American people in return will either never find out or think it was not really newsworthy. Since the shooting in Sandy Hook the prevailing story line has been that every rational person wants gun control and that this would immediately eliminate school shootings.
What I will never understand about this debate is that these types of shootings are always occurring at the very places in which guns are not allowed for any reason. The the movie theatre shooting took place in Aurora, CO and happened to be one of the few theatres that did not allow concealed weapons. In fact people have been speculating as to why the shooter did not target one of the six theatres closer to his home. I don't think it is a coincidence that all six of these happened to allow concealed carry. I also find it compelling that in states like Florida and Texas, which have legalized concealed weapons, that the crime rates are at much lower points today then at any time before the law was enacted.