Of Shopping Malls and AR-15’s

by Jennifer Davis on December 12, 2012

Yesterday at a mall in a suburb of Portland, Oregon there was what law enforcement refers to as an “active shooter scenario”. In English that means that there was a seriously disturbed individual that went into a shopping mall two weeks before Christmas and opened fire on innocent people for no apparent reason. Without fail, there were those (like Sen. Ginny Burdick (D)) who called for the ban of high capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons. Just like the much disputed comments of Bob Costas when the Jovan Belcher murder/suicide occurred scarcely a week ago, Ms. Burdick’s comments have reignited the never ending debate in this nation on gun control.

Never mind my political affiliation (Republican for the curious), or my background (Military Brat)-the proposal to take weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens has never made sense to me. Now I am fully aware that many people argue that the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution was never meant to apply to modern times; it was written with militia in mind when our nation was young and less organized. It is true that the 2nd Amendment does mention militia but it also states clearly that the people have the right to keep and bear arms-see here. Now, when we look at crime statistics in societies which have banned firearms, like Britain for example, we tend to see an explosion of gun crimes committed. Just in the past year, one article states that criminals have used firearms in 46% more offenses from April 2010-April 2011. According to information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, nonfatal firearm incidents in 2009 (the last year for which these data are available) comprised a scant 8% of all violent crimes in the U.S. So, I feel pretty safe saying the following to Ms. Burdick and Mr. Costas-if you disarm the law abiding population of the U.S. you are not only violating their 2nd Amendment rights under the Constitution, you are ignoring the statistics that tell us that no matter how many of these types of stories splash across American media-only 8% of violent crimes in this nation involve firearms.

When someone bashes in the head of their spouse with a baseball bat, why doesn’t anyone call for a ban on Louisville Sluggers which are sold in sports supply stores across this nation every day? The answer is clear-because the gun debate is a hotly contested issue in this nation’s politics and has been for years. Anytime you have a powerful lobbying group, in this case the NRA, supporting an issue which is largely supported by one political orientation (right wingers of all degrees from moderate to extreme) the opposing side is going to object.

The point of this posting isn’t to revisit this debate yet again; it is simply to observe that perhaps we should start to apply some logic to how we view this situation. While it is difficult to view things on the news like the assault on holiday shoppers in a suburban oasis like a shopping mall and hold logic firmly in our minds-but we need to as a society. If you doubt what I am saying, just call a friend who lives in an area affected by Hurricane Sandy or Katrina. One friend of mine who lives in Manhattan told me stories about how the societal fabric broke down a short 24 hours prior to Hurricane Sandy even hitting. She fled to a safer location-not just from the storm, but from those looting the bodegas and restaurants. No matter how she felt about firearms prior to that experience, she thought about it afterward and is in the process of changing her views on the topic. I am not asking those who read this who might agree with Ms. Burdick to simply turn to my side on this issue-only to keep the facts in mind when discussing how we as a society react to situations like Tuesday’s insane rampage.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Dana December 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm

A couple of years ago, I suggested on my old, now defunct blog, a couple of constitutional amendments for our friends on the left, including this one:

Amendment XXIX

Section 1: The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
Section 2: (a) Private ownership of operable firearms is hereby prohibited. The Congress may allow individual, registered collectors to own and possess registered antique firearms, if they are in a permanently disabled condition.
(b): Neither the government of the United States nor any of the governing subdivisions therein are required to pay compensation for firearms confiscated and destroyed under the provisions of Section 2 (a).
Section 3: The manufacture, possession, purchase or sale of operable firearms of any type is prohibited within the United States, save for those registered companies manufacturing firearms for the Armed Forces of the United States, or authorized federal, state and local law enforcement agencies certified by the Department of Justice.
Section 4: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment through the passage of appropriate legislation.

Through 49 comments, including from at least three people who oppose the clear meaning of the First and Second Amendments, there was no support at all for actually following the process of amending the Constitution to achieve what they thought should be achieved.

Instead, they would rather –dishonestly, in my view — simply “interpret” the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, rather than to mean what it clearly states.

Reply

Paul Goldman December 13, 2012 at 4:08 pm

I like your page…
If there was a person with a gun in there and saw this kid with a gun shooting up the place ..I think that he would have stopped the gunman from killing anyone…If they had the right to carry a gun this wouldn’t have happened…Just my opinion!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: