Gun rights and wrongs

This time, the stories are saying, it’s different.

This latest massacre in America has some politicians vowing to tighten rules on access to assault rifles, automatic weapons and clips with multiple rounds. The horror of Friday morning in Newtown, Conn., has awakened those who feel the country is too soaked in blood, with far too many guns available to flawed, dangerous people.

Look at last week — two victims killed, followed by the suicide of the shooter, at the Clackamas Town Center in the suddenly ironically named Happy Valley, Ore. That dominated headlines for a few days, before 28 died in Newtown. Add in the 50 rounds fired in a Newport Beach, Calif., mall parking lot, the two Topeka, Kan., police officers shot and killed Monday … the deadly count keeps adding up.

But while those who are concerned about guns promise action, and President Obama said he will do all he can to change things during his emotional speech in Newtown Sunday night, there is sure to be considerable opposition.

The people who oppose restrictions claim the Second Amendment prohibits government restrictions on their firepower. And they also feel safer with guns in their homes, vehicles, and increasingly, strapped to their sides in public.

The old argument has been renewed: Too many guns cause death and destruction vs. guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Will there be a new outcome to this debate? Will Obama and Congress reduce the volume and kind of guns in this land? And if they do, will we be safer?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>