It never fails, one of the first things to happen following a national tragedy is for folks to take sides based on their political views. Any act of violence involving firearms is immediately followed by a cry for more gun control.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg started the debate shortly following the horrible attack in Colorado.
He seems to be okay with taking away personal freedoms. He's the same guy that wants to make rules preventing people from purchasing big, sugary sodas. This time he's taking aim at the second amendment.
I think what happened last week is awful. And I wish the alleged shooter, James Holmes, had somehow slipped up and signaled to others he was a very troubled man. But I don't think banning guns is the answer. He could have pulled off this dastardly deed in so many ways. And his weapon of choice could have been bombs built from common household products.
I think former Homeland Defense Secretary Michael Chertoff said it best on "Meet the Press" Sunday when he offered this thought: "The problem here is with the people and not with the tools."
So I ask the question, what if Holmes would have dispersed gasoline throughout the theatre and lit a match...do you think we would be debating this week whether or not to shut down the gas stations?
That's my turn. Now it's your turn. To comment on this segment, or anything else, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Emailed comments from viewers:
Often complaining about others expressing their political and personal opinions..that's usually what your segment is all about..whether it's baseball coming to Wilmington or counties merging... but when you simplified the Colorado shootings down to using gasoline as an analogy.. ignoring the use of assault weapons, role playing and violence in our culture...you insult the intelligence of the community..It's not only ignorant..with gun control issues..it's dangerous..
Your view on the slaughter in Colorado has distinct political party posturing and a dose of opposing party bashing.
Which party have you sided with on this issue? Former Homeland Security Chertoff served under George Bush. Governor Bloomberg is a Democrat. The same one that suggested he was concerned with the impact Obesity has on this nation. Perhaps trying to regulate the amount of soda we consume is overstepping the relationship government has with the people. Perhaps banning assault rifles is not the end all answer. In practical terms there is no need for an individual to own an assault weapon. Is there empirical data supporting the usefulness of owning this type of weapon? They were born of a need to eliminate the enemy in short fashion.
As a Veteran, I support the rights of the people. However, there are many people that will exploit their rights for a twisted cause or fantasy. We have laws because we the people cannot be trusted to act with civility…this world is in a different state of mind. We need answers. We need to be creative. We need a team approach and less sticks drawing lines in the sand.
I ABSOLUTELY agree!! As a retired law enforcement officer with over 30 years of service I can tell you that restricting law abiding citizens is a big mistake. After all the criminal element will ignore the laws. That's why they are called "criminals." The criminal element prefers the path of least resistance. If you un-arm law abiding citizens you just pave that path of least resistance. It is ABSOLUTELY about the person and not the tools. It is common sense and I thank you for taking a stance and seeing the obvious. May others follow your lead.
We should at least renew the ban on assault weapons. Would you give us that much?
I saw your editorial this morning. Your right… 2nd Amendment Rights need to be protected. Your wrong… Those rights should not unlimited.
I'm not jumping onto any political bandwagon here in reference to Aurora. It's a tragedy that should not have happened. But let's go to your editorial for a moment…
2nd Amendment advocates want to make "the right to bear arms" an unlimited right, with no questions asked. We can buy any gun, at any time, without any undue interference from government. As such, I can buy a 50 caliber machine gun – military grade – with almost zero effort. I have a clean record and for all purposes I appear to be a solid citizen. But why would I want a 50 caliber machine gun? Shouldn't that raise some questions?
But compare it to my 1st Amendment right to free speech. It is already well known that I have limits and I won't make further reference to "crowded theatre."
So let's look at the common sense of it all. The shooter at Aurora had every right to bear arms as judged by the Constitution of the United States. But, if there were some common sense limits to that right – as in we're not going to allow people to randomly own assault rifles capable of shooting 100 rounds at a time – the shooters ability to kill 12 and severely wound 58 more would have been severely diminished. The outcry you hear is not "Political" in nature. It's just a bunch of people expressing the need for this country to start using some common sense.
I would like you to know I do support Amendment 2, but I don't believe our Forfathers expected guns to be used in slatterys, but for self-defense and food. Would someone PLEASE, PLEASE give me a logically reason why we need AK47s or any other type of this guns. Don't tell me they are good for hunting, because that gun would blow the animal apart.
Help me to understand why anyone outside the Military and Police need them.
We had a conversation a few minutes ago when I referred to a friend saying that the IRA was at fault for the recent killings at Aurora, Colo.
I meant of course the NRA. I told you that I agree with you that this person and others like him would find a way to kill even if conventional
weapons were not available. I also told you that I agree with you most of the time.
Obviously logic eludes you on many levels. To compare gasoline to ASSAULT WEAPONS is simply absurd. Hand guns and assault rifles are designed for one thing and one thing only: killing other human beings. Chertoff was correct in that there are people with problems out there, but how can allowing them to arm themselves be a good thing? Statistics prove, and yes when I say "prove" I mean that it is a peer-reviewed unassailable fact, that firearms put the innocent at far greater risk than any phantom criminal elements. I have no doubt that any number of innocent victims shot by deranged individuals with legally purchased firearms will sway you and other gun rights advocates of the lunacy of an atavistic 230 year old law, but rest assured that in the face of overall falling crime rates these horrific acts of indiscriminate violence will sadly, continue. My question for you: Is it worth it?
I have listened to your opinion many times on the news and I have always agreed with you or believed that you had a good point. Your opinion on gun control tonight did not hit home with me. Very disappointed with your view tonight.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion about gun control. I don't think we have to ban all gun sales, but some guns, such as assault rifles, have no business being sold to the public. What does anyone need with an assault rifle? Every time we have a mass shooting, we have this discussion. I think we can have some sensible gun laws, more sensible than we have not, without violating the Constitution. I know this will not prevent all heinous crimes such as the ones in Colorado, but it is the sensible thing to do, and it would probably prevent many crimes. The United States has the highest ownership of guns of any country. This is just ridiculous. We need to use more common sense about gun laws and we need to use better judgment.
Tonight was the first time I have heard this segment on the news. All I can say is WELL SAID.
Thank you for your sensible comment.
Y do they always cry about the guy that that has a felony or got in trouble cant even have a gun to hunt with.The guys cause all the problems are the people that has never been in trouble.
Totally agree with you tonight about Gun Control! It is NOT the gun, it is the person (s). We cannot allow our Constitutional Rights to be amended out of existence. I, for one, am happy to be 64 years old….this country is losing its way (in my opinion)!!
Just curious if you and the NRA would have a different opinion is the shooter had showed up and an NRA convention. I dont think one has to limit guns as much as limiting what kind of guns and how easy to order amo with no checks. Did you know that police cant carry some of the guns that the shooter did?
Our Constitutional right to bear arms is for more than just hunting or shooting, or protecting our persons and property from criminals. Its primary purpose is to guarantee that we, as a people, have the right to bear arms so that, should we so decide as a people, we have the capacity to rise up against and/or protect ourselves from our own government. If any Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces believes that only his forces have the right to bear arms or certain types of arms and that we citizens should not, it starts to degrade that original right of the people. Yes, I know that we have gun restrictions in place already, but if our liberties continue to be taken away little by little, one by one, soon we could be no better off than the down-trodden citizens of desolate country run by a despot or dictator.
But he didn't use a bomb or gas , did he!!!!
Can you give me any reason why an individual needs to own an assault rifle?
There is none.
Thanks for letting me tell you my opinion.
Today, I watched
someone on TV from WECT saying that gun control was ridiculous because the
recent Theatre assailant would have used other methods to accomplish his
mission. He made several other [ridiculous] comparisons to make his point.
Yes, people hell bent
on killing people will resort to just about any means. However, we need to do
all we can to limit their access to guns, especially those that have no
business in the hands of normal people like AK type weapons.
So, get off your stupid high horse and get with the program to save people's lives and reduce the amount of crime in any way we can.
Copyright 2012 WECT. All rights reserved.
322 Shipyard Boulevard