Gun restrictions essential to ending bloodshed

Posted

A recent writer to the Sentinel asked “when has a gun ever killed someone?”

The question is not when a gun, “an inanimate object” has ever killed anyone, but rather when has anyone ever killed more than 20 people at once without a gun? Think of all the mass killings within the last 20 years – would they have occurred if semi-automatic guns had not been available? Sandy Hook? Las Vegas? El Paso?  Just to name a few.

As the writer said, “an inanimate object can’t do anything without a human being,” but it is also true that a human being can’t commit mass murder without a gun. And, mass murder nearly always involves a semi-automatic weapon, “assault weapon” or whatever you want to call it.

Don’t examine crime statistics without considering gun violence statistics. Today we lose nearly the same amount of people to fire arms today that we do from car accidents. Don’t associate those who want to hold police accountable for their actions to those who want to defund the police. And, common sense says police would be less likely to shoot as frequently if they did not fear being shot first.

Countries with low deaths from firearms either severely restrict gun ownership (United Kingdom, New Zealand, etc.) or have extensive regulations governing them (Switzerland). We do neither, and in 2019 lost more than 40,000 people to death by fire arms.

Britain recently had six deaths in their first mass shooting in a decade. In the first six months of 2021 the US has had 421 killed and 1,688 injured in mass shootings. And, a recent GAO report indicated the cost to treat the injured alone from mass shootings exceeds $1 billion annually, paid mostly by taxpayers.

Most people just want to be safe. Guns without restrictions will never provide that.

— Mike Corbett, Rome

Comments

No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here