On the same day funeral service for 4 victims of Sandy Hook shootings was on, Michael Reagan was on The Cagle Post with the article Gun Control won’t Prevent Tragedy [http://www.cagle.com/2012/12/gun-control-wont-prevent-tragedy/].
Though it is not in same class of crassness as that of Westboro Baptist Church, it must score somewhere close [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/westboro-baptist-church-to-picket-sandy-hook-funerals-4-ways-to-respond/2012/12/17/520a6ba0-488e-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_blog.html?wp_login_redirect=0].
Let us just tackle the article by Michael Reagan. Broadly speaking, he argues that the way to control gun violence and avoid tragedies like Sandy Hook is by placing more guns in the hands of the citizens. His thrust is the only way to stop such violence is to place armed guards in schools. Which raises some questions.
Who will subsidize those costs? I hope he has a good answer to (his ?!?) Republican colleagues who want to stop (have already stopped?) school funding as part of budget cuts. Maybe he would ask his friends at NRA to sponsor - at least the guns part of it.
:-P
The other question is equally political. Assuming the NRA hold a figurative Gun to Obama’s head and ensure that armed guards at schools, colleges and universities become the mandated law, how would the GOP view those armed workers?
Would the GOP consider those armed guards as part of the famous 47% blood-sucker parasites? Or would the Republican and Tea Party members elevate them only during elections as ‘Joe-the-Plumber’ type of producers?
ROFLMAO.
What it proves is there are lot of flakes floating around in the USA (just like home) who think they have all the answers. Even worse, they think only they are correct and all others are stupid. And if you question them, you may be swift-boated.
To wrap up, I have one other list of questions for Michael Reagan (not that he is ever going to read this!). In America, deaths due to automobile accidents and deaths due to firearms (including suicides) are almost equal in numbers.
Let us take a look at 2009 numbers. I picked up 2009 not because the numbers match, but it was the year I could locate reliable data on firearms related deaths [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/].
As per Wikipedia ‘list of motor vehicle deaths in the United States by year’ in 2009 there were 33,808 deaths.
In the same year, there were 31,347 deaths due to firearms. This doesn’t include 73,505 non-fatal injuries due to firearms in 2009. But to be fair, not all of these incidents (31,347 or 73,505) are due to people being shot by others or in error. But even then, the numbers are close enough - around 30,000 deaths (suicide and homicide) due to firearms and ~33,000 deaths in automobile accidents.
Now, here are the questions:
(image courtesy +Tim Egan @ cagle.com)
Though it is not in same class of crassness as that of Westboro Baptist Church, it must score somewhere close [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/westboro-baptist-church-to-picket-sandy-hook-funerals-4-ways-to-respond/2012/12/17/520a6ba0-488e-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_blog.html?wp_login_redirect=0].
Let us just tackle the article by Michael Reagan. Broadly speaking, he argues that the way to control gun violence and avoid tragedies like Sandy Hook is by placing more guns in the hands of the citizens. His thrust is the only way to stop such violence is to place armed guards in schools. Which raises some questions.
Who will subsidize those costs? I hope he has a good answer to (his ?!?) Republican colleagues who want to stop (have already stopped?) school funding as part of budget cuts. Maybe he would ask his friends at NRA to sponsor - at least the guns part of it.
:-P
The other question is equally political. Assuming the NRA hold a figurative Gun to Obama’s head and ensure that armed guards at schools, colleges and universities become the mandated law, how would the GOP view those armed workers?
Would the GOP consider those armed guards as part of the famous 47% blood-sucker parasites? Or would the Republican and Tea Party members elevate them only during elections as ‘Joe-the-Plumber’ type of producers?
ROFLMAO.
What it proves is there are lot of flakes floating around in the USA (just like home) who think they have all the answers. Even worse, they think only they are correct and all others are stupid. And if you question them, you may be swift-boated.
To wrap up, I have one other list of questions for Michael Reagan (not that he is ever going to read this!). In America, deaths due to automobile accidents and deaths due to firearms (including suicides) are almost equal in numbers.
Let us take a look at 2009 numbers. I picked up 2009 not because the numbers match, but it was the year I could locate reliable data on firearms related deaths [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/].
As per Wikipedia ‘list of motor vehicle deaths in the United States by year’ in 2009 there were 33,808 deaths.
In the same year, there were 31,347 deaths due to firearms. This doesn’t include 73,505 non-fatal injuries due to firearms in 2009. But to be fair, not all of these incidents (31,347 or 73,505) are due to people being shot by others or in error. But even then, the numbers are close enough - around 30,000 deaths (suicide and homicide) due to firearms and ~33,000 deaths in automobile accidents.
Now, here are the questions:
- Is getting a Gun Licence as tough or testing as rigorous as getting a Driving Licence in the US?
- Aren’t there different grade of licences for driving different types of vehicles? If so, why should all firearms - handguns, semi-automatic assault weapons, long cartridges and et. al., be available under single unspecified licence?
- If driving an automobile under influence is an offence, why should people not be stopped from carrying a gun after drinking?
- Aren’t automobiles restricted in where can be parked, driven and speed limits imposed on them, like school zones? When it is so, why can’t restrictions in carrying, on long cartridges and rate of fire be unacceptable for guns?
- Cars are far, far safer today than Ford Model-T. But still we ask for, and look forward to enhanced safety features in them. So why can’t we expect more safety features in guns?
(image courtesy +Tim Egan @ cagle.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment