http://robfeeley.blogspot.com/
Re: President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke's Statement Following the Omaha, NE Mall Massacre
On December 6, 2007, Paul Bluemke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, released a statement regarding the mall shooting in Omaha, NE. This statement may be found here.
"Having a military-style assault rifle and high-capacity ammunition clips enabled a troubled young man to kill and injure a large number of people quickly and efficiently. Allowing the easy acquisition and possession of military-style weapons like this is foolhardy and the results are tragic."
This kind of misinformation seems to be a popular, recurring, and predictable trend amongst anti-gun reasoning. What exactly is a "military-style assault rifle"? I can only imagine an ambiguous phrase like this is designed to coerce readers into assuming the worst, as the phrase itself leaves quite a bit open to interpretation.
"We need to stop selling military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips to civilians."
Last time I checked, the killer in Omaha, NE had a criminal history. Including him with the civilian population of the United States is displaced blame, as law-abiding citizens are rarely a part of any problem involving violence, or more specifically, gun violence. The killer in Omaha, NE was a criminal, and should not be identified with the law-abiding civilian population of the United States that have done nothing wrong.
The mall shooter in the Omaha, NE incident did not acquire a "military-style" assault weapons through legal means, as criminal, by definition, operate outside of, in defiance of, and in spite of applicable laws. Passing more laws aimed at people who, by definition, do not follow laws is flawed logic.
We need to stop misplacing blame and intentionally using falsities to support a point of view. The sale of what the Brady Campaign labels "military-style assault weapons" presents no threat to the civilian population unless the person in the possession of said "military-style assault weapons" is a criminal who intends to do harm.
"Our weak gun laws make these killing machines readily available. We can take steps to prevent tragedies like this in the future."
The perceived "strength" of a law has no bearing on its ability to effectively change the behavior of criminals. Criminals, by definition, act outside of, in defiance of, and in spite of laws. This is what makes them a criminal.
There are already laws in place making it illegal to commit murder. These same laws also made it illegal for the shooter to possess his weapon. Those laws did nothing to stop a criminal from committing a crime.
The problem is not the laws we have; the problem is enforcing the laws we have. Passing more laws when others clearly have failed is not the answer.
It is through the intentional misuse of vocabulary that anti-gun supporters coerce innocent, law-abiding citizens into believing they are unsafe, much in the way that an armed robber uses a firearm to coerce innocent, law-abiding citizens into complying with said robber's demands.
It is imperative that citizens of the US understand that the mall shooter in Omaha, NE was a criminal, and that his actions are not representative of those who legally purchase, sell, possess, and operate firearms, whether they be "military-style assault weapons," bolt-action hunting rifles, or legally concealed weapons carried on the person.
Criminal behavior is out of direct control of the laws themselves. Instead of punishing the civilian population by implementing stricter gun control laws, which effectively leaves civilians unarmed against armed aggressors, the laws we already have should be enforced, instead of just making more laws.
