Diane Feinstein recently published an "opinion piece" regarding the Second Amendment. Some of her talking points are exemplars of circular logic; others demonstrate no logic at all.
GOP's false talking points against gun control are dangerous:
One frequent refrain:“Criminals don't follow the law.”This is absurd on its face. By this logic, we shouldn’t criminalize murder, rape or kidnapping. Laws exist to deter crime, and when a crime is committed, laws are there to ensure punishment is meted out.
Banning assault weapons won’t prevent all shootings, but contrary to Republican talking points, we already know that banning these military-style weapons does reduce mass killings of six people or more.
Diane is right in that laws 'ensure punishment'; but murder is also against the law, and subsequent punishment is obviously not a determent. We don't know that banning "military-style weapons" (not defined) reduces mass murder.
When the original ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, the number of such massacres fell by 37% and the number of people dying from them fell by 43%.
Actually, the 1994 gun control law was allowed to 'sunset" because the statistics proved that the law did nothing to limit the number of murders ... which is why the Left was allowed to impose such an unconstitutional law on a "probationary basis".
Another canard: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Tell that to the 49 people killed in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub, where an armed guard was on duty and was unable to prevent the murders.
Clearly, a failure of the $9/hour Rent-a-Cop who decided he wasn't getting paid enough to get shot for defending attendees at a gay night club. Had the "49 people killed" been armed, the outcome may have resulted in one murderer lying in a pool of his own blood, and the cowardly "armed guard" having been severely talked to by his supposed charges.
Another particularly terrible idea floated recently: arming teachers. How can we expect teachers, who already have too much on their plates, to undergo the same training as law enforcement officers and be able to confront killers armed with AR-15s?
I don't entirely disagree with Di here; nobody realistically expects pedants to be protectors. A few, perhaps. After all, "if it just saves ONE CHILD..."
The falsehood that is most frustrating, however, is that Democrats have no ideas to counter this violence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
Uh ... no. That is, exactly, the truth. Diane's own comments prove that:
The first is getting military-style assault weapons such as the AR-15 off the streets.
These weapons fire much faster than typical hunting rifles. They fire rounds that are also deadlier than those fired from a hunting rifle. A Parkland radiologist noted that an AR-15 round may leave an exit wound “the size of an orange.” These weapons are designed to kill people, not animals.
Our current bill would ban 205 weapons by name, and any other weapons that accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. The 1994 ban required two additional characteristics, a loophole that gun manufacturers exploited. We'd close that loophole.
Importantly, the bill also bans high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Well, criminals
will have AR-15 rifles ... even if they must steal them (see below). Diane would deny access to effective self-defense weapons to law-abiding citizens, only because the same firearms may be abused by criminals.
Again, the 1994 ban failed not only because it did not limit the amount of mayhem visited upon the public by criminals, but because it also disarmed citizens. That Diane doesn't understand that salient point demonstrates her own willful disclination to allow "us" to defend ourselves against "them" by permitting us not to become criminals in our own defense.
The shooter at the grade school in Newtown, Conn., for example, used 30-round magazines. High-capacity magazines also lead to deadlier mass shootings. While law enforcement might be able to respond to mass shootings in a matter of minutes, a matter of minutes is all it takes to fire hundreds of rounds.
The shooter at Newtown murdered his own mother in order to acquire her legally owned firearms. He had multiple firearms ... so many that
he didn't even use all of them. He shot until he was stopped by the threat of police intervention, and then he killed himself.
He violated so many laws (including matricide), it is clear that the legality of his actions did not serve to dissuade him from his violent end.
In essence, it's difficult to say what laws might have been enacted which would have stopped any of these terrible murders. Even if all firearms were outlawed and confiscated,
we only have to look at Australia to see that would-be criminals will always have access to guns.
Is it wise for Feinstein to suggest that private ownership of firearms should be denied to honest American citizens? Wouldn't that just serve to make criminals of the rest of us?
Because you know Americans will have our guns.
