The latest defense I've heard from die-hard gun enthusiasts in response to the Newtown shooting is, "Some people are crazy. Whether they have a gun, a knife, or scissors, they would have found a way to have killed those people."
This is in response to the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, where the shooter killed 26 people, mostly with a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic. So, do these individuals have a point? Whether the perpetrator of Friday's killings had a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic, a knife, or a pair of scissors, would we still be mourning the loss of 26 individuals in Newtown, Connecticut - including twenty 6- and 7-year old kids?
I'm sorry, but as the other defenses have been, this is incredibly weak also. While it's true that if the perpetrator of Friday's shootings had a knife or a pair of scissors instead of a gun, he could very well have harmed or even killed a few of those 26 individuals. However, the chances are slim to none he would have been able to have inflicted as much damage and so quickly with a knife or pair of scissors as he did with a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic.
Let's take another very recent tragedy - this one in China - where a man armed with a knife attacked many - mostly children - at an elementary school. As of this moment, there have been 23 people injured from the attack and 0 dead. Compare that to Friday in Connecticut, where the attacker used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic - 26 are dead. Notice the difference?
It's much easier for an unarmed person to defend themselves and have a chance of survival, even if successfully attacked, when the attacker has a knife or pair of scissors as opposed to a gun and a semi-automatic in particular. Unless a person is like Neo from the Matrix films, he or she will have a great deal of difficulty evading bullets fired from a semi-automatic. It'd also be a great deal easier for a group of people to gang up, tackle, and strip away a knife or pair of scissors from someone than if the attacker had a semi-automatic and wound up making the scene like one from a mafia movie.
Like I said - this defense is weak and pathetic. With this kind of reasoning, the next time a steroid-induced professional boxer punches a man in the face at a bar and knocks him unconscious, I'm going to say, "Hey. The guy was obviously angry and was going to wind up hurting someone anyway - whether he threw paper clips or paper airplanes at the guy's face rather than punching him, he was going to do it." Yeah, a steroid-induced professional boxer's fist flying in a guy's face and paper airplanes doing likewise? It's the same thing. A pair of scissors being used to attack 26 people at a school and a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic? Again - it's the same thing...
This is in response to the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, where the shooter killed 26 people, mostly with a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic. So, do these individuals have a point? Whether the perpetrator of Friday's killings had a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic, a knife, or a pair of scissors, would we still be mourning the loss of 26 individuals in Newtown, Connecticut - including twenty 6- and 7-year old kids?
I'm sorry, but as the other defenses have been, this is incredibly weak also. While it's true that if the perpetrator of Friday's shootings had a knife or a pair of scissors instead of a gun, he could very well have harmed or even killed a few of those 26 individuals. However, the chances are slim to none he would have been able to have inflicted as much damage and so quickly with a knife or pair of scissors as he did with a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic.
Let's take another very recent tragedy - this one in China - where a man armed with a knife attacked many - mostly children - at an elementary school. As of this moment, there have been 23 people injured from the attack and 0 dead. Compare that to Friday in Connecticut, where the attacker used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic - 26 are dead. Notice the difference?
It's much easier for an unarmed person to defend themselves and have a chance of survival, even if successfully attacked, when the attacker has a knife or pair of scissors as opposed to a gun and a semi-automatic in particular. Unless a person is like Neo from the Matrix films, he or she will have a great deal of difficulty evading bullets fired from a semi-automatic. It'd also be a great deal easier for a group of people to gang up, tackle, and strip away a knife or pair of scissors from someone than if the attacker had a semi-automatic and wound up making the scene like one from a mafia movie.
Like I said - this defense is weak and pathetic. With this kind of reasoning, the next time a steroid-induced professional boxer punches a man in the face at a bar and knocks him unconscious, I'm going to say, "Hey. The guy was obviously angry and was going to wind up hurting someone anyway - whether he threw paper clips or paper airplanes at the guy's face rather than punching him, he was going to do it." Yeah, a steroid-induced professional boxer's fist flying in a guy's face and paper airplanes doing likewise? It's the same thing. A pair of scissors being used to attack 26 people at a school and a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic? Again - it's the same thing...
Comments
Post a Comment