http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
…
And advocates of stricter gun laws who claim to respect the rights of “sportsmen” or “hunters,” and to recognize a legitimate need for “home defense,” simply give the game away at the outset. The very guns that law-abiding citizens use for recreation or home defense are, in fact, the problem.
In the vast majority of murders committed with firearms—even most mass killings—the weapon used is a handgun. Unless we outlaw and begin confiscating handguns, the weapons best suited for being carried undetected into a classroom, movie theater, restaurant, or shopping mall for the purpose of committing mass murder will remain readily available in the United States. But no one is seriously proposing that we address the problem on this level. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently ruled, twice (in 2008 and 2010), that banning handguns would be unconstitutional.
Nor is anyone advocating that we deprive hunters of their rifles. And yet any rifle suitable for killing deer is just the sort of gun that will allow even an unskilled shooter to wreak absolute havoc upon innocent men, women, and children at a range of several hundred yards. There is, in fact, no marksman on earth who can shoot a handgun as accurately at distance as you would be able to shoot a rifle fitted with a scope after a few hours of practice. This difference in accuracy between short and long guns must be experienced to be understood. Having understood it, you will in no way be consoled to learn that a madman ensconced on the rooftop of a nearby building is armed merely with a “hunting rifle” that is legal in all 50 states.
The problem, therefore, is that with respect to either factor that makes a gun suitable for mass murder—ease of concealment (a handgun) or range (a rifle)—the most common and least stigmatized weapons are among the most dangerous. Gun-control advocates seem perversely unaware of this. As a consequence, we routinely hear the terms “semi-automatic” and “assault weapon” intoned with misplaced outrage and awe. It is true that a semi-automatic pistol allows a person to shoot and reload slightly more efficiently than a revolver does. But a revolver can be reloaded surprisingly quickly with a device known as a speed loader. (These have been in use since the 1970s.)[4] It is no exaggeration to say that if we merely had 300 million vintage revolvers in this country, we would still have a terrible problem with gun violence, with no solution in sight. And any person entering a school with a revolver for the purpose of killing kids would most likely be able to keep killing them until he ran out of ammunition, or until good people arrived with guns of their own to stop him.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 47 percent of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns. Again, only 3 percent are committed with rifles (of any type). Twice as many murderers (6 percent) use nothing but their bare hands. Thirteen percent use knives. Although a semi-automatic rifle like the one Adam Lanza carried in Newtown offers a terrifying advantage over a handgun at distances beyond 20 yards or so, I see no reason to think that the children he murdered would be alive today had he been armed with only a pistol (he is reported to have shot them repeatedly and at close range). The worst mass shooting in U.S. history occurred at Virginia Tech in 2007. Thirty-two people were killed and seventeen injured. The shooter carried two handguns (a Glock 9 mm and a Walther .22) of a make and caliber that will remain legal and ubiquitous unless all handguns are banned. (Again, this is not going to happen.)
…
This is just one pertinent section from this excellent article. Go read the whole thing.
March 5, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Worst mass shooting in US history wasn’t VA Tech, it was Wounded Knee.
March 8, 2013 at 7:33 am
I used to be pro-gun control – that was until I understood why the constitution supported gun ownership.
The way I understand it is that the constitution was drawn up in such a way to future proof the freedom for the citizens of the USA – to protect it from an ever more centralized, armed, and nepotistic ruling elite.
As such two of the safeguards built into the constitution were a) the right of the individual states to raise a standing army if / as necessary (that’s the National Guard) ‘originally’ reporting to State Government NOT Central Government in Washington and b) the right of individuals to bare arms.
Post 9/11 the constitution was essentially overwritten, and one such casualty is that the Statewide National Guards in effect now come under the control of Washington and NOT their own state leaders.
Which means that now the only real defense against an overzealous or dictatorial leadership lies with the public – a well armed public at that!
March 8, 2013 at 1:46 pm
The “militia” at the time of the founders was NOT the National Guard. The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation’s armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903.
At the time of the founders the militia was the ability of the people to band together in times of emergency…bringing their own small arms (rifle/pistol/SG/etc) with them. Thus the wording of the Amendment. Because the ability to come together in common defense is necessary for a Free State the PEOPLE need to be able to possess arms…not the State, not the Feds, not the National Guard.
March 11, 2013 at 3:25 am
The wording alone was part of the Revolutionary mind for the F.Fathers.. in Europe peasants were conscripted by law and required by law to bear arms in service to the Aristocracy… The 2nd Amendment is more than just about arms or even about American Rights.. it is a clear declaration where the power in government lies.. in the hands of the people… just like the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment’s language is about the IDEA and the VALUES that the citizens own private property, own their voice, own their self protection… they don’t have to wait until a guy in a wig tells them to do something…