Second Amendment assault: Meaningless gun ban
Published: Thursday, April 4, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
Revealing unconstitutional gun-grabbing rhetoric's emptiness is how rarely so-called “assault weapons” — as opposed to handguns — are used in homicides in the Pittsburgh region.
Yet President Obama wants the Senate to vote on banning “assault weapons” — a misnomer betraying ignorance of distinctions between military firearms and cosmetically similar but functionally dissimilar civilian weapons.
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed banning 157 such guns.
A Trib analysis shows such a ban would have done little — if anything — to make residents safer in Allegheny, Butler, Fayette, Washington and Westmoreland counties, where “assault weapons” were used to kill just 15 of the 245 people fatally shot from 2010 through 2012. Handguns — 90 percent of firearms seized by police in Allegheny County during that period — were the killers' weapons of choice.
Ms. Feinstein's ban would have stopped neither George Sodini, who killed four and wounded nine with two handguns at LA Fitness in Collier, nor such “assault weapons” users as Richard Poplawski, who killed three Pittsburgh policemen, and Ronald Robinson, who killed a Penn Hills policeman. Such criminals laugh at gun laws and find other means to kill if their first choice isn't readily available.
Infringing the law-abiding's Second Amendment rights, Feinstein's ban would deprive them of an effective form of self-defense, making them less safe, not more.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- Saturday essay: A special tinsel
- Christmas in Connellsville: Catch the spirit
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- The IRS scandal: FBI games
- Corrections reinvention
- Sunday pops
- Dear Steelers: Perhaps “postseason” is but a quaint notion after all. Yours, Old Man River.
- Selling GM stock: A $10 billion public hook
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’