Navy Yard shooting stirs gun control debate
Published: Monday, September 16, 2013
Updated: Monday, September 16, 2013 21:09
Monday Morning, a shooting occurred at a naval office in Washington, D.C., At least 13 people, including one gunman, have been reported dead and several injured.
One police officer was taken to surgery after a shootout with the gunman. Three other individuals were taken into surgery due to gunshot wounds.
Law officials have identified the alleged gunman through his finger prints as Aaron Alexis. The 34 year-old was actually enlisted as a full time reservist from May 2007 to January 2011.
Weapons that were found on the deceased gunman were an AR-15 assault rifle, a shot gun and a semiautomatic pistol.
Officials say carrying that many weapons is difficult to carry alone, so there is an investigation looking for more shooters. As of now, there is no other evidence supporting other shooters.
Considering all the hype that has been placed on Syria lately, how could these victims suspect a tragedy like this at home and in the nation’s capital? What could inspire someone -- a person who was in the military himself -- to pursue such a disastrous decision to attack the individuals at the Navy Yard?
As much as I am for keeping our guns and our right to bear arms, I have a feeling this tragedy is going to turn towards gun violence and gun control and focus on that rather than the lives that were lost.
The incident happened on a Navy base, a place where guns are inevitably going to be. I’m not sure how much “control” can come out of it.
LA Times columnist Robin Abcarian, clearly for gun control, makes her statements along with some rules she thinks should be imposed upon Americans.
“There is no mass shooting devastating enough, disgusting enough or shocking enough that the U.S. Congress would be moved to enact reasonable gun legislation like the measures proposed in April by President Obama after 20 first-graders were mowed down last year in Newtown, Conn.”
“Rule 1: It is "ghoulish" to suggest in any way that the easy availability of guns might in any way enable gun slaughter.
Rule 2: Gun crime in the president’s hometown proves that guns anywhere else are not a fit topic of conversation.
Rule 3: All gun owners are to be complimented as responsible and law-abiding citizens until they personally have hurt themselves or somebody else.
Rule 4: Any attempt to stop mass casualty shootings is "political." Allowing them to continue is "non-political."
Rule 5: Gun ownership is essential to freedom, as in Serbia & Guatemala. Gun restrictions lead to tyranny, as in Australia & Canada.”
On the contrary, blogger Kit Daniels points out gun control will of course be brought up. Also, statistically, more people died from drunk driving in 2011 than guns.
“The point is, AR-15 rifles do not even account for 2.5% of recorded murders per the FBI, yet anti-Second Amendment advocates want to ban them even though they are perhaps the best self-defense choice for shooters sensitive to recoil.”
“But like clockwork, talking heads on the cable news networks will ignore these statistics which do not conform to their agenda to disarm and enslave Americans.”