View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Right Here, Right Now: We already have gun control

Posted: January 11, 2013 2:00 a.m.
Updated: January 11, 2013 2:00 a.m.
 

Vice President Joe Biden said, "I guarantee you, we’ll get [gun control] done by the end of January."

What exactly is "gun control"?

On Friday, an Atlanta area mother defended herself and her two young daughters during a home invasion. She and he daughters heard the intruder outside and hid in an upstairs crawl space, with her .38 revolver. She was trying to be safe and keep her children safe.

Why the guy felt the need to invade a "crawl space" we’ll probably never know. But he came face to face with the woman and her .38 which she promptly unloaded directly at him. She hit him in the face and neck at close range with 5 of the 6 fired bullets.

This mother exercised "gun control".

The shots she fired knocked him down, but he was still alive. And after she and the children fled the house to safety, the man was able to get up, get down the stairs, go outside, get into his car, and DRIVE AWAY!!

This story might have ended differently had there been more than one intruder. What would she have done if an accomplice (or two) were downstairs? They would have heard the shots. She may have had to face another intruder, but she was out of bullets.

It takes time and precision to reload a revolver. I’m sure it would have been especially difficult to reload with a strange man lying, bleeding on your floor (still breathing, probably moaning, possibly screaming), yours hands trembling from the adrenaline rush from the sheer terror of just having shot someone, and your two young girls attached to your legs the way that children do when they’re panic-stricken.

Most of us have never had to shoot someone in self-defense. Somewhere along the line we’ve come to believe that one or two well-aimed bullets will stop someone. That’s not always the case, as evidenced by this recent home invasion.

Our U.S. Senator, Diane Feinstein, has proposed new "gun control" legislation that would severely restrict a citizen’s access to various types of guns.

The fact of the matter is, that guns, assault style or otherwise, don’t randomly kill people. Responsible people should not be restricted access to tools that enable them to protect themselves and their families. Those who act irresponsibly with guns must pay a price. The consequences are already defined in our laws. Further outlawing specific guns won’t do anything more than create a black-market for criminals to traffic a new ware. Do we really need another "industry" like that?

People spouting the need for more "gun control" do so with the good intentions hoping to prevent senseless deaths. But murder is already against the law. It doesn’t specify what type of murder is illegal. Murder is murder. Are we going to ban everything that might be used to kill people? Why stop with guns?

Sadly, we’re focusing on the wrong thing by trying to further restrict law-abiding citizens from their Constitutional right to bear arms.

The Sacramento Bee reported earlier this week "California has millions more guns than it did 10 years ago. It also has thousands fewer gun injuries and deaths each year." Yet somehow we need stricter "gun control"? I think not.

There will always be those who seek to harm others. Whether guns are accessible or not will have no bearing. There are other ways to accomplish the same result. Significantly disarming the innocent under the guise of "gun control" is foolishness.

Without respect for human life, no amount of additional "gun control" legislation will prevent gun incidents from happening in the future.

Tammy Messina is a resident of Santa Clarita, a local business owner, and a producer for The Real Side Radio Show. She can be reached at tammy@therealside.

Comments

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...