Ok,
so as I write the inaugural post for my blog, I'm trying to decide what the
most important thing to write about is. There are several subjects, from the
current "North Korea Missile Crisis" which I don't think is going to
amount to much, to gun control and other gun laws. There was a recent stabbing
at a college campus in my home state of Texas. There's the upcoming NFL draft.
There's basketball, my Houston Astros rolling the Seattle Mariners last night
which I was unfortunately unable to watch. I can write about Houston Texans
cornerback Brice McCain's interview with the official houstontexans.com podcast. My point being is there's a lot
to write about, so there's a lot to choose from. Fortunately for you, the
reader, I know what I'm going to address right now.
I'm actually hopeful
that this supposed bipartisan background check for gun buyers bill gets the
light of day in the senate. I like this because a it is a compromise from two
NRA endorsed senators, Joe Manchin (nice name) democrat from West Virginia and Patrick
J. Toomey republican from Pennsylvania. I like this because its a suggestion at
has been worked on for a while between these two senators. I think it is a
legitimate compromise, and I'm looking forward to hearing more from the senate
about their vote on whether to hear the bill or not, and if they do, are they
willing to work together on further compromise with amending it.
My personal stance is
that I think it's a waste of money to pursue more background checks than what
is already necessary for you to purchase a gun. It's something like 7 to 14 day
long wait to be allowed to receive a purchased gun, if you pass a background
check. Better use of money would be further research into mental disorders such
as schizophrenia and autism, which are cited as possible reasons that lead to
shootings. Less guns does not mean less violent crime. If you think it does, go
to Europe. Most all of Europe has a ban on guns, and I'm going to specifically
attack the British. In 2012, ending in September, there were 549 reported
homicides, there were approximately, from what I can tell looking at the graph,
500 attempted homicides. That's around 1050 violent crimes in Britain. The
population of Britain is 63.2 million according to the 2011 census. Now, that
seems like a small number. Let us compare that to a larger country without gun
bans. I'm going to use the United States. 2011 statistics are what I can find,
by every 100,000 people; there is an average of 377.2 violent crimes. In the
south, where I live, there is approximately. 428.8 violent crimes per 100,000
inhabitants, 67% of those involve firearms. That makes it according to my
calculator 640 violent crimes involving weapons. I do not believe that is
correct. Into my calculator, a TI-84 plus, I typed 428.8/.67. So you can do the
math yourself and find out if its right or not. Now, the population in the
United States is 313.9 million in 2012.
What I've gone and
done is found the difference in British population and United States population
and then increased the British population to the same amount. I also increased
the crime rate to reflect that by dividing the increased British population by
100,000 and then multiplied that into 549, the 2012 reported violent crimes.
What I got is: 1376343 violent crimes in the population of Britain when they
have the same population as the United States, by my math.
That math is not
official, it is most likely highly inaccurate. I am not an expert in math and
don't know how it’s really done. But as you can see, banning guns in America
would increase the crime rate, if you assume my math is correct, which I
reiterate, is more than likely is not. If someone knows how to actually do it,
please make a comment and inform me. It would be useful information for future
reference. They make the blog better.
How can anyone say it’s
more important to take guns away from law abiding citizens, while we can do
more to avoid mass shootings, which is the current outrage, by better research
on how to treat mental illnesses? The man that shot Gabrielle Giffords in
Tuscon, AZ, had a documented history of mental illness. He was legally able to
purchase the gun used. A better background check would have helped avoid this,
yes, but also if better understanding on his mental illnesses existed, than he
would not have been expelled from the college, and he would not have had the
opportunity or motive. James Holmes, the man accused of the shooting in Aurora,
Colorado, most definitely had schizophrenia, in my opinion. No logical human
being has as many booby-traps in his small apartment as he did. I agree with
not allowing him his insanity plea because the shooting was premeditated. It
could have been avoided by better knowledge on how to identify the mental
illness, and better treatment for it.
I only echo other
people's opinion, but I do agree with them, which makes them my opinions.
This was written on 4/10/2013, edited on 4/11/2013.
Links used.
Information on the bill was taken from CNN.com front page article on Wednesday, April 10th. Sorry I do not have a link at this time.
Thank you for reading,
No comments:
Post a Comment