chainsaw attack

I see that the new gun laws in America are already having an impact. A homeless man in Missouri attacked people in a homeless shelter using a chainsaw and a knife. There were four injuries, but no deaths.

Let this be a lesson to us all...and before you mistake my "lesson" to mean i'm for having more access to guns, let us consider the number of deaths this has incurred, none. And only four injuries...while those four might scoff at the "only four", he had to be close enough to touch people to hurt them which limited the number of people he could harm in a given space of time.

As sad and tragic as this is, its far less tragic than it could have been.

No Shots Fired

I find it seriously hard to believe that a man who intended on actually carrying out some sort of dastardly deed would carry a sword and a shotgun. While carrying a gun around may not raise suspicions, a sword definitely will. Who knows what you're plans are for that SWORD!

So it was no great surprise that police arrested Michael Steven Gorbey. And before you start thinking it was some teenage prank, the man is 38 years old-well and truly old enough to know better.

Still, his shotgun that he carried (along with the sword) was never fired and his destination remains a mystery to the public. Was he planning a massive attack on his own people? We don't know so we will refrain from adding this case to our list of USA gun violence. After all, there was no violence to report...just a normal guy walking around with a big ol' shotgun and his sword.

New Gun Control Regulations for 2008??

With President Bush throwing his support behind the newest Gun Control regulations, its almost enough to think twice about supporting it. Yet, when examined, its pretty amazing that these regulations weren't in practice already. From restrictions on individual ownership of machine guns to prohibiting felons, the mentally ill, and those with restraining orders against them from owning guns, these regulations sound more like common sense rather than radical and new. Still, those against the regulations state that the administration is against individual rights. Sadly, they are probably correct but without actually knowing the intentions of the White House, we can almost assuredly say their motives are suspect if nothing else.

Even with motives that are suspect, i can not see why these regulations aren't being met with dancing in the street. It was only a month ago that there were mass shootings in the states. If December is any sort of example, than it should be clear that when people decide to kill, they aren't getting just one or two deaths in. They are going for as many fatalities as possible. Limiting what sort of fire arms that are available and who they are available to, seems like a great way to prevent these sorts of deaths.

So i am most surprised to find that few in the states seem to be happy about these measures. (Or maybe no one is talking about their support of gun control.) I somehow thought that all these mass deaths related to gun violence would somehow impact the USA in a much bigger way. Yet, in reality it seems that not enough people have died to justify these extreme measures in Gun Control.

If a plane is hijacked and flown into a building, its worth restricting public rights in order to keep more people safe. If a gun is bought and used to open fire in a public place, people feel that they're lives are not at risk, even though the latter scenario is much more common than the former. I am not sure what makes people so sure that it won't happen to them.

If prying the gun out of a gunman's cold dead hand is the only way to limit gun use, than the only way gun violence will drop is by having fewer people around to shoot.

Shocked!

It has been just about a month since the last shooting in the USA to make headlines in Australia. As I paused to reflect on this, I stumbled. It wasn't a massive stumble, but a mere slip of the mouse that brought me to news.google.com. It was here that i found this article.

This article is entitled "Violent Crime Dips in First Half of '07". I was glad to know that these crimes were losing their appeal to perpetrators, so i expectantly opened the article. The article spoke of the FBI statistics for violent crimes (which included gun violence) around America. It sited many places that violent crime had been drastically reduced but the article finished with a paragraph that somewhat disturbed me.

The FBI report did not separate out data for the District, which has reported a 7 percent increase in homicides for 2007, part of an overall surge in gun violence. (bold and italics added by me)

Somehow the overall surge of gun violence hardly rates a mention because fewer people are choosing to bludgeon their victims to death. Hooray for statistical spin! The article itself is cautious to be quite as positive as the Justice Department spokesman Peter A. Carr who said,
"The report suggests that violent crime remains near historic low levels". Instead it points out that in major cities the violent crimes are down, but in rural and suburban areas these crimes are up.

Perhaps that the Justice Department sees the world through rose coloured glasses while us mere mortals have to just stick with the headlines.