The recent tragedy in Newtown Connecticut was horrific, unbelievable and traumatic for all concerned.

It is only natural to try to analyze this tragedy for the why and how; wondering why anyone would violently take the lives of 26 people, 20 of whom were small children, as well as how, in this age of high technology, our Government could allow such a tragedy to occur. The current knee-jerk reaction of our Government is to point to new or additional gun control legislation as the quick fix to ensure this kind of tragedy will never happen again. Reinstating the ban on sale of automatic weapons with large capacity magazines has already been tried in the past via the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which did not prevent or significantly reduce the commission of violent crimes involving use of such weapons. Following the Bans expiration on September 13, 2004, several studies were conducted to determine what impact the Ban had on reducing the number of violent crimes through use of such Assault Type Weapons. In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[1] That study, conducted by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[2] However, no substantive rationalle is provided to support this statement and I submit that nine years should have been more than ample time to determine effectiveness of the Ban. Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[3] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[4] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. So, how large is this problem of gun related homicides involving assault type weapons? The

Centers for Disease Control indicates 11,493 people died from gun homicides last year in the US, but makes no distinction as to the type of weapon(s) used (whether assault or conventional). The 2010 FBI report on Homicides in the US by Weapon Type, indicates that a total of 358 people were killed that year by rifles.[5] No further breakdown by rifle type (sport assault or conventional) is provided. It is generally reported and accepted that the average percentage of all rifles which fall into the assault weapon category is roughly 3%. It would follow then that the number of persons killed by assault type weapons in 2010 would have been roughly 3% of 358, or 11 people. While this may seem a notable number of needless deaths, lets try to put things in perspective:
According to Reuters Health - Smoking causes half a million deaths each year in the U.S., killing slightly more men than women, new statistics show.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.[6] In the United States, smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).[7] [8] On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers. It is interesting to note that 49,000 people in the US each year are killed by second hand smoke. This is FOUR times the number killed by gun related homicides each year. These innocent victims did not willingly choose to inhale toxic substances, but are just as dead as if they had. It could be reasonably argued then that the act of smoking cigarettes and cigars, while in the presence of non-smokers is tantamount to attempted manslaughter. If this seems an outlandish or extreme point of view, it should be considered solely in terms of the body count of innocent victims. The answer to this issue by Government has not been to outlaw cigarettes or cigars, which would certainly have a dramatic impact on decreasing the number of smoking related deaths, but to instead mandate smokers not smoke in public areas such as Federal Buildings, restaurants, airplanes and shopping malls. This action has had a negligible and ineffective impact on reduction of deaths due to smoking and/or second hand smoke. What appears evident is that the tobacco industry lobbyists have been very effective at downplaying the health risks associated with smoking; also insisting that any Government regulation of smoking would constitute an infringement on personal/civil liberties and preventing Government from taking any effective action(s) which could resolve this issue and save lives. Right to smoke? What about the non-smokers right to not have to smell it? Sure, you can smoke until your smoke reaches their breathing space. Your right ceases as soon as you invade the non-smokers breathing space where it is hazardous to their body, stinks up their hair and clothes, and puts their life at risk. We do however have a constitutional right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed I submit that ANY action by Government which restricts the type or quantity of weapons a US citizen may own or carry is therefore a direct violation (infringement) of their 2nd Amendment rights. On December 11, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This was an expansion of the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald, each of which referred only to such a right in the home. Based on this ruling, the court declared Illinois's ban on the concealed carrying of firearms to be unconstitutional. In the US, one person is killed every 39 minutes by a drunk driver, yet I dont foresee Government again enacting prohibition and outlawing the sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year. If the logic regarding the restriction of ownership and use of assault type weapons is applied to this situation, the Government should outlaw the use of motor vehicles (for all US citizens) instead of holding each individual fully accountable for their crime(s).

This would also make about as much sense as outlawing the possession and/or use of nitrate fertilizer following the Oklahoma City Bombing. After all, that appears to be the root cause; Government does not effectively hold each individual citizen accountable for their actions by making the punishment for deviant behavior fit the crime. Such punishments need to be so frighteningly undesirable, the potential perpetrator will think twice before following through with their crime(s). There are also a microcosm of society which desire nothing more than to have their name edified in the media and are willing to commit any atrocity up to and including killing themselves to accomplish this goal. The only way to negate this type of thinking is to suppress the release of names of such perpetrators in the media. Once it has become accepted practice to withhold the names of such perpetrators from media sensationalism, these predators will no longer have the opportunity to immortalize themselves in the news media. Should we strive to prevent future Newtown and Columbine massacres? Of course we should, but in doing so we owe our children and future generations our best effort; an effort that will most likely be unpopular and painful but has a reasonable chance of success. Gun control has been tried in the past and was proven to be ineffective. The time has come for a different strategy. Two potential ideas are mentioned above if we have the courage to put our children first and implement them.
1. 2. An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 National Institute of Justice Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth, "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003," Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, June 2004 John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois, Second edition, 2000 John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois, Third edition, 2010 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2009. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008 [accessed 2012 Jun 7]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity LossesUnited States, 20002004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008;57(45):12268 [accessed 2012 Jun 7]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking-Attributable MorbidityUnited States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003;52(35):8424 [accessed 2012 Jun 7]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity LossesUnited States, 19951999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2002;51(14):3003 [accessed 2012 Jun 7].

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9.