« Author asks: Why honor a God who would 'kill your kids' if you don't invite him to the party? | Main | When complex thinking on race is undercut by sophomoric reaction »

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Rethink gun debate: Imagine if pro-life Senators favored federally financed abortions during first trimester

This has not been an equal, balanced debate.

The British publication says only drastic change in the law would make a difference

From the piece:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has an F rating from the NRA. It makes you wonder what the NRA would rate a politician who proposed an assault weapons bill that doesn’t protect gun owners by “exempting more than 900 specific hunting and sporting weapons.” For a rough comparison, try to imagine if staunchly pro-life Senators favored federally financed abortions on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Feinstein has not released all of her proposed bill’s specifics but in her short, remarkable press release it appears closely modeled on the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 until 2004. Feinstein finds “A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders. However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.” In other words, after a national trauma that supposedly changed the debate, an anti-gun Senator can only argue for a bill that might reduce gun murders by 6.7 percent.


About The Sun News and Myrtlebeachonline.com | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About The McClatchy Co. | Copyright