On a recent Tribune front page, a headline announced that “Romney and Herbert agree it is time for action on guns.”
But they merely join the ongoing chorus for change on everything but the guns themselves!
Background checks, bump stocks, video games, mental health ... all important, yes. But what about the weapons?
A double-barrel shotgun is a hunting weapon. Automatic firearms are the weapons of murderers, assassins and anarchists. They should have no more place in a civilized society than bombs and bazookas.
Last fall, my statistics students asked 469 students on the UVU Orem campus if they were in favor of making it a federal crime for an individual to own, possess or purchase any firearm that can fire more than two rounds without being manually reloaded (or to sell such a weapon to an individual).
I know that appears to be an extreme characterization of what “automatic” means. But I hadn’t observed anybody else even attempting to be specific. It was my intention to create a stark reference point to catalyze the dialogue.
35% of the surveyed students were in favor of the proposal and another 15% were neutral. That is: Half of the students are willing to at least consider the “extreme” proposal. Perhaps we should be listening more to the generations that have grown up with pervasive gun violence.
The Tribune article said that Romney “doesn’t see Congress doing more on legislation aimed at trying to curb gun violence.”
Seriously?
Mitt! You are in Congress! Propose something!
Doug Thompson, Orem