Friday, April 26, 2013

Hartzler: Don't blame Sandy Hook murders on guns

In her weekly newsletter, Fourth District Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler says we should not blame guns for the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.


The issue of protecting our Second Amendment rights was the topic of much conversation this week on Capitol Hill. I was proud to lead a one-hour Special Order on the floor of the House of Representatives to allow my colleagues and me to share our thoughts on our Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms while protecting ourselves and our families.
 In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy, there has been much discussion of gun control proposals designed to keep our children safe. As I spoke, I acknowledged that there are evil people who use guns for evil purposes, but quickly pointed out that firearms are a tool and should not be blamed for the actions of misguided individuals. Furthermore, we must not allow tragedies to rush lawmakers into passing hastily-written and emotionally-driven legislation that would infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones.
 I cited two Missouri cases in which victims of crime were able to defend their lives, thanks to firearms. There is the 2008 case of a Cape Girardeau rape victim who was almost assaulted a second time, days later, by the same rapist. She protected herself with a 12-gauge shotgun borrowed from a friend. Then there is the 2005 case of a Kansas City homeowner who defended his life with a gun against a knife-wielding intruder. There are many more examples of firearms being used to protect the lives of honest and decent citizens.
 We must have meaningful conversation about mental health issues and other possible contributors to violent behavior. We must commit ourselves to addressing the human factor behind gun violence, rather than emotionally attacking the tool used by the attacker.

1 comment:

Shelley said...

Both examples she gave are people using conventional guns to protect themselves. Not semi-automated assault rifles. No magazine holding 30 bullets.

The type of gun that have never been under any form of gun control discussion.

Is these people so dense they don't even notice they're actually undercutting their own arguments?

Or are they hoping we're that dense?