Passing SAFE Act was political opportunism
In response to recent pro-SAFE Act letters, I find it interesting that writers constantly accuse supporters of the Bill of Rights of using anecdotes and then invariably bring up Sandy Hook within a few paragraphs. Anyone who believes that Adam Lanza, had he not had any guns, would have just lived out a peaceful existence is delusional. A person in that mental state bent on self-destruction and the harm of others has any number of weapons at his disposal: cars, gasoline, pressure cookers, etc.
This reasoning is as flawed as when, in December 2012, Bob Costas reiterated the claim from Jason Whitlock that if Kansas City Chiefs linebacker “Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” Belcher, who was nearly 230 pounds and 6-foot-2, towered over her. If he wanted her dead, gun or no gun, she was not getting out of that situation alive. In fact, the only thing that would have had any chance of reversing the situation is if she had a gun.
In reality, anyone with any knowledge of firearms knows that banning pistol grips or telling people they can put only six rounds in a 10-round magazine is absurd. According to FBI statistics, more people are killed each year from blunt objects than the weapons covered in the SAFE Act.
Let’s face it, the main reason for the act was to gain political points. This was political opportunism at its worst. If the goal is to reduce the number of people killed with scary looking weapons then, yes, the SAFE Act may be effective. If the goal is to save lives, then we need to stop defunding our mental health facilities. But I guess funding those facilities doesn’t look as glamorous on a presidential hopeful’s résumé.