It can be said that there is a bit of a "discussion" shall we say on the US National and State gun control policy after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut. There is no facetiousness in my tone over this tragedy, as I truly believe God wept on this day in December. State by state and the nation as a whole are now looking to put stricter laws in place to avoid these types of events in the future.
The thought now circulating within the government is that by banning military (as much as I am at loath to use this term) "assault rifle-type" firearms, magazines of 10+ rounds and "military" ammunition this will stop future mass murderers.
Can firearms tragedies be avoided if stricter gun control laws were in place or is there more to it?
Lets take a look.
First, the state of Connecticut has one of the strictest set of gun control laws "on the books" within the United States. There are currently weapons banned within the state that don’t meet certain "safety" criteria. Let's face it folks, anyone who owns a gun, no matter what caliber or type no matter if used for hunting fowl, sport (clay or skeet) or personal protection will tell you, it can be used to kill.
That is actually the first thing any firearms safety course will teach you. A gun, regardless of type or caliber, is a powerful thing and must be treated with respect or it most definitely will hurt, kill or maim. If you believe a .22 long rifle or .17 hornet cannot kill a person, please, please do not become a gun owner. You will most likely be the same person who shoots him (or herself) or a family member practicing a quick draw with a loaded gun in the mirror.
As far as the term "assault" rifle (or weapon for a broader term) is concerned, whether it be a semi auto rifle with a 30 round magazine or a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun, it is an assault weapon when used on other people. You are assaulting them if you are shooting at them. Ok, what about the term AR in front of some of these model rifles? That does not stand for Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle as some think. Fully automatic rifles are not available to the general public without a special permit and a whole lot of scrutiny by the BATF. The permit and the weapons themselves (not even taking into account the amount of ammunition the average person would go through) is, in itself, cost prohibitive. AR actually is the nomenclature for the original manufacturer of the rifle, the Armalite company. The average person can only legally (key word here folks) own a semi automatic firearm, that means you need to pull the trigger once for each shot.
Will a magazine ban of 10 rounds or less stop an "unbalanced" (again see the previous post about being nice) person from causing harm to people. Unfortunately again the answer is no. Folks an outright ban (yeah, I said that word) on all firearms will not stop people from hurting others. The Oklahoma City tragedy was committed with fertilizer and diesel fuel, the school assault in China that occurred in December was with a knife. Also, lets be honest here, a magazine ban will only apply to people who have legally purchased the firearms that use them. Criminals will not turn their magazines in to the police or take time out of their busy schedules to register them for that matter. They have too much on their plate committing crimes and multi tasking is not their forte.
What about banning "military" ammunition TLR, you ask? "Military Ammunition" is my favorite of all the cliché lines. Let's get this perfectly straight folks, minus .22 and shotgun there really is very little ammunition that was not initially developed for the military. From .25 all the way to Uncle Jim's deer huntin' .30-06, these were all developed for the military at one time or another. Actually, the .223 (or 5.56mm) which the AR-15 types (Bushmaster, Colt etc) use was originally actually developed as a varmint hunting round.
Now, originally when all this gun legislation conversation began, there was also talk of mental healthcare reform. It is interesting how that talk has faded so far into the background that it's not even discussed any longer. There was some talk of having a mental health register but golly no, that would be infringing on those peoples personal privacy. However, when the names and addresses of all the pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties in New York were actually mapped out online that was perfectly fine. Yeah, smart move lets list out the locations of the folks that own guns so 1) criminals can target their neighbors or 2) particularly ambitious criminals who want guns can target those people directly. I believe one Chief of Police actually referred to it as a "shopping list" for criminals. Great foresight on that idea. Something needs to get people who are mentally ill the help they need. Too many times people chose to not accept that a loved one has issues.
I'm sure there may be some of you thinking that "Hey TLR, if those gun owners whose information is posed on the web have their firearms locked up, there should be no issue." You are right, no one has ever heard of home invaders harming a family to get what they want. Again, extreme sarcasm for those that can't figure it out.
I wont even go into detail about firearms used in suicides. Anyone who is intent on killing themselves will find a way, and realistically there are much less painful ways.
Now this whole rant wasn't just for the sake of a lack of things to do today. I wanted to see if there are any rational people out there, on either side of the issue who are willing to share their ideas. I'm in my 40's and know I'm never to old to learn or adapt my idea base.
In case you haven't realized by this point I am a firearms owner, I sport shoot and possibly may own the more "evil" black, plastic type firearms. I am also a parent and from what I've been told a fairly rational guy. Since I live in a very strict gun state I'm all for a national permit which may require a background check. I say this because I've been through a background check already, therefore it's not as big a deal for me as it is to others. This would get those states that allow gun purchases with no background check or "straw purchases" to close those loopholes. Let's be even keeled though, I will say in return for this it would be great if that would then allow me to carry in every state. Quid pro quo.
In the article I've used the work weapon when referring to firearms. This was meant in the context of its use. Anything used to commit harm be it a firearm, knife, hammer, car or baseball bat is a weapon.
Ok, who's out there and what do you think?
The next topic is one that isn't as hotly constested......right...
No comments:
Post a Comment