If anything good comes from the Tucson shooting, it is a renewed discussion on the issue of gun control. This issue is one that Democrats have been hiding from, and Republicans have been ignoring, for far too long. by Bill Gee
(centrist)
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
If anything good comes from the Tucson shooting, it is a renewed discussion on the issue of gun control. This issue is one that Democrats have been hiding from, and Republicans have been ignoring, for far too long.
Given what we know so far, the alleged gunman from January 9th was a disturbed individual, which most would agree should have never been within a hundred yards of a firearm, let alone a 30-round clip that enabled him to inflict the level of carnage that he did without the need to reload.
What's interesting is that both sides of the isle are starting to talk about the issue, and in the middle of the debate is the juggernaut National Rifle Association (NRA). If we can agree that something must be done, then perhaps we can seek to find some middle ground that would allow Americans to maintain their 2nd Amendment rights while perhaps making it a little more difficult for the Jared Lee Loughton's of the world from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction.
Let us begin with Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In his Jan. 11 column in Bloomberg, he rightfully points out that had the 1994 ban on assault weapons not expired in 2004, Mr. Loughton would not have been able to obtain the clip that allowed him to do so much collateral damage in addition to striking his intended target at point-blank range. He also points out Arizona's liberal concealed weapons laws, which allow a person to pack some serious firepower in public places without the need for a permit. There are two weaknesses to his argument. If the young man was determined to obtain a large clip for his legally purchased weapon, there was not much that was stopping him even if the clips were illegal. It's possible that if he was clumsy in his quest to obtain an illegal firearm, this would have tipped off authorities, but this is a generally weak argument. Secondly, determined killers do not waste time obtaining a legal permit.
Next we have Congressman Pete King, Republican from New York. He just introduced a bill in Congress that would make it illegal to carry a firearm anywhere near a Member of Congress. This would create a sort of "Gun-Free Zone" that would follow a lawmaker wherever he or she would go. The bill is, of course, unenforcible for two reasons. First, it would create a potential situation for legal gun owners to be in violation of a Federal Law without any intention of doing harm to anyone. Secondly, all it would do for the determined killer would be to add an additional charge of violating the gun-free zone on top of the many counts of murder and assassination that are already being charged against them.
Lastly, let us consult with the NRA. After all, it was their lobbying efforts that provided for the weakened version of the 1994 law, and it was their efforts that frightened Lawmakers into allowing the law to expire in 2004. On the NRA website is a statement, "Our thoughts and prayers with the victims of this senseless tragedy". That's it. Their blogs are silent on the issue; the president of the NRA simply repeats the message on the splash page. I suppose we shouldn't expect any meaningful discussion on the subject until they've gotten all of their talking points together.
While most agree that something should be done, I think most of us can agree that it is more likely nothing will be done. While proponents of gun control will seek a conciliatory gesture by seeking a ban on the large ammunition clips used in this particular incident, opponents will simply ignore the problem or offer up meaningless legislation while continuing to bow to the power of the gun lobby.
I offer a compromise - simply renew the 1994 law. In the ten years the law was in force, proud sportsmen continued to hunt, homeowners were still able to purchase weapons for home protection, and collectors were still able to stock their display cabinets. Since its expiration, the incidents of gun violence has increased in this country, more assault weapons have been exported to Mexican drug lords and a troubled young man from Tucson was able to inflict an act of senseless carnage in a shopping center parking lot.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Bill Gee only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Bill Gee is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: January 12, 2011 07:13:39 PM
Bill,
I am sorry but I dont think this incident proves any additional need for gun control. In fact, it could be argued that if some people had had a weapon he would not have been able to cause the damage he did. Gun control does not work, and actually aides the criminal. This fool could have walked up and stabbed Congresswoman, or driven his car into her, or made a bomb. Its not the weapons its the people, and people are imperfect...and we are stuck with that. Government has NOT solved any problem, and in most cases made them worse. I am sorry we disagree. Mark Vogl
Posted By: Winghunter
Date: January 12, 2011 11:16:59 PM
I have over 20 years in education, training, experience and teaching in law enforcement and related fields. I have more than 40 years experience with firearms in a wide range of applications and I have forgotten more about this subject than any random 10 will ever know. I'm here to tell you, there is no 'compromise' possible of this inalienable right and to attempt it is an exercise in suicide or worse, directly assisting murderers to commit their crimes.
Compare the SEVEN shootings in D.C. of last week alone with the one in Arizona. Here we see a treasonous location with much higher rate of shootings and a semi-loyal state where we have just witnessed that in either place if you don't have what you need to survive, you won't. We know now murderers and wannabes are clearly smarter than hoplophobes as they learn by example - How do we know this? Bad guys commit their crimes in areas where they believe the least resistance will be offered. Schools, malls, churches - catching on yet? Hoplophobes, without any true 'reason' they claim, continuously demand more infringments on the law-abiding to own and carry firearms. Now, many things in life can be much more complicated but, this issue is only made that way by the frightened and the agenda driven (often one in the same).
One intelligent way of riding yourself of fear is through education as unarmed experience on this issue is more than probable to be the last chance you learn anything. If you personally feel fearful of what you don't know, get up and go learn from top professionals and learn the law - your fear will disappear. Just do it!
When and only when self-confessed, agenda-driven Socialist reporters are given no choice but to relay incident after incident with, 'Intended victim(s) (or concerned citizen witness) drew their weapon and stopped the bad guy(s) to survive the attack', will we see violent crime literally drop below its own chart graph. Therefore, it is not only right and correct but, it is also one of our few duties to ourselves and our country to be trained, armed and ready to respond accordingly to whatever threat surfaces. Fix what went wrong when our lineage denied the next generations what they must know to survive and therein, be a part of the solution which was taught to us by our Founding Fathers. Be smart, loyal and alive.
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube." – Ayn Rand
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." --- Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."-Ayn Rand
Posted By: Bentree
Date: January 13, 2011 06:57:41 AM
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."-Ayn Rand
I like it! Then there is Alan Simpson, "compromise is an umbrella over a leaky roof", it accomplishes nothing except a false sense of security and accomplishment and leaves nothing of value, my words.
I have a cousin who lives in Scotland and oddly enough this subject came up and I stated that America's 2nd. Amend was the bastion of Liberty in the free world including Great Britain. He gave me a very sympathetic look. I asked him how the Brits would defend themselves against a dictatorial regime. The obvious answer is they can't because they have given up their guns. Would a well armed American citizenry tolerate this? Would we tolerate it in Canada? How about the good ole US of A. That is what is at stake here. Without the 2nd. Amendment the liberties that we have left will soon become a short paragraph in history.
"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."
-Joseph Stalin
Uttered shortly after he attended a seminar on "Democracy in America" in Chicago, I think it was in the twenties. I could be wrong about the decade.
Posted By: Montana Libertarian
Date: January 13, 2011 06:58:48 PM
Add me to the majority on this thread.
I just registered on this site, because this particular article struck my eye.
I was gratified to find participants who use correct grammar, spelling and punctuation, but more importantly I am elated to find participants who concur with my view: compromise on issues of fundamental rights amounts to surrender. An ancestor of mine fought in the American Revolution. My family has born arms throughout the history of the republic. We have no intention of disarming ourselves nor allowing others to bring us to that sad pass.
I'll add a few quotes:
"When you come for my guns, bring yours. You'll be needing them." Larry Simoneaux
"The unarmed man is not merely defenseless - he is also contemptible." Machiavelli
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave." James Burgh 1774
Posted By: EJ Moosa
Date: January 25, 2011 10:35:32 AM
So the first few deaths are ok, but it's the additional deaths that occurred because you perceive the size of his magazine contributed to those "additional" deaths is the issue?
Then, you want to make me a criminal for possession of a similar capacity magazine? And that is compromise?
Never compromise your principles.
Had the guy driven a car into the crowd or used a bomb, what would you be asking for then?
