Let's Find Some Middle Ground on Gun Control (Part II)
Due to the unusually large number of reader comments from my last column, I feel it necessary to continue this discussion. by Bill Gee
(centrist)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Due to the unusually large number of reader comments from my last column, I feel it necessary to continue this discussion. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who took the time to read my article and respond to it. It is obvious that I have some very strong opinions on the issue of gun control that may be more grounded in ideology and personal experience and which may or may not be grounded in the facts. That said, I will attempt to discuss this issue and leave my personal feelings on the subject aside.
To Mark Vogl:
Your argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a classic and one that the NRA has been using since its inception - and why not? It's a valid point. My counter argument has more to do with law enforcement rather than the right of the legal gun owner from possessing a weapon. Over the past several years, there have been many would-be terrorist plots that have been thwarted because the terrorists attempted to obtain illegal weaponry in order to carry out their plots. FBI and other law enforcement officials are tipped off, they set up a "sting" where the suspects can purchase what they're looking for illegally, and an arrest is made. The so-called "Fort Dix Five" is a relevant example here.
It is possible that a ban on the purchase of a 30-round clip except to law enforcement personnel could have also provided a "red flag" before the Tucson incident occurred. According to reports, Mr. Loughner was first denied the purchase of the clip at the first store he went to. Had the store owner been required to tip off the police of the attempted purchase, it is possible the young man would have been picked up for questioning before he arrived at the scene. (Admittedly, this is a "Big If" and assumes that police officers would have correctly interpreted the situation.) After questioning, his clear mental instability would probably have triggered a psychological evaluation and possible treatment.
To Bentree:
Let us not revert to name-calling, please. As we all know, there can be a wide range of opinions within a single political label, which is why I try to avoid them.
To George Dance:
I suppose you are correct that I am not really offering a compromise at all. Further, such action would likely do nothing even if the Act was reinstated. Both gun control advocates and opponents have long argued that the ban was ineffective at reducing gun violence, and its reintroduction would be more of a symbolic gesture than one of any substance.
I would argue that passions on either side of this issue are too high for anything more than a symbolic gesture. That was why I offered it as a compromise.
To Winghunter:
While I choose not to be a gun owner for my own personal reasons, I have been trained in their use and I do enjoy practicing at my brother's target range from time to time. I understand how these weapons work, and I have a great respect for gun safety. So I would hardly characterize myself as hoplophobic.
The rest of your commentary gravely concerns me. When anyone who wishes to have a rational discussion on limiting the amount of deadly force an individual should possess is automatically labeled as "hoplophobic" and a "Socialist", you are only adding kerosene to the heated political debate, which has turned our democracy into a shouting match where everyone is talking and nobody is listening.
Unless you are arming yourself for the coming apocalypse, this discussion is not a choice between "food and poison" as your Ayn Rand quote suggests. Personally, I really do not care if you have enough firepower in your basement to equip a small army. As long as you understand how to use these weapons and you have no immediate plans to start a revolution, that is your right. Where I take issue is with those individuals that purchase weapons for the sole purpose of doing harm to others. That is where a compromise between your right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment and the right to due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments for the victims needs to be reached.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs 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 13, 2011 09:57:13 AM
Bill,
What a refreshing methodology, no insults, no calling someone a name, no demaning someone because they have a different view. Thank you so much for your thoughtful, specific reply. I appreciate that. If I could, I would like to add one more thought to this discussion.
Bill, conservatives like me have seen government promises of limmited common sense approaches balloon out of control over and over again. We have never seen government recede. Not once. While your point about the 30 round magazine makes complete sense what it could lead to ...given government's avoraciious appetite and the motives of anti-gun liberals is just too possible to be allowed.
What hasn't been tried, much, is using the 2d Amendment and personal responsibility to help limit violence by allowing law abiding people to carry guns. Imagine if two or three citizens who were there had loaded guns at the site. I dare say that young man doesn't ahve the courage to face that. Instead of trying to restrict the 2d Amendment why dont we embrace it for what it is.
One other point. Crime, violence, etc isn't gonna stop by taking guns from good people, But action by the governemnt in violation of the Second Amendment could force alot of us to break the law. As I told a senator I worked for...I will lose my guns the day before you pass the law to take them away...even if I find out about the law a week after its signed.
Again, thank you for courteous reponse. I am afraid there is no middle ground on this issue...as there is none on abortion..for that baby its life or death.
Mark Vogl
.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: January 13, 2011 12:02:11 PM
Mark,
Please do not be so quick to dismiss the possibility for finding common ground on this issue, because you brought up something that we can possibly use as a grounds for a compromise. I'm referring to what you referred to as "what hasn't been tried" - to allow citizens to carry weapons.
I think we can agree that if the gunman in Tucscon was aware that any citizen could have been and indeed had been carrying a weapon, one of three things could have been different. He might have selected a different means of attack or he would have abandoned the assault altogether, or he would have continued with his planned attack and he would have been gunned down by one of those armed citizens before further damage could have been done. Two of these scenarios would have been preferable to the one that actually occurred.
I think the concern for all people would be the fear of collateral damage if a full-out gun battle ensued as a result of too many citizens being armed. Speaking strictly for myself, when my emotions and adrenaline is pumped up, I couldn't hit "the broad side of a barn" and I would be more likely to shoot an innocent bystander. However, someone who had perhaps served in the military or law enforcement at some point in their lives would likely to be much cooler in such a situation. Therefore, I would propose that there must be mandatory training for those who wish to carry firearms in public in order to ensure the safety of those around them. One of my best friends is a 3rd Degree BlackBelt, and he would be the first to tell you the need for training and restraint when you hold such deadly skills.
My second concern would be for young people - specifically those between the ages of 18-30. Psychologists have proven that this demographic still receives most of its commands from the limbic or more primitive side of the brain. Therefore, they tend to be more reactionary and less careful when it comes to making quick, emotionally-charged decisions. Frankly, I do not think I would be comforted by someone that young carrying a deadly weapon in a public place where children and other innocents might be present. Therefore, I would propose that the minimum age for purchasing and carrying a concealed weapon in a public place be set at 30 years-old.
If those conditions were met, I think I would have no problem with allowing all citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, and I would have no problem with allowing citizens to purchase whatever weapon they please.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: January 13, 2011 12:25:51 PM
Bill,
Well thank you for continuing the discussion. Well..lets talk this out.
I could accept that every American child be taught about the Second Amendment, personal responsibility, gun safety and operation as a part of their high school instruction. I do not share your concern that a younger person would be more apt to miss than an older person. If an individual felt they were not prepared to engage a shooter...they dont have to carry a gun.
This case should disprove collateral damage given the number of people killed and wounded. Had someone reacted on the first shot, I think we can agree there would have been less carnage.
I think we have to start with reality. No law, no society can being heaven to earth. There will always be bad guys and girls. For those people who want a more regulated society there are plenty of nations across the world. But there are few, if any, with as much freedom as here. There is no where to go. It is the reason why conservatives are so dedicated and so determined. We have no where to go. I do believe in Secession as an orignial right of the states If Secession were more of an option it would have two immediate effects...one slow down centralism, and slow down an activist court.
Bill, i don't see much common ground. We can already carry weapons. People should just do it. If we did, that boy would be dead, less people would have been hurt, and we would be arguing about reducing the cost of ammunition so we could practice more!
Posted By: Bentree
Date: January 13, 2011 01:00:01 PM
Bill said:
Bentree, let us not revert to name-calling, please. As we all know, there can be a wide range of opinions within a single political label, which is why I try to avoid them.
Progressive intellectual dysfunction is a term that I came up with to describe in some manner how an otherwise intelligent erudite individual feels that my rights are up for debate, among other things. My rights are in my control not yours, as long as I remain a responsible citizen and respect your rights. If you want to feel safer in this country and you personally feel threatened by others having guns, then you had better arm yourself or not that is your right one way or another. This is not a political issue for debate, the debate ended with the founders. I'm sorry my rights do not depend on your comfort level, Now if you want to debate on whether or not I have a right to access your checking account or retirement accounts so that I may feel more comfortable, lets have at it. Is that a political question or is it a 4th. Amendment issue, shall we debate it winner take all, yours of course.
Mark said:
Bill, I don't see much common ground. We can already carry weapons. People should just do it. If we did, that boy would be dead, less people would have been hurt, and we would be arguing about reducing the cost of ammunition so we could practice more!
Bentree said: "right on target Mark".
Posted By: George Dance
Date: January 13, 2011 03:53:49 PM
Bill: It looks like you're serious about toning down the rhetoric, and willing to lead by example rather than just point fingers. That's refreshing and welcome, and should be acknowledged. Nolan Chart was founded not just to give expression to views all over the political map, but to promote dialogue among the proponents of the different views. As I do not have to tell you, dialogue is not possible when we're all shouting at each other. Thank you for doing something about that here.
Posted By: billbobaggins
Date: January 13, 2011 07:23:44 PM
How do you think the Russian mob would benefit from making guns illegal in the USA? They do after all run some of the largest criminal organizations in the USA...distributing guns, prostitution, drugs, etc. Much like prohibition, a few will get wealthy distributing an illegal product.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: January 14, 2011 09:43:54 AM
I"m not sure that the Russian mob meets any equivalency standard considering the stated purpose of the second amendment, protection from "Tyranny". It is my opinion that to sustain liberty by example can't be a bad thing. If left up to the gun control advocates we would shortly cease to be free or an example.
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
I took the liberty of compressing numerous quotes to show that George could be consistent and carry a cogent as well as prescient thought forward.
Bentree
I agree as well that the majority of gun control laws do little more than restrict law abiding citizens and make it all the more likely that when someone is confronted by a criminal, that the criminal will be the better armed.
Unlike martial arts, gun usage does not take into account who is bigger, stronger, faster, and as such, they are of more use to the most defenseless among us. Even the most aware and well trained in society can over a mere span of years easily be in a position where what strength and training they may have once had can no longer protect them or their loved ones.
And given the increasing prevalence I have seen over the last two decades for youths adn other criminals to commit assaults in groups, I can quite easily argue the need for a larger clip. One merely needs to do a quick search to see the increased gang and other similar activities in many areas of the country.
Even the Director of the Program that banned many types of guns in the UK has admitted to the BBC that the program does not work. Here you see that gun control is merely increasing the rate of gun crime as the populace is less likely to be able to defend itself.
"It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place."
- The campaign's director, David Bredin http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
And this holds true when expanded to a larger sense. No government can successfully occupy an armed populace. Guns are our protection from our own government. Throughout history, the worst crimes perpetrated by governments have often been preceded by disarming the populace.
If those who are not willing to have guns themselves want a compromise, fine, I do believe I may have one possible suggestion. Let's set it up like driving a car. The only barriers to driving are;
1. Age. This varies by state.
2. Licensing. Passing a basic safety test and demonstrate basic safe usage in a functional environment.
3. Insurance. A fair rate to cover the rare occurance of an accident.
4. Finances. Both Purchase price as well as ongoing costs to maintain and operate.
Guns are very similar and could use the same 4 items. As you see, the largest barriers to driving are age and finances.
Now to address the biggest fear of most who are pro gun laws - accidental deaths. Yet in 2006, only 642 people died in the United States from the accidental discharge of firearms. This is according to the 2010 Statistical Handbook of the U.S. Census Bureau. In the same year according to preliminary figures released by the Department of Transportation the number of road deaths declined slightly to 43,300. The same report lists alcohol-related fatalities increased 2.4 percent to 17,941.
So that is one accidental gun death for every 67 road deaths, or 1 accidental gun death for every 28 alcohol-related fatalities.
Yet where is the outcry for stricter control of who is allowed to drive? Limitations, or at least mandatory retesting, of the elderly for vision and reaction time? Lifetime driving bans for drunk driving offenses?
When we have things that are so much more dangerous in our daily lives, restricting our rights to defend ourselves in any of the few ways we can only leads us to a place where criminals, and potentially corrupt governments, rule.
