Like most people I was sickened by the slaughter of twenty children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut by a young man yielding a semiautomatic Bushmaster AR-15. In addition, the perpetrator of this horrendous act killed his own mother and finally killed himself. To add insult to this terrible injury, Mr. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association took it upon himself to blame it all on Hollywood, the news media, pop music, "gun-free school zones" and a generalized culture of violence. Not once did he blame anything on guns. His solution, put armed guards in every school in the United States. A local blogger, who is a retired Army Warrant Officer, has stated that he agrees with a great deal of what LaPierre had to say and went one step further recommending that all active duty, retired and honorably discharged military personnel with no diagnosed mental illness be encouraged to arm up and carry a weapon either concealed on in open carry.
Their whole premise is that an armed society is a civil society. Their proposal is to answer violence with perhaps more violence. The Army veteran I mentioned above has gone so far as to claim that anyone with an Obama sticker on their car is fair game for criminals since most of these folks don't own guns. On the other hand, he proudly claims that anyone with a National Rifle Association sticker on their car is one tough dude and that criminals will automatically steer away from these pistol packin' people. In all fairness, I should point out that this man is a self-proclaimed RIGHT leaning Libertarian and I am a LEFT leaning old fashioned Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat but I am not committed to the excessive dogma of the Democratic Party. Hell, I even voted for Ronald Reagan since I figured with his background, he could at least act like a president. And he did a pretty good job of it.
It has been eight years since the Assault Weapons Ban expired. And the mass killings continue and often assault weapons are not in the picture. Gun advocates are quick to proclaim, "See, nothing has changed, you can't blame assault weapons for all the killings." But why do we need to make assault weapons and high capacity magazines available to the average citizen? Is it all because the Second Amendment declares that citizens have a right to bear arms? Is that it?
According to Mother Jones, which I must admit is a popular left-leaning magazine, points out there have been sixty-two mass killings over the last thirty years (1982-2012). In forty-nine cases the killer obtain his weapon[s] legally, twelve did not and one case is not clear. Sixty-eight semi-automatic handguns, thirty-five assault weapons, twenty revolvers and nineteen shotguns--142 weapons--were used to commit these mass murders. The killers were lone killers, not part of a gang and the killings were mostly in public places. The sad part is most of them had some mental illness, often manifesting itself before the killings took place.
So, most of the killers obtained their weapons legally, because the Second Amendment says they have a right to own the weapons. But the Second Amendment does not say they have a right to kill people with them and try as I might I can find nothing in the Second Amendment that says anyone has a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, an assault rifle or high capacity magazines that hold thirty or more rounds of ammunition thus allowing a gun owner to fire many rounds before having to reload.
I keep asking myself, "Why is it necessary for ordinary citizens to have assault weapons or semi-automatic pistols that can accommodate high capacity magazines or why they even need high capacity magazines?" Some gun owners claim they like them so they can fire a lot of rounds at target practice. Some say they simply want to collect all kinds of weapons and accessories. But I haven't heard anyone say they need these weapons for hunting. In my opinion, it if takes more than a couple of shots to bring down whatever animal you are hunting, perhaps you should not be hunting. And how many rounds do you need to fire to know if you are pretty good at shooting at a target?
While mass killings are the headline grabbers, there are many thousands of gun associated deaths that don't get the 24/7 media coverage that mass killings do. But nevertheless, a gun is used in many killings--guns are dangerous, particularly so in the hands of someone who is mentally ill.
Is it possible to ban all guns? No. There are over 300,000,000 guns in the country owned by over 100,000,000 people. We can no sooner ban weapons and high capacity magazines that we can count the grains of sand on a beach. BUT we can make gun ownership, particularly owner ship of assault weapons and high capacity magazine, much more difficult. And we can make ownership of guns more responsible. We need to immediately reinstate the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines--period. No ordinary citizen should be allowed to possess these--period. They should be reserved for law enforcement and military personnel. Just since the Newtown massacre, gun stores have been overwhelmed with the demand for assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Some stores have sold out their inventory in a few hours. Why? Because gun owners are scared to death there is going to be a ban on these deadly devices. Let's hope their fears are proven to be correct.
Gun ownership should require registration of all weapons. And perhaps, just perhaps, gun owners should be required to purchase insurance specifically aimed at covering damage caused by guns. Certification of a training course in gun safety with the weapons owned is a must. Every retail and private sale of a gun,whether at a gun show or an individual sale, must be reported and background checks must be standard. Failure to report a sale or conduct a background check should give cause for penalties--a hefty fine for first offenders, repeat offenders might possible face jail time. Since individuals don't have the means to do background checks, those sales must be reported to the appropriate authority who will conduct the background check and the transfer of any weapon[s] will not take place until the background check has been completed.
But guns are not the only issue. A large number of the killers involved in these crimes suffer from mental illness. As noted earlier, this often manifests itself before the actual crime. It may even include threats of committing killings. Medical professionals, law enforcement personnel and even teachers need to know what to look for and when they suspect something, they must report it. Health care for the mentally ill must be readily available and costs must not be prohibitive. If necessary, it may require that some individuals be institutionalized for evaluation and treatment.
I realize this may sound very harsh, but murder or more properly massacres are harsh. They are horrible. I spent a large portion of my life (39 years) in the Navy Medical Department. I served alongside Marines. I have seen what the weapons of war to to human flesh. I have held dying men and watched the light go out of their eyes as death crept into their bodies. I believe I can vouchsafe say that none of the gun proponents I have heard have seen death from gunfire up close and personal. They claim that all an armed individual has to do is pull his weapon and kill the perpetrator. Talk is cheap--many law enforcement officers go through a whole career and never unholster their weapon to stop a crime. And that's not all; in one incident several years ago, police wounded several bystanders in a shootout with criminals.
This is my Two Cents Worth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment