The Great Gun Debate



One of James Bond's guns.

 I suppose it’s time to weigh in on the whole gun debate. I've seen enough smug-faced politicians pontificating about it. I believe the Second Amendment to our Constitution does guarantee the right of the people as individuals to "bear arms," not just for hunting or home defense, but in order to prevent an oppressive government from subjugating its citizens. I also believe that those opposed to that right are using the recent killings in Connecticut to advance their good-yet-misguided intentions.

If you’ve read my previous blog post, you already know how I feel about the shooting of those children at Sandy Hook. It was the second deadliest school shooting--the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 being the deadliest with 32 killed. I don’t want to minimize what happened to those children or the pain and suffering their families and friends are experiencing, but despite what you might see on the Internet or hear in the mainstream media, these incidents are still rare. Many more people die in motor vehicles than are shot at schools or anywhere else.

I came across a disturbing map on the Internet that marked all the "school shootings" in the U.S. It appeared that there were hundreds of such events all over the country with large clusters in the more populated regions. If I hadn't looked further, I might have concluded that there’s an epidemic of children being murdered at their schools. In fact, a well-documented list provided by Wikipedia revealed that even accidental shootings in the neighborhood of schools were counted, and that most incidents involved only one or two people, and only occurred at a school because it was the place where the killer found his intended victim.

It’s typical for lawmakers to overreact to show how much they care and that they are doing something. And so they have. According to an article in the Huffington Post, "more than 190 gun-related bills (were) filed in statehouses between Jan. 1 and Jan. 15 (2013)."

The White House has weighed in with proposed legislation. The president recommended "requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute, among other policies."

Nothing wrong with that, since the Executive Branch does not make laws . . . or does it? Apparently, if Congress doesn’t act fast enough, Mr. Obama is ready to pen executive orders to accomplish his agenda. (Here's a link to ALL of his E.O.s)

I read the new executive orders that would pertain to gun laws. Most of them address background checks, with which California gun owners are already familiar. And I’m all for "safe and responsible gun ownership," and who could argue with Training for Law Enforcement.

One of the orders involves new gun technology to make guns safer--whatever that means. Another reads, "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes." A loaded statement if I ever read one. No pun intended. Why would a doctor want to ask such a question in the first place?

I do take issue with limiting magazines to 10 rounds. In case you wondered, the bad guys won't abide by that any more than they will abide by ANY new or old gun laws. (Signs on campuses that read "Gun-Free Zone" don't deter them either.) But here’s the one that bothers me most: "Review Criteria For Gun Ownership: Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks." Who determines the categories and the criteria for dangerous? This is the kind of language that makes First Amendment advocates nervous. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent.

With all the posturing, proposing, and finger-pointing, it’s interesting that in the article mentioned above from the Huffington Post, lawmakers admitted that not one of the new measures suggested by the White House, except maybe the one about smaller capacity magazines, would have prevented the shooting in Connecticut.

And reinstating the ban on assault weapons? I’m sure I wouldn’t want one anyway, but one was not used in the recent incident. So what’s the point? To remove a "dangerous" weapon from the hands of the citizenry? And which gun will be deemed dangerous or unacceptable next? We are told to rely on police officers, but often the cliche, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away," is true.

"This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged," Obama said. "We can’t put this off any longer."

Really? How about children in the womb, Mr. President? You support laws that don’t protect them. According to womenscenter.com, 45 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2005. And Abort73.com reports that 1.2 million unborn children were killed in 2008. Do you really care about our children?

Look, we all hate when these things happen, and want . . . NEED to do something to make us feel better, but we live in an increasingly violent world. Limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves means criminals have it easier. Did you know that Illinois is the only "no issue" state in the Nation? That means that you cannot get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. According to The Daily, in the first half of 2012 almost twice as many people were killed in Chicago as in Afghanistan.

The President said that citizens would have to demand more gun control if they wanted to see tougher laws. But the response has been: according to KCRA.com out of Sacramento, "gun sales in California jumped dramatically in the two weeks following the Newtown, Conn., massacre." I’ve heard that is true in many places. I wonder if that’s enough of a demand.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but personal responsibility is a good place to start. I have no problem with background checks. I didn’t know that gun shows didn’t require them. If there are little kids in the house, "No" you shouldn’t have a loaded gun within easy reach. When our grand kids came to visit, George hid the BB gun, for goodness sakes! If you have guns, gun safety should be taught to those in your household. My Arizona born-and-bred friend grew up with a loaded shotgun (still the best weapon for home defense) in the house. All the kids knew where it was and how to use it.

Gun safety classes? Of course. I don’t think anyone should "pack heat" unless they are trained. But look at the cops. All those bank robber shootings in places like LA, where dozens of cops shoot hundreds of rounds with less than a dozen hitting the bad guys, highlights how poorly trained even they are. The Oregonian conducted a study of the Portland Police and found (among other things) that "Portland police fired a total of 186 shots and scored 112 hits - missing 40 percent of their shots." Actually not a terrible percentage.

Let me also point out that the two most notable U.S. school shootings took place in May, 1970, where police opened fire on the campus of Jackson State University and where the National Guard opened fire on the campus of Kent State University. These shootings weren't committed by a deranged kid with a stolen gun.

By all means, let’s get LEO’s out on the gun range more often and require higher standards. And let’s provide ample opportunity for law-abiding citizens to practice gun safety. We need more gun ranges where folks can train. How else can they become accurate?

So before we go off like decapitated chickens, lets get the facts straight and do the right thing.