By Tom Kozlowski
Opinions Editor
It’s finally on our doorstep. The time spent avoiding even the thought of gun control has caught up with us, not in some intellectual evolution of momentum, but in bullets and numbers, in calamity as commonplace. For just as we left school, another one fell victim to a scenario beyond imagination. Beyond our glamorization of guns, past our most frightening “what-ifs;” but it’s the “what-if’s” that have shown us what must be done. And I’ll be damned if I allow the NRA to hold our logic at gunpoint.
Their position is lopsidedly simple: the unrestricted, patriotic freedom to lay your hands on firearms. Any grade, any power. As extreme as the pro-gun position is, many blow the anti-gun advocates out of proportion too, a problem all on its own. They blast the anti-gun advocates for what they don’t believe in, the elimination of all guns whatsoever. For the NRA and its ilk, conspiracy and misunderstanding are almost as dangerous as the guns they tout. But there is no police state takeover. There are no political games being played on the graves of Newtown’s victims. There are merely those trying to make a difference and those too narrow-minded to get out of Dylan’sproverbial road.
Fortunately, President Obama’s gun control plan has refocused some of the debate. It’s about time, too. Mass shootings are hardly a black comedy joke where hands should spring up, palms out, shouting “too soon, too soon.” Yet they do, and that must be changed. As does our inability to properly discuss this plan.
Here are some considerations: we do not have unlimited freedom. That’s a big one, I might add. We’re prohibited from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. We have to buy car insurance, and we’re penalized from driving that car too fast on a highway. One of those already violates the sacrosanct First Amendment — so when did your Second Amendment become Old Testament law? Mine is subject to limitations like everything else. A “well regulated” militia and the government responsibility to protect is citizens automatically nullify that argument, no matter how loud you can yell “freedom” over the Grand Canyon.
Now here’s a question: when have you (or a phone-a-friend buddy) benefited from owning an assault rifle? To hunt with a semi-automatic AK-47 is a long shot; to prevent crimes with, more importantly, it is undocumented. I don’t dispute the legitimacy of carry-conceal laws. What I do know is that every reported case has occurred with a handgun or shotgun. If you support taking high-powered, large magazine weapons from the hands of the mentally ill, then perhaps we should start by taking them from the public. After all, we’re the ones who least need or use them.
I asked my hard-right neighbor an easy question the other day. “Would you pass Obama’s gun control measures if you thought they would save one life?” She said no. I asked again. “Let me remind you that the measures include mental healthcare reform, school safety funding, and a director for the ATF.” Again, she said no. She thought I wanted the government to control our lives.
Such thinking will never make us safer, only more paranoid. This is a debate flooded by emotion, partisanship reigns. And a tact Obama gun plan is only a brief antiseptic. But assess your options again. To potentially reduce 36,000 gun crimes a year or watch them persist — the NRA may have the guns, but the brains aren’t so easily acquired.
Loading ...
In your editorial you ask if your neighbor would agree with the President’s gun control measures if it saves one life. Let me ask you: would you oppose his measures if it saves one life? How about thousands of lives? Several studies have shown anywhere between 800,000 and 2,000,000 defensive uses of guns per year. (see http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html and http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/) Yet you would let a percentage of those people die, be raped, or be beaten.
And yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, just not with malicious or criminal intent. Just like it’s legal to own and shoot guns, yet illegal to shoot people with them.
You also bring up speed limits. Where in our Constitution does it say there’s a right to travel as fast as we’d like? That’s the difference right there. Our Constitution has the Second Amendment to preserve our inherent right to defend ourselves from crime and from tyrannous government.
Individuals have the right to own guns. It’s in our Constitution and has been backed up through court rulings. Individuals owning guns have save many lives, facts show this. Banning guns simply makes it easier for criminals to prey on their victims.
Hello Tom.
I would like to clear up some facts for you. You can feel free to print or respond as you see fit.
First, the Second Amendment is not without it’s limitations. The “original” Assault Weapons Ban happened in the mid ’50’s, I believe. It prohibited the general public from owning “true” assault weapons. Meaning, firearms that can release more than one projectile with one squeeze of the trigger. Machine guns in popular parlance. The main proponent of that ban… Surprise!!! It was the NRA. The NRA helped push that legislation thru as they felt that firearms such as those did not/do not belong in public hands. On top of that, in states such as the one you and I reside in, obtaining a firearm is more difficult than you let on. Firearms owners need to pass psychological screening, get fingerprinted, and obtain letters of reference from several folks unrelated to them. All of this to exercise a “Right”.
As for documented cases where the use of AR style firearms or AK style firearms were used to protect life and property, one simply needs to look at pictures from Katrina or the L.A. riots. There are pictures all over the web of store owners protecting their property and lives with AR style firearms.
As for using the excuse that by eliminating firearms we will eliminate crime, I simply ask you to use the U.K. as an example. In the U.K., firearms are outlawed. Therefore in 2009(I believe) there were 59 firearms related deaths, which sounds great. However, take a look at the violent crime numbers. The rate of violent crime in the U.K. is three times HIGHER than in the U.S.. So, consequently the reduction of firearms does NOT correlate to a reduction in crime. Quite the opposite. Another case in point, any idea about the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history? 1956, I believe. The year escapes me, however the number of students murdered does not. It was One Hundred Ninety Five. Yes, 195 students were killed that day. The weapons…? A gallon of gasoline and a match.
Tom, simply put, evil pervades all of this and other societies. The answer is simply not simple. However, the elimination of firearms and/or sporting rifles(the real name for what you call assault weapons)is not the answer.
Best of luck with your agenda. If you would ever like to come to the range, drop me a line. I will clue you in the the fun and challenge of a sport few can master. And, don’t worry about getting hurt. It’s the safest sport in the country.
C
you need to go back to school and learn about our second amendment. you should probably listen to your neighbor because she knows what she’s talking about. also, the mentally ill is banned from purchasing any firearm, let alone “high” capacity magazines. also, i shouldnt need to benefit from owning a firearm because i have the right that should not be infringed.