Weapons of Minor Destruction II

Back in December, in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, I promised a follow up piece to my Weapons of Minor Destruction article from three years ago.  With the gun control background check bill being nixed in the Senate yesterday and proper time to reflect on the disaster in Connecticut, now is as good a time as ever.  Like always, this is one man's opinion, albeit an open minded man.  I am always willing and even encourage to hear from anyone else.  In this day in time everyone wants to talk and nobody wants to listen, so I implore you to please voice your opinion.  Sparking debate is the first step in improving society.  


In December I chose not to write about this issue because I didn't want my reactionary knee-jerk reviews to cloud my overall judgement.  At the time, I spoke my mind to people that I believed any "assault weapons" should be banned and that anybody with any type of mental illness should be forbidden to attain a firearm.  I'm glad I did not write back then, it would have been in haste.  I would not have had time to gather more information, to hear other sides, to CONSIDER other sides.  I would have been flat out wrong.  Over more and more education I found out that many assault weapons are just variations or modifications of other weapons that wouldn't be considered "assault weapons."  As my aforementioned article Weapons of Minor Destruction said, the largest problem in this issue is the illegal guns that people possess.  Over time, I have come to believe that banning any sort of firearms would not truly address this issue.  Guns, like drugs, will still somehow find their way to the wrong people and to prevent a lawful person from getting these items would not help the situation.  I was also brought the idea that prohibiting firearms from all people with a history of mental illness is too broad of a notion.  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has been diagnosed up to 30 percent of all American in Vietnam, and while numbers for the more recent wars are lower, we must realize these are just those with a diagnosis.  There are many people who go undiagnosed for years, or even their entire lives.  Some violent, but some non-violent.  Those who fought for our country and do not have a violent past here at home should not be prevented from attaining firearms, simple as that.  In a free society we should be able to do whatever it is we want without influencing others and my first reactions would have been too expansive and would have prevented law-abiding citizens a right that many value.

I have outlined the changes I have had in my own thinking about gun control and they probably make me seem like a gun advocate, but I am not.  I personally do not own a firearm, yet plan to in the future.  Not for any malicious reason, but simply because I want to.  I think I would enjoy going to a gun range and popping off a few rounds and challenging myself to improve in accuracy and precision.  This is where this column will take a turn so make sure you have your seat belt on.  Gun rights supporters, please, please, please...come off your high horse.  Your view is not of a moral superiority, it's not a God given right.  It's not a noble view, and for most of you, it's not to "protect yourself from a possible totalitarian regime within the United States." It's simply that you like guns.  Just admit it, you like the feeling of a gun in your hand, you like the feeling of shooting a target or hunting an animal.  In basic terms, YOU LIKE GUNS.  And that's ok.  I like basketball to a degree that I call myself a basketball junkie, we all have our own things that we enjoy and that's fine.  Just don't pretend it is much more than that.  Trying to use highfalutin justifications is unnecessary and really just makes you seem paranoid and silly to people who disagree with you.  It's counterproductive for your cause.  Let me add this to the counterproductive thought.  When you tout the Second Amendment of the UNITED STATES Constitution AND States' Rights in the same argument your point is automatically moot to me.  Those are two complete opposite ends of the spectrum.  Either its a federal right or something that should be decided at the state level, it cannot be both.  That is cherry picking from whatever serves your purpose and it ruins any good points you may have.  Just be honest and then there can be an honest discussion.  

How many times have you heard this one?  "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  I have to admit I roll my eyes in its simplicity, but in essence I completely agree with this statement.  In a free society we have to be responsible for our own actions and if one uses a gun in a legal and safe manor, nobody will get hurt.  However, let's take that logic a step further.  How does the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" not completely back up the need for thorough background checks?  We are saying that the people, not the tool are what is at fault in tragic circumstances.  By any way you look at it, that means we need to keep guns out of the hands of owners who will not fully appreciate and respect the power a firearm could have.  Extensive background checks are imperative to do this.  This extends to anyone who will get a license.  Anyone with a violent history, not just a simple bar-fight in college, but multiple violent acts or one extreme violent act should not own a firearm.  If it is well documented that one cannot control their temper, sorry, but they don't deserve that right.  I'm sure there are other reasons we can think of to prevent someone that right, but a record of violence has to be the most overriding factor in forbidding the right to bear arms. Now, I have to admit, I have not read the bill that was shot down yesterday, but that's not for lack of effort.  I could not find it online, if you have access to it please send it to me.  I would like to see what was actually written in it.  One quick thing about the rejection of the bill, please don't think that anything that happens in Washington anymore actually proves your views are justified or not.  Politicians are all about covering their own asses to win reelections, reciprocating to the special interests that contributed to their campaigns, and a good old fashion pissing contest between the left and the right.  Unfortunately it is us, their constituents that are urine soaked.

So what is the answer?  I'm glad I asked...Firstly, of course, the background checks that I highlighted in the previous paragraph are paramount.  Secondly, gun safety courses should be required.  It should be similar to getting a driver's license.  New York already has many of these types of requirements and is in the bottom five percent of states in per capita gun death rates in the country.  After all of these requirements are met and a person attains a license, then and only then, should they be allowed to purchase a gun from a store OR a gun show.  Gun dealers/store owners should have to obtain a more in-depth license and be required to have a proper secure safe to store their plethora of firearms.  After one attains their license they should be able to purchase whatever and however many they desire.  However, much like a drivers license, if you are caught abusing this power they should be taken away from you. Every firearm someone owns must be on their license record.  Tracking the guns is vital to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands.  To further this idea, there needs to be more stringent regulations and tracking as to following the path a gun takes, from the manufacturer to the dealers/stores and ultimately to the owners.  If this last point is worked well, it could be a very effective way of keeping illegal guns off the streets.

Some states already follow many of these rules, but this should be a federally regulated issue.  If all you need is keys and a tank of gas to get into my state you need to be following the same rules that I am.  States' rights on this issue is laughable, gun violence is not a Connecticut problem, it's not a New York problem, it's not a Texas problem, it is a United States of America problem.  If we want to live in a free society we will never completely get rid of violence; but if we want to live in a civilized society, we must compromise for the safety of us all.