The NRA seems to be sticking to it’s claim that we need armed guards, police, and armed staff to protect kids at schools and that gun regulation does not work. I would like to know if they are willing to foot the bill by either having a surcharge on all gun sales or would they like to volunteer to pay for it all together? I can hear them laughing now.
Mean while our politicians can’t even agree to have a debate about gun control. However, this past weekend it does look like at least two senators, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) (R) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) want to get a gun debate started — at least for background checks for selling firearms at gun shows and on the Internet. The NRA and those pro-gun owners interviewed on cable news want to leave things just the way they are or suggest we get more guns in the hands of citizens. What’s their bottom line argument? It’s their Second Amendment Right! What about my right not be blown away by some nut job who had easy access to a family members weapons? What if the shooter stole their parents weapons, like Adam Lanza did? Where is the accountability of the parents? Sure Adam Lanza’s mom was killed by her son. But what if she wasn’t? Would she be held accountable?
I heard some people say they felt sorry for his mom. Seriously??? I hold her just as responsible. She decided it was a good idea to teach her son who was unstable, how to shoot a firearm, and apparantly did not have the sense to make sure her guns were locked up. Why didn’t anyone speak up and tell her that she was asking for trouble? Where was the father’s role in all of this?
I asked someone in law enforcement if gun owners ever get into trouble when their kid or someone else uses their firearm in a crime and the answer was possibly, but it has to be proven that the gun was secured and that’s nearly impossible to find out. Law enforcement can only go on the testimony of the gun owner. Do you seriously think anyone in their right mind will admit they did not lock up their firearm? They want the guns but don’t want to take any responsibility when it is used in a crime or accidental shooting.
Another thing about this idea of arming school staff — police train all the time in different scenarios and they still make mistakes when in an actual gun fight. Do we really expect a teacher to be able to stop someone with a semi-automatic weapon in the middle of math? Do we really think that person will be better trained than a cop in that type of situation? And then what happens when the police show up and they can’t tell who is the bad guy? Do we really believe the perpetrator will say, “Oh my bad. It’s me officer”.
If back ground checks at gun shows and the Internet is all we get, then I suppose we will have to settle for that. I already know that background checks probably would not have prevented sandy Hook, but 40% of gun sales are untraceable and to me, that is not acceptable. If a criminal wants to buy a gun, then buying one at a gunshow makes sense because no questions are asked. If background checks become the law for all gun sales, then the criminal will have harder time to get the weapon.
Did anyone watch 60 Minutes last week? The parents of Sandy Hook Elementary were interviewed. I cannot imagine how horrible they must feel. This question goes to all the gun owners who insist the Second Amendment is what’s at stake –what if your kid is the next one to be killed by gun violence? Will you still think that way? What if your kid goes off the deep end and shoots up a school, mall, or whatever? Will you blame it on the medical community? If a kid has mental problems, remove all weapons from the house, then take up whatever concerns there are about their medications with their physicians. The parent is supposed to be the responsible adult, whether their kid is 5 or 35. The parent decided to buy the guns, for whatever reason and it should be their responsibility to make sure it stays locked up. If their argument is that a stranger came in and stole the gun, I say it is still the gun owners responsibility.
If it is up to states to tighten gun laws, it won’t work because like so many like to point out — Chicago has a high crime rate and thats because the surrounding states have lenient gun laws. It’s easy to bring in guns over the state line. California has one of the strictist laws around but Nevada and Arizona don’t. We are either all in or not.
We shall see what happens the next few weeks. My guess is that nothing happens — until maybe some politician’s kid gets shot — then maybe, just maybe something will change.
If you are at all interested in what professionals think, then you might find this interesting and I hope educational as well. Remember this is a LEO website.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/
5) Q22 relates directly to the issue of public safety.
“What would help MOST in preventing large scale shootings in public? Choose the selection you feel would have the most impact.
28.8% – More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians
19.6% – More aggressive Institutionalization for mentally ill persons
15.8% – More armed guards/paid security personnel
14.0% – Improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers
11.4% – Other
7.9% – Longer prison terms for gun related violent crimes
1.5% – Tighter limits on weapon sales and transfers
0.9% – More legislative restrictions on “assault weapons” and ammo magazines
Item 7, Q24 – (Over 80% of cops think the answer is YES!)
Do you support arming teachers and/or school administrators who volunteer to carry at their school?
76.6% – Yes, if they are vetted, trained, and qualified annually
4.7% – Yes, if they pass a one time police-level proficiency check
Serious issues that have serious effects down the road. They shouldn’t be made based on emotions, nor should they be made in a rush.
You can’t write laws that stop criminal acts. Laws simply define what acts are criminal. Stealing or assaulting someone is already a crime, saying it again, or in a different way isn’t going to stop anyone from breaking the law.
We agree that there is a problem, we disagree on how to solve it.
Ya know, I keep listening to the calls to “get rid of all the guns”.
Yeah, that’ll solve the problems of gun violence for sure!
We have a long time laboratory experiment that has been testing that policy for many years just south of us. We can take a lesson from observing the situation in Mexico.
In Mexico citizens are not allowed to possess guns. If a person is caught with a gun in Mexico they are thrown in prison with little or no trial. Remember that ex marine with the antique shotgun?
Nevertheless there are tens of thousands of gun murders and other crimes in that country annually. The crimes with guns in Mexico take place at orders of magnitude more than here in the US, more than 101,000 murders in the last 6 years
Clearly that is not working at all, at least as an approach to stopping gun crime. Drug gangs and other criminals are already lawbreakers. Making guns illegal will not deter them from buying, stealing and possessing guns and using them in their criminal enterprises.
Non criminals are sitting ducks in Mexico having been disarmed by the laws which only they obey, but criminals are exempt from such laws since they are, well, already criminals.
Blaming the existence of guns on the Connecticut school shooting is the same as blaming airplanes for 9/11.
Who, exactly, among those who can ACTUALLY affect policy, is calling to “get rid of all the guns”?