I am a member of the NRA, but it does not mean that I am unwavering or unwilling to regulate my ownership and use of my weapons. I was horrified by what happened in Connecticut, as I have been every time this has happened. I have choked up and prayed for the victims as well as the shooters. Still, it has not caused me to want to give up mine or take away anyone elses right to have a weapon.
I think there are several ways to better secure our children and even the general public without trampling the rights of gun owners or doing nothing. The president has created a commission to look at what can be done to stem gun violence and end these mass shootings. Personally, I believe they will happen no matter what is done. Criminals will always find a way to do what they want to do. But, I am with the president in seeing what can be done, but he needs to make a sincere effort to involve both sides of the argument in order to give legitimacy to what the commission finds. Make sure the panel includes people from both sides and make sure the NRA has a seat at the table. By doing that, you come up with a plan that is acceptable to the nation's largest gun-lobbying organization and its members will more readily accept the decisions made.
Ban vs. Regulate
As soon as the word "ban" is uttered by the anti-gun folks, red flags and loud bells go off in the offices of the NRA and in the homes of gun enthusiasts. No one wants to be told they can't have something. That has been true since childhood. The main weapon that is mentioned to be banned is the assault rifle. There are varying definitions of what an assault rifle is, but for simplicity, we will use the very basic definition that it looks like a military rifle, such as an M-16. These weapons usually have a high capacity magazine of at least 20 rounds and fire one round with every pull of the trigger, without further actions of the shooter (a pump or bolt action). It must be stated here that fully automatic rifles (the weapon will fire rounds as long as you keep the trigger pulled) have been illegal to own without special permission for many years.
Many people own these rifles simply for the "cool" factor. They look cool and are really fun to shoot. They take them to the rifle ranges and may use them for hunting as well. Many people get them for home defense. The anti-gun lobby often likes to state that anyone who owns one of these weapons has it only to kill people. By owning one, a person is automatically going to become a mass murderer. This is why the word "ban" scares the gun enthusiast.
Proper regulation is where the answer lies. Do gun enthusiasts need to have high capacity magazines? I would argue that they do not. Yes, it is a nuisance to have to constantly reload at the gun range. But if the gun regulation proponents will feel better with smaller magazines, then I can live with that inconvenience to keep my access to semi-automatic rifles. Do I need to have a handgun with a 15-round capacity magazine? My current handgun holds 7 rounds. If I cannot defend myself with 7 rounds, 15 probably won't do any good either. I don't plan on being in any gunfights where I need to fire that many times. Banning handguns will not solve the problem. The criminals will have them. They banned handguns in New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC. How's that working out for them?
We already have some pretty good laws on the books, but those laws need to be better enforced and may need to be stiffened a bit. Guns shows are often blamed for making it too easy to get guns. Stiffening gun show laws while still allowing someone to purchase and walk away with a gun in hand is important. I had to have a background check when I purchased my AR-15 at the gun show. I have heard that for others it was less so.
Right to Privacy vs. Right to Know
Mental health has been discussed a lot the past few days. People often say, "you have to be crazy to do what that person did. Only a crazy person kills that many people". That may be true, but how do we know? Every concealed carry permit application and every weapons purchase requires a person to answer whether or not they have any mental health issues. And, of course, everyone answers "no" or they will be denied the purchase.
A person can be seen by a mental health doctor and be on no one's radar due to ridiculously restrictive (sometimes) privacy laws. I propose this to assist us in keeping guns out of the hands of those whose mental health may be such as to making gun ownership a bad idea. It would be a National Database that every mental health provider would have to annotate certain information on a potentially dangerous client. The data base would only have name, SSN...nothing more. Just the flag.
For those who are being treated with medicines for illnesses where mood swings, anger issues and other potentially dangerous symptoms, a "red flag" is checked in their medical record which would state that this client should not be allowed to purchase a weapon or be allowed to have a concealed carry permit. I am not an expert, but such diseases as Bi-polar, Borderline Personality Disorder, multiple personality disorders, etc., would be on a list for automatic flags.
Those conditions being treated that are not necessarily dangerous, would get a "yellow flag". A child being seen for anger issues stemming from abuse, a divorce of parents, etc., may get a yellow flag. Perhaps a Soldier who has been discharged from the military being seen for PTSD would need a yellow flag if the doctor determines it is necessary. Maybe he even needs a red flag. A yellow flag could be removed by a subsequent visit to a doctor to make sure the issues are no longer there. A youngster would be able to purchase in adulthood by having the flag removed.
Those who seek counseling for family issues, marital issues, etc., and are seen as being of no danger would have no flag entered.
To me, a mental health professional should have the responsibility and the ability to flag a person's record to keep them from being able to purchase a weapon. Whenever a background check is done on a person, this database would be searched and a flag of either color would block the purchase of a weapon.
We need to strike a balance between a person's right to privacy and society's safety.
Gun Free Zones
Gun free zones are a criminal's dream. If you notice, the common thread between all of the recent mass shootings, they have all been in gun free zones. By law: Schools and partially places of worship; by Choice: Malls, theaters. When I see a sign such as that shown here, I ignore it if it isn't on the prohibited list by law. If I walk into a theater displaying the sign,
and I have my concealed weapon, and my gun is noticed and they ask me to leave, I must. If I do not leave, it is a trespassing violation, not a gun violation. Therefore, until told otherwise, I will exercise my right to carry. Someone like me could have stopped the shooter in Aurora, contrary to all the complaints that it would have caused more killing. Everyone was on the ground!I think the schools should not be gun free zones, at least for the teachers and administrators. Here is how I see it. If a teacher wants to be one of those who is armed, the teacher must be trained on his/her weapon and attend training on how and when to use it. That gun, when it arrives at school, goes in a lock box on the teachers desk, or under it. It stays there until necessary to use or the teacher goes home at night. This teacher would be able to receive an extra incentive pay each month for being a "security teacher", and could also put that on a resume. This would not be a requirement, but open to volunteers.
Another option would be to take some of the military members during this draw down and create a Department of Education owned security force. Two former military (only open to them) who understand weapons and rules of engagement and how to follow orders, per school. Arm them with a handgun and a rifle they can keep slung on their backs. Right now, the policeman at the school isn't prepared or able to provide security for our kids. When we create gun free zones, this is what we are telling criminals:
School Construction & Access
School construction should also be looked at. Currently, my middle-school child attends a school where I enter a door and can either turn left or right. I turn left to go to the door to the office. Turning right will take me into the heart of the school with no one noticing. At my other son's high school, the front door is watched by a man in a wheel chair or a very large woman who tells you to sign in and take a sticker. Once I have that I am free to roam about the school, the office is a long ways from that table. The school is accessible from other, uncontrolled points of entry.
Most prisons are now constructed with the administration building completely separated from the inmates by a long corridor with locking doors. Not to make our children feel like prisoners, but the school administration offices should be completely separated from where our children are attending classes. Access to our children should cause us to have to get through that secure area controlled by someone whose job it is to control that access. Schools could be retrofit with access blocking gates where hallways would allow easy access to our children in classes.
All this costs money, but if our President is serious about protecting our children, he will make it available.
Responsibility
Let's not beat around the bush here. Responsibility must be placed where it belongs. A responsible gun owner should not have his weapons used by his kid in a heinous shooting spree. Hold that gun owner responsible too. More education to people who buy guns is necessary so that they understand what they just purchased. Everyone who purchases a weapon should be mandated to attend a gun class that shows them how to use it properly and how to take care of it, to include storage.
We had a grade schooler take a .22 pistol to school just a few days after the Connecticut shooting. He was arrested and will be expelled from school. Nothing was said about what will happen to the parents. If the gun was theirs, they too should be arrested and charged with child endangerment and/or other charges. We need to stop blaming the responsible gun owners and crush the ones who are not.
The answer is not to crush a bug with a sledgehammer. An honest assessment about many different issues at hand, when it comes to gun ownership, is necessary to strike a balance between what both sides think the 2nd Amendment says. Responsible gun owners do not have a problem with regulation, if that regulation does not end up becoming banishment or make it impossible to own their guns.
