“Let’s Talk About Guns”: Why New Gun Control Is Not Likely To Follow Tragedy
Before the sun had even risen in Aurora, Colo., the shooting there last night had reignited the debate over gun control, with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the country’s most outspoken advocates of gun regulations, demanding action. While it may seem a bit crass to turn to politics so soon, it is worth asking how this could happen less than 30 minutes away from Littleton, the Colorado town where the 1999 Columbine high school massacre left a lasting scar on the state and the country for years.
While the emotional damage from Columbine may linger, its policy effects did not. After the school shooting, the state legislature, like many across the country, pushed a flight of bills aimed at making it more difficult for kids to get hold of guns. Lawmakers sought to close the “gun show loophole,” which allows people who buy guns at conventions, instead of brick-and-mortar retailers, to avoid a background check. They also aimed for a law requiring guns to be stored with trigger locks or in safes at home, and tried to increase the age someone could buy a handgun from 18 to 21.
But a year later, almost all of these bills had been shot down thanks to effective lobbying from the NRA and other gun groups. The only laws that passed were token ones the gun lobby supported, like allowing police to arrest people who knowingly purchased guns for criminals. The NRA spent $16,950 in January of 2000 alone fighting gun laws. “[It’s a] tremendous amount of money,” Pete Maysmith of Colorado Common Cause, a government watchdog group, told CBS News in February of that year. “$16,000 in one month going into the Colorado Legislature — it’s a financial arms race.”
More than a decade after Columbine, gun laws across the country are more lax than ever. Opponents of gun control say legislation wouldn’t have prevented the Columbine massacre or any other major shooting, which may be true to varying degrees, depending on the shooting. Early reports indicate the suspect in last night’s theater shooting had an AK-47-type weapon, some variants of which were outlawed under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. That law was signed by President Clinton in 1994 but expired 10 years later and is not likely to be reauthorized.
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, writes today, “If history is any guide, however, the Aurora shootings will do little to change public sentiment regarding gun control, which has been moving away from putting more laws on the books for some time.” Indeed, the experience after the Columbine shooting shows he may be right.
By: Alex Seitz-Wald, Salon, July 20, 2012
2 Comments »
Share your comment
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 
Gun Control
In the May, 2012 issue of Reason magazine , there is a prominent article by Greg Beato entitled, “The Gun Explosion, Why the Firearms Boom is Good News for the American Economy.” Gun sales are way up and he lists several reasons. It is easier for small manufacturers to produce guns using computerized milling machines. More manufacturers are making more and different models. Women and men in combat are returning to civilian life with knowledge of guns and a desire to own one or more. Fear that some models may be banned. Beato’s closing words, the best way to reduce the sale of guns may be to defeat Barack Obama in November.
Gun control part 2
I favor strict gun controls. In fact, I believe that gun ownership by individuals should be made illegal. The second amendment to the Constitution supports the right to bear arms by a militia or national guard. That requirement can be met by keeping the necessary weapons under lock and key in an armoury for use during legally authorized emergencies. Members of the militia/national guard do not need to have access to weapons in their homes.
For sportsmen and women, I would provide target ranges where guns could be rented while in use at the range only. For hunters, I would provide rifles and shotguns for rent only during the various hunting seasons. Once the rental period expired or the season ended, the guns must be returned from where they had been rented.
There are too many guns on the streets in the wrong hands. Privileges that are abused are lost. Too many people in America are losing their lives daily to senseless gun violence. It will not stop as long as we permit some to profit from their sale nor will it stop as long as the NRA is involved in politics.
Gun control part 3
I have never suffered a gun related crime as a victim nor have I ever prevented a crime by use of a gun to protect myself or someone else. I have been told by others how a gun saved them from death or a fate worse than death as rape was described in an earlier day. The number of gun related crimes can be ascertained approximately from crime statistics, but the number of crimes prevented by guns can only be estimated. The question in my mind is what is the cost-benefit ratio? How many crimes prevented to the number of gun related crimes? Then each of us must make a moral judgment. Are the crimes prevented of greater worth to society than the cost of gun related crimes and deaths?
Every crime prevented is worth celebrating, particularly to the potential victim and his/her family and friends. However, as much as a crime prevention is worth celebrating for an individual, is the cost worthwhile for all of us together as a society? Are we to arm everyone to prevent crime? A gun kept safely under lock and key may not be accessible in time to prevent a crime. The best marksman/woman in the world may be slower on the draw than the intruder/criminal. As much as guns may prevent some crimes for some individuals, I believe that the mayhem that results from too many guns in the wrong hands is too high a price to pay.
I would suggest replacing guns in our society with non-lethal means of defense such as mace, pepper spray and tasers. However, I think that we must look beyond that to what I believe is the ultimate solution, loving our neighbors. If each of us truly loved our neighbors as ourselves and let our neighbors know of our love with positive acts that were of benefit to the neighbor/potential criminal, I believe that potential criminals would be hesitant to hurt someone who loved them. You may think that I am crazy and/or naive, but I believe that the fellowship of man is the ultimate solution to the gun problem that we have here in the US. We cannot continue to witness gun-related mass slayings and label each and every one of them the work of the mentally disturbed when we have no way of knowing who is prone to gun violence before the tragedies occur.
Gun control part 4
As I see it, there are two main reasons for the support of the second amendment: self-defense, discussed in a prior post, and distrust of the US government, the subject of this post.
Guns in the hands of the civilian population is believed by some to guarantee our freedom. This belief was born in our successful revolt against Great Britain in the period of 1776 to 1783. The US was aided financially by France and individuals from various European nations volunteered their services. Is that likely to happen again in the future? I think not.
Armed rebellion by residents of the South was attempted in the Civil War from 1861 to 1865 and was defeated. Even with aid from Great Britain, the South could not withstand the might of the Federal government. Do the militias and individuals expressing second amendment rights today honestly believe that they have any chance of success? I doubt that they could withstand the organized might of the Federal government nor could they expect assistance from governments or many individuals from outside the US. Rather than intervene on the rebels’ behalf, the UN or NATO are more likely to assist the US government.
Rather than suggesting armed rebellion against the government to protect their definition of freedom, the proponents of resistance to government policies should work within the system to effect change. If they cannot win the support of the majority of their fellow citizens, they should rethink their positions. The rest of the free world is free despite the lack of an armed citizenry. My advice to the second amendment supporters is to relax and enjoy life. And let the rest of us enjoy our lives without all the emphasis on 2nd and 10th amendment rights.
Gun control part 5
Briefly from An Invitation to Health, Brief Second Edition, by Dianne Hales. An additional reason supporting strict gun control:
“States with stricter gun-control laws have much lower rates of suicides than states with more lenient laws.”
Protect yourself and those you love from self-destruction caused by temporary periods of depression.
LikeLike
I commend you for your very thoughtful comments.
LikeLike