chapel hill owl
2nd String
Posts: 479
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 11
I Root For:
Location: |
RE: OT: Newtown Tragedy and Gun Control
(12-17-2012 02:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (12-17-2012 02:19 PM)d1owls4life Wrote: (12-17-2012 02:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote: (12-17-2012 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (12-17-2012 02:05 PM)chapel hill owl Wrote: Gun owners (and their allies) often cry "right! right!" when the issue of gun control comes up, but I'm of the firm belief that such a right, nearly unique in its breadth in the developed world (along with our level of gun violence), should come with significant obligations and limits. If I were King of America, here's how I would shape gun control policy:
1. Require all guns to be identifiable and registered to a specific owner, just as cars are.
2. Require anyone purchasing or receiving ownership of a gun to undergo a background check for each individual transaction.
3. Ban large capacity magazines.
4. Ban semi-automatic long guns. (And here's where I admit I'm no expert on guns. Herce mentioned a semi-automatic shotgun - it wouldn't be my intention to ban such a gun. I'm guessing it can't fire rounds at the same rate as, say, an AR-15.)
5. Again, not a gunsmith, but the "kits" to convert semi-automatics to fully automatic should be banned, or perhaps guns can be re-engineered to prevent such tampering.
6. Streamline the reporting of convictions/mental health holds/restraining orders to the national gun check database. (I think I'm missing the official name of that. Also, the DOJ has already started this process.)
7. Improve the access to mental health services in this country. (Not to touch another political hot wire, but I suspect ObamaCare might be a big help in this regard.)
8. One idea that I haven't seen elsewhere is for mental health professionals to be able to flag a patient so that the professional is notified if a patient attempts to purchase weapons. This wouldn't necessarily prevent approval from happening, but if a therapist is aware of a patient trying to gain access to weapons they can at least follow up with the patient, and they may be better able to assess whether their patient is a threat. My guess is that the U. of Colorado would have handled James O'Keefe differently if they knew he was on a weapons purchasing spree.
Numbers 1 and 2 just seem like common sense to me. Numbers 3 though 5 would be a heavier lift, politically. But for the guns/features affected by 3-5, I've yet to see legitimate, utilitarian purposes associated with them. In fact, I've heard of only two potential uses: shooting them at the target range, and dark fantasies of having to kill off federal agents. If someone has to reload a little more often at the firing range or can't plan WWIII against the feds, I don't think it'll be the end of freedom as we know it. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Thank God you're not King of America, and I will hope and pray that you never become so.
Because his proposal was so outlandish? Which of these points is so completely offensive to you to merit such a response?
My guess, from the other posts in this thread, are 3 through 5.
Actually, 1 and 2 most of all, but all 8 to some extent. I'd do 2 when you apply for your shoorers licence and when you renew, but every purchase is far too often and far too intrusive and expensive. My concern with 1 is that it is the precursor to going around and rounding up all those weapons, and that in turn is the precursor to Dahau and Buchenwald. And I my lack of trust in government is such that I would never dismiss things like that as possiblities, as the founding fathers did not. And neither 1 nor 2 would have prevented Newtown.
This is one thing I never understand about the left. You have no problem attributing the worst possible motives to people in the private sector (Exxon, the Koch brothers) but somehow can never seem to have anything remotely approaching the same skepticism about anyone working for a government paycheck. I've spent plenty of time in both environments, and I'd trust the Koch brothers or even Bernie Madoff long before I'd trust a government bureaucrat or politician.
As I said, I thought my comments might be controversial. Thank you to all who participated in the discussion, I think it was interesting to get other people's points of view. I'm probably not going to say much more, I think I've made my views pretty clear and don't care to keep repeating the same thing. And most of you probably don't want to read it.
Good discussion. Much higher quality than what we get
First, I never said my proposals would prevent Newtown. You're not going to stop all attacks. And given that these mass shooters represent, what, less than 1% of deaths from gun violence, I don't even think that's where our focus should lie. But better mental health care may have prevented Newtown and the Giffords shooting. Had U of C known James O'Keefe was buying guns, there might have been a different outcome. And simply applying for a single license just once might miss important changes in your life that have occurred over time. James O'Keefe could have been a responsible gun owner when he was 18, but clearly not by the time he's 24. Another responsible gun owner may not have even met the woman he would eventually stalk and kill when he first got a license. But he may have had a restraining order placed upon him by the time he purchased the weapon with which he would ultimately kill his obsession. Note that I'm using words like "might" or "may" or "maybe". These arent' absolutes, but they'll work in the margins. And when we lose 25,000? 30,000? Americans a year to gun violence, pretty soon we're talking about saving a lot of lives.
As for trusting Bernie Madoff before a government employee, that you would trust a known/admitted/convicted fraud before a generic government employee tells me that you simply have issues that may not be easily explained.
And yes, the left may be more trusting of the government than the right. But that doesn't mean it's an absolute trust. For me, it's a recognition that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Government employees are us. Just as prone to mistakes as anyone else. Being hired by the government doesn't make suddenly make someone "the other", as many people on the right seem to believe. Nor does it suddenly imbue them with nefarious intentions. In fact, government employees generally have less incentive to screw you over than those in private industry (see: your friend Bernie Madoff).
|
|
/
OT: Newtown Tragedy and Gun Control
