Gun Fu
[2013-01-30 20:20]
So, now comes the debate on what to do about gun violence.
The NRA defends the AR-15 by claiming that it is not any more dangerous or powerful than other firearms:
Yet, the same argument also states that the AR-15 is a very popular weapon:In truth, the AR-15 is at the low end of power among rifles. And when you pull the trigger, it only fires one round...
In fact, [AR-15s] are not more �dangerous� than other standard firearms. They do not fire faster, nor do they fire more powerful ammunition.
These days, you can even buy one at Wal-Mart, which is a pretty good sign that these are popular, mass-market products.
These two statements are at odds with each other. If the AR-15 isn't any better than other "standard" firearms, then why is it so popular?
Also, if the AR-15 doesn't do anything more than other standard firearms, then banning them doesn't prevent anyone from protecting themselves against criminals or even a tyrannical government.
As I understand it, the NRA is now pointing to violent movies and video games as a cause of gun violence. But if that's true -- if glorifying gun violence in the media promotes actual gun violence -- then things like Ted Nugent's rant and Sarah Palin's Don't Retreat, Reload slogan contribute to the problem, as well.
Conversely, if Nugent's and Palin's rhetoric (which include casual references of gun violence against real people) do not contribute to the problem, then movies and video games (which include casual use of imaginary gun violence against imaginary people) cannot be the source of the problem either.
So, it seems to me that the NRA's positions are problematic, if not contradictory.
In any event, some things that I do support and would like to see happen, in response to what seems to be escalating gun violence, are:
Improved background checks for people purchasing guns. As much as I dislike the idea of a surveillance society, this seems like a small concession to make to the greater good.
Removal of the restrictions on studying gun violence. Specifically, remove the clause from the law funding the CDC which states �That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.� We really do need to research and study this problem.
Remove the restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and/or redefine it to be able to deal with issues of gun violence and enforce gun laws effectively.
Gun Tax. More guns means more cops, especially when you have idiots and more idiots who think that intimidating and terrorizing people is a good thing to do. So, those who purchase the guns should pay for the extra cops that are required. It could even be a tax limited to semi-automatic weapons.
By the way, in case it's not obvious, the reason why the argument that "We're not doing anything threatening to anyone" is not an excuse for this behavior is because carrying a gun (especially an AR-15) means that "not doing anything threatening" could turn into "killing a bunch of people" very quickly. The people who committed all those massacres in recent years weren't doing anything threatening either, until they were.
Other things that I've been contemplating as possible approaches to the problem include (these are only half-baked ideas, so far):
Define a gun license like a car license or pilot's license. Car licenses require a written exam and aptitude test. Maybe gun licenses should too.
Create "privilege levels" for the gun license, like there are for a pilot's license. For example, it could be easiest to get a license for revolvers, bolt-action rifles and/or low-caliber weapons. To get a license for a semi-automatic handgun, you would have to have more "flight time" with that type of weapon, just as one needs to have more flight hours to get a commercial pilot's license. A semi-auto rifle or high-caliber firearm or use of a high-capacity magazine could require even more flight time.
"Flight time" for guns could be defined as the number of rounds fired in training/simulation, and could include training/experience in the military and/or law-enforcement (as long as the person is/was honorably discharged or remains in good standing). Training/simulation that counts towards flight time could be awarded by accredited organizations (the fed could define what a business or organization has to do to be accredited).
Doing this would create at least some oversight over each person who wants a gun license, since the person(s) providing the training would have their reputation on the line if someone they train goes on a murder spree.
Make people legally responsible for any action taken with guns that they purchase. For example, if a child takes a gun from a parent and kills someone with it, the parent shares the legal liability. This would be a very big incentive for a parent to secure his/her firearms.
Require purchases of high-caliber, semi-automatic firearms to be "co-signed". That is, someone in addition to the person buying the weapon has to register as the co-owner of the weapon, and the co-owner is legally liable for anything done with that weapon.
This would mean that at least one other person has vetted the buyer (enough to be comfortable being held liable for crimes committed with the gun).
Obviously, these last ideas need a lot of ironing out, and they may not be feasible at all.
I like the idea of banning high-capacity magazines, but I don't know how such a thing could be enforced. And I suspect that the ban on "assault weapons" won't work because gun manufacturers could create weapons to bypass any legal definition of "assault weapon".
Anyway, I'm curious and hopeful about the direction this issue will take in the years to come.
Oh, addendum: there's a part of me that likes the idea of having armed guards/police in schools. Most schools have a school nurse to deal with the occasional health-related problem. So, it seems reasonable that schools have a school cop to deal with the occasional law-related problem.
BUT
How do we pay for this? Having a full-time cop means s/he will need a full-time vehicle and all the gear that goes along with it. This would necessarily mean more gun tax, I would think.
In general, cops aren't teachers and teachers aren't cops. It's naive to think that putting any cop into a school means the cop will be able to deal with the kids (and the numerous social issues that this would raise) effectively, without turning combative, which could aggravate the problem rather than alleviate it. It's equally naive to think that simply giving a teacher a gun means the teacher is able to deal with threats properly.
Thus, to avoid creating more problems than this solves, the school cop and armed teacher would need training on how to act/behave in this new environment. And, again, who pays for that?
So, in the end, I think it's an interesting idea, but it's not a solution.