Here we go in the discussion, in the aftermath of the mass killings in Colorado. I am sure the extremists on both side will attack my ideas, but so far I have not heard anything that would help to, at least, reduce the killing sprees here and around the world.
In response to the left, that will scream severe gun controls, no way. I will always defend the right of law abiding and stable Americans to purchase and own guns.
In response to the extremes on the right, I say we need some common sense restrictions on types of weapons and the amount of ammunition that is available.
Will either of these end the gun violence? No, but could it help? Very likely!
I feel that limiting the amount of ammunition people can buy and track any extremely large purchases, can reduce the ability of mass killings. Limit the size of clips, so that the crazies have to stop and reload, giving an opening to someone to stop the massacres.
Stop the sale of assault weapons until a complete and comprehensive background check can be performed.
Stop the ability of people to buy multiple weapons without the same background check.
Does this make it harder for the regular gun owner to buy for their collection, hunting or pleasure shooting. It does, but we are at the moment making it harder for people to vote all across the country and I have not heard anyone from the right scream about the rights of people voting being violated.
To the "Dirty Harry" wannabes, the idea that arming so many people, will stop, nut jobs, from killing is extremely naive and actually incredibly stupid. Think of the scenario, that just happened. A dark theatre. Some mad man opens fire. Chaos ensues. Ten people, with concealed weapons jump up and start to return fire. Who do they shoot? Will they think that there is more then one person involved? Remember it is dark and smokey and panic has set in. Now everyone is firing in the direction of muzzle flashes. Other people are trying to get out of danger. There is crossfire and people are trapped by it. Bullets fly everywhere. They go through the side walls. More "heroes" with weapons start to run into the theatre, firing as they enter. The police start to arrive. Who do they fire at? Nobody knows who the actual killer is. The end result is the number of dead is multiplied. This is not the way to handle the situation. We need to stop the killer from getting the ammunition and weapons in the first place. That is the closest we can come. Will it stop the killings completely? Again I have already stated it will not, but if it keeps one idiot with a gun from killing innocent people, we need to look at it.
I stated in the beginning I am not now and have never supported the idea of taking gun ownership from Americans, who are responsible and law abiding. The right will argue they want no restrictions and the left will argue they want severe restrictions. The answer lies in the middle. I will address additional comments I have heard over the past few days in future post. Some of them just made me shake my head in disbelief at how uncaring and uneducated human beings can be. As for my readers, state your opinions. Let me hear some thoughtful and educated ways to help end the violence.
In the case of the theater shootings I do not believe anything would have made a difference. Whenever there is something that is that well planned and determined very little would have stopped it. The fact that the theater was a 'gun free zone' shows that more gun restrictions do not work. Personally, I do not feel we have a gun problem nearly as much as we have a people problem. As long as people feel they have the right to take what they want when they want the problem will never cease. Society has removed deterrents for crimes and has often times made the victims the criminals. While I do not feel a person needs an AK-47 to do deer hunting, the whole idea behind the 2nd amendment was not for society to be able to arm themselves for hunting but against a government which might seek to oppress.
ReplyDelete