There are some readers of the blog who will no doubt be upset by my mentioning anything about The Constitution.
Tough! Just like TV if you don’t like what you see… Don’t freakin look.
Now on with my thought…
I wasn’t going to write about guns for a while. Then I heard about the attendance at a gun show in Orange County.
People were standing in line for 5 hours just to get inside to purchase the gun or ammunition of their choice. Last I heard, something like 140 thousand people attended that show. Apparently I’m not the only one interested in the gun control discussion or where it may lead. (No, I didn’t attend the show.)
Ammunition is hard to come by right now and it’s expensive because it’s in short supply. This is pretty much like it was in 2008 after President Obama took office. This “run” on guns and ammo probably wouldn’t have happened were it not for the Sandy hook shootings and the subsequent call for more gun control.
I’ve been reading articles about the gun control debate and remain unconvinced that the new body of law will have much impact on preventing these tragedies. I am concerned about erosion of the 2nd amendment.
No, I’m not with the people who think the 2nd amendment is going to be abolished today, tomorrow, or next year.
I am concerned about what happens when more laws are enacted to prevent tragedies and those laws fail, leading to more and more laws, which I personally believe will fail. Does that represent a threat to the 2nd amendment? If so, how can that threat be mitigated?
This morning I ran across an original piece that caught my interest. It’s written by David Mamet.
I really enjoyed Mamets use of English, and his observation that what people refer to as assault weapons are more cosmetically akin to assault weapons than functionally similar. (Putting a Ferrari body on a1967 Datsun chassis doesn’t make the Datsun a Ferrari.)
This distinction is thought provoking in that to make the same weapon frame legal again requires nothing more than removal or repainting of largely decorative bits.
The rifle will no longer “Look” like an assault weapon, but the underlying frame could still be the same. I imagine that there are a ton of after market manufacturers tooling up at this moment to sell “customization kits” so that you can buy a legal rifle and then add the bits that make it look like an assault rifle. I guess it will be good for the economy. But the law itself is questionable in it’s effectiveness.
Later as I was scanning more news headlines I ran across this piece from CNN.
The CNN article caught my attention because it addresses some of the concerns that Assault weapon bans don’t. Criminal behavior doesn’t by definition respect the law. More importantly, the article notes that handguns not assault rifles are responsible for more deaths in America per year.
I’m not against gun control per se. I am against theatrical, grandiose but largely ineffective laws.
I’d be completely supportive of taking the existing body of gun law and tossing out everything that is nonsensical. From there, I’d support consistent logical laws that stay within constitutional guidelines are recognized nationwide, and make the public safer too.
Years ago I actually approached a Police officer at a LEO recruiting booth during a state fair. I asked “Where could I go to get proper training with firearms?” I further explained that I was interested in purchasing a handgun but didn’t want to make a purchase without appropriate safety training. The officer looked at me as though I’d lost my mind.
My logic was He was an officer, he worked with guns all the time, and I had nothing to hide.
His response was, just go to a gun store and buy a gun, then go to a shooting range and shoot it. Maybe I was putting him on the spot, or he felt he couldn’t make a recommendation about a particular school or training facility. I’ve always thought that the one place you should be able to go for information about gun training and safety should be the police.
I’d pay to attend gun training classes. Hell I’d pay for police instruction about how to deal with the police in the event I’d had a break in and had fired at or shot the intruder. The last thing I’d want to deal with is the police shooting me because they couldn’t tell I was a “good guy”.
I’d welcome the ability to demonstrate my proficiency with a gun to an NRA instructor or local Police instructor and wish that upon that demonstration the instructors would make recommendations that would not only improve my safety in handling a weapon but my shooting ability too.
I think that a lot of potential and current gun owners would stand up in support of laws that made sense. Sadly, the centrists from both sides of the discussion are being drowned in the hyperbole of the extremist reactionary fringes.
As an example, go back and listen to Ben Shapiros interview with Piers Morgan. Mr Shapiro, tries to engage Piers Morgan in a real discussion when he asks, citing the statistics, why not hand guns? Why only assault rifles? Mr Shapiro raised a great question… One that apparently CNN is finally seeking to answer.
I’m going to try to paste both of the articles below for your convenience.
Please take a look at the site links. If the articles are updated you’ll get the update only by going to the sites.
Thanks to The Daily Beast, Newsweek, and CNN.
From Newsweek, The Daily Beast
Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm
Jan 29, 2013 12:00 AM EST