March was the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Reagan in which then Press Secretary James Brady was severely wounded and permanently disabled. Yesterday marked the 6 month anniversary of the Tuscon, Arizona shootings by Jared Lee Loughner that killed six and wounded 14 others including Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Six months after this incident there has been no new gun control laws passed to help prevent this type of event from happening again and no real effort to renew the "Brady Bill," a gun control law named after the aforementioned James Brady which expired in 2004. So I have to ask, why do guns always appear to be off limits?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees among other things "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (and that right) shall not be infringed." I don't think that there can be any argument that the citizens of the United States don't have a right to posses firearms or that firearms of all types can be outlawed, I feel that the Constitution clearly demonstrates this. I have no problems with firearms in general, in fact I've enjoyed recreationally and as part of my former career firing off rounds from shotguns, .22s, handguns, and various assault rifles over the years. I don't generally take issue with homeowners having a firearm in their house for protection as long as they've been properly educated in firearm safety and employ commonsense safeguards. But anytime an "anti-gun" activist or politician puts forward an idea to restrict sales of certain types of firearms or to establish some sort of safety regulation there is this irrational over-the-top outrage from "pro-gun" advocates and associations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). Even when such calls for regulation come in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy like the on in Tuscon.
At 10:10am on January 8, 2011 Jared Lee Loughner, armed with a 9mm pistol, opened fire on Representative Giffords and other bystanders at a Tuscon area Safeway. Loughner was eventually subdued by civilians on site prior to the arrival of law enforcement. By the time the smoke cleared 6 people were killed including 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. Loughner wasn't apprehended by armed citizens, nobody drew a gun on Mr. Loughner nor fired at him, he was subdued by multiple bystanders when he had to stop to reload. As we now know Jared Loughner had loaded his pistol with a 30 round magazine, known as a "high capacity" magazine. Would 9-year-old Christina still be alive today if Loughner only had access to a standard 10 round magazine? Tough to say, but we do know that casualties would have been significantly less if he was limited to 10 rounds, 20 people were shot that day and that number could have easily been cut in half if high capacity magazines were still outlawed. That's right I said still outlawed. From 1994 to 2004 high capacity magazines such as the one Jared Loughner used in Tuscon were illegal thanks to the Brady Bill, but that law was allowed to expire in 2004 and congress has made no serious effort to renew it.
There were calls to again outlaw high capacity magazines soon after the nation learned of the facts that Loughner used a 30 round magazine and was apprehended only after he had to stop to reload . Within a few weeks of this tragedy Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legal Action, wrote an op-ed piece that included a once sentence statement acknowledging the tragedy while the 8 paragraphs that followed promoted the need for high capacity magazines like the one that Loughner used to kill 6 people. This is where I disconnect from gun-rights groups such as the NRA. High capacity magazines had been outlawed for a period of 10 years with no issue, I don't know of a single incident where a law abiding citizen in the US needed a 30 round magazine to defend him or herself during that period and in fact I feel that only criminals benefit when these magazines are legalized. In Virginia the rate of handguns seized by police with high capacity magazines was 10% during the period when they were illegal, that rate jumped to 22% after the law had expired. Restricting magazine capacity in no way infringes on an American's right to posses a handgun, it is just a commonsense measure to help prevent mass killings by criminals.
There have been some new gun control laws proposed in both the House and Senate this session, but none of them have made it out of committee for a vote due to the lobbying efforts of gun manufacturers, sellers, and the NRA. HR 591 would require anyone selling firearms at gun shows to be licensed and to conduct criminal background checks with each transaction. This bill does not prevent any law-abiding citizen from purchasing or selling firearms, all it does is allow the government to know who is selling firearms (because they would have to be licensed) and ensure that violent criminals and terrorists are unable to obtain firearms at gun shows. How can any rational and reasonable person be against this? It is still stuck in committee. HR 1552 would prevent anyone who was convicted of a violent crime as a juvenile from being able to purchase firearms, this is already the law for someone who commits a violent crime as an adult. I don't think that it would be unreasonable to expect that somebody who has demonstrated that they are unable to control their temper and has a history of violence towards others would be unfit to posses a firearm. This bill is still stuck in committee. HR 645 is a bill that would overrule the District of Columbia's decision to not allow residents to own handguns or ammunition for handguns, and it would overrule DC's decision to require residents to register all firearms. I guess government overreach is okay in certain circumstances if you're a Republican. I don't think that it is unreasonable for a city to require it's citizens to register their firearms, especially a city that has the highest per-carpita murder rate. They even mention that DC has the highest per-capita murder rate in the bill and they attempt to use that to justify looser gun restrictions for DC! Can you believe it?! HR 1181 requires anybody who is not allowed to own a firearm be included on the instant criminal background check system and that criminal background checks would be required for all firearm sales. Really, do I have to say it? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that we have a database listing all those who aren't allowed to have firearms (kind of like a no-fly list for guns) or that we have to make sure somebody is allowed to actually buy a gun before selling it to them, especially when we can do so instantly. This does not infringe on any law-abiding citizen's right to own a firearm. It's a commonsense approach to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.
It's been six months since the tragic killings in Tuscon, Arizona and 6 years since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act or "Brady Bill" has expired and we still don't have any new firearm laws or many continuations of Brady Bill provisions. Guns should not be "off-the-table" on the floors of the House and Senate as they appear to be currently. I'm sure you've heard the adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but why are some standing against legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of those particular "people" the adage refers to?
No comments:
Post a Comment