About five posts down, I found myself in the unlikely position of defending conceal carry laws. I’m not a strong proponent of such laws; I just won’t dismiss their supposed merits based on my personal dislike of guns. Anyway, there was a spirited debate on the topic, and I don’t mean to pander by rehashing a topic for which you have strong feelings, but I did want to get reaction to a proposal I’ve cooked up.
Let me first say that I agree with those who think society would be better off if nobody had a gun. But you only need to read your local newspaper on the days following a shooting tragedy to realize why that will never be more than wishful thinking. While the editorials are calling for stricter gun control, the letters from readers are dominated by those from gun rights activists. I don’t believe this reflects the overall opinion of the general public, but it does illustrate how organized the NRA and other such groups are in enforcing their views. They are supporting by an active membership and are much too powerful to ever let a comprehensive weapons ban become law.
Okay, back to my proposal. Many people have asserted that even if armed students were present during the NIU shooting, the unexpectedness of the attack and the chaotic situation that followed would have rendered them unable to respond in an effective manner, if they could respond at all. I agree this is true of most people, but not everyone.
There are certain people who, by nature, respond well during a crisis. Because they have this trait, many of these types have an interest in training and preparing themselves on what to do during an emergency. They are the people who calmly perform the Heimlich maneuver on a choking restaurant patron, while everyone else at that person’s table is panicking. They are the people who immediately come to the aid of a car accident victim, and know to apply pressure to a blood gushing wound until emergency personnel arrive. And these are the people who could, possibly, calmly and safely take out a crazed shooter mid-spree.
Some of these people are motivated by a deep sense of responsibility to come to the aid of their fellow man, and some have a self-serving need to perform heroic deeds. Either way, as long as they know what they’re doing, you’d be lucky to have them on the scene should some tragedy come calling for you.
The key then, when it comes to concealed carry, is ensuring that these are the type of people who are entrusted with carrying a gun in public. So let me propose this:
In addition to a background check, taking a gun safety course and demonstrating the ability to shoot straight in a firing range, those who wish to carry a gun would also be required to undergo police academy-like training to prepare them for situations in which they might need to draw their weapons. This training would be intensive, requiring a real commitment of time and purpose. This would not only ensure that they are properly prepared, but it would discourage those who just think it would be cool to carry their Glock to their kid’s basketball game.
I realize that the NRA would oppose my idea on the grounds that it sets un-Constitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms. But what about those of you who oppose conceal carry, would you feel safer knowing that more well-trained good guys are out there ready to stop the bad guys, or do more guns, regardless of who is carrying them, create an inherently more dangerous society?
Loading ...
Dan,
I think your proposal is reasonable. I have been advocating gun safety courses in high school for a while now. We allow drivers education and that is a priviledge, not a right like the 2nd amendment gives us.
Having said that, I will let you in on a secret: I dont own a hand gun. I think they are too dangerous for me. I do own several hunting rifles and shotguns and have shot handguns many times. My father taught me to respect guns at a very young age and I am probably overly paranoid around them.
But unfortunately the police cannot be everywhere all the time: from the nurse who has to walk to her car late at night to someone like my friend who was walking home after dinner to his condo in Chicago and almost was beaten to death by 4 gangbangers. I work in Chicago during the week and it amazes me how the Mayor and Aldermen are allowed to carry handguns and yet law abiding citizens are not. Are the elected officials lives more important than the average citizen?
I am waiting with bated breath for the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on Parker v. DC. It will be the first significant decision in over 70 years regarding the right to bear arms.
RickMonday | Feb 19, 2008 | Reply
OK, so how many people are actually going to do this? Not enough to make a difference.
Dave | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
I agree to several things written here. First, what you are proposing Dan should be the minimum. Secondly, I agree that no matter how many people successfully complete such a program it will still have little to no effect on crime.
In response to your question as to whether additional guns in circulation make our society more dangerous, I say no. Just as having more guns will not significantly lessen crime, it won’t cause it to get worse.
Soapbox Warning:
What would have more impact on crime is if the law-abiding citizens of our country would not fall for the media “extravaganza” in the way they cover issues related to law enforcement. Simply put; get off their backs!
By in-large law enforcement officers know who the bad guys are and how to take care of them. But every time one of them cries foul (Larry Washington vs. Graham & Carpenter is an example) the media sways public opinion and handcuffs law enforcement. I challenge your readers to give me an account within the last five years where their rights were trampled by law enforcement. They probably can’t because they are (maybe not all of them, that “Nancy” seems to be a rather shady character) solid citizens who don’t deal drugs, carry guns, and complain irrationally every time they do happen to have contact with a police officer.
Are there members of law enforcement who do not deserve to be. Yes. But for the most part they are honest people doing their best to keep their finger in the dike (insert your Lincoln Park joke here). If the common man would quit fighting against, and start supporting (very loudly) law enforcement I think you would see a significant impact on crime and none of you would have the need to take up arms.
M.B. | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
MB,
I agree with your support of law enforcement and in recent times they have indeed been “handcuffed” in the fight against crime.
But I think there are 2 issues here: 1. Crime. To me, most crime is drug related. If we were to legalize and regulate some drugs (marijuana for example), I think it would have a huge impact on our society. Crime would decrease, less money would have to be spent on the prison system, the government could increase tax revenues. Of course some bad would come of it but I think the good would ultimately outweigh the bad.
Point number 2. You have to go back and read the Federalist papers and other essays by the Founding Fathers as to their intent for the 2nd amendment. In fact, it was put into the Constitution not for hunting or sporting purposes but for the people to have the chance to fight back if a tyrannical government were to overtake their lives. The Fathers thought this was so important they made it the 2nd Amendment right after freedom of speech. So, in all honesty, I like guns not necessarily for deflecting crime but just because I do.
Again, I think Dan makes a great point. What we really need is education. It is crazy not to teach kids about gun safety in schools. We have almost 300 million guns in the USA. Even if we were to ban all guns, like the illegal immigrant problem, they would still exist. Chicago bans all handguns and yet they are one of the top murder capitals. If people were educated on them, they would come to respect the danger that they pose and less accidents would happen and I truly believe we would be safer as a society.
RickMonday | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
Mr. Monday,
This is not meant to be an inflammatory response to you as I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I want to comment on your second point about the right to bear arms.
I feel that there comes a time when some laws, and in this case, an amendment, becomes outdated. I know that the right to bear arms was protection against the development of a tyrannical government. But times have changed. When that amendment was created the possession of a firearm put the citizen on near equal footing with the government’s ability to wage war. In today’s world the citizen would need access to a myriad of sophisticated weaponry in order to be able to effectively resist the government. Our 9mm handguns and shotguns would be of little use when the military has the means to blow my whole house up. We are at the mercy of our government now whether we like it or not. The only thing that could change that would be for the government to do something so outrageous that we the people as a whole would get off our apathetic butts and collectively resist. And that is about as likely as seeing another 70 HR season in the MLB.
M.B. | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
MB,
No problem. I think we should just agree to disagree on this issue. It was a fun topic to discuss.
Dan, can you post something less controversial that we can talk about, like: abortion, religion, taxes, illegal immigration, Bush, Clinton, Iraq, the death penalty, global warming, or school vouchers? LOL
RickMonday | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
This is a bit off topic, but I would like to thank RickMonday for always keeping the discussion polite. I’ve seen his posts on other blogs and although politically we’re about as opposite as it gets, I’ve never seen him insult, berate or belittle anyone for their views, something I sadly can’t say about myself. He allows the discussion to elevate to a degree where it feels comfortable (rather than forfeit) to acknowledge the points that the other side is making might be valid. A class act I’d say.
nancy | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
I am glad to see the discussion of the Second Amendment has come up. I think the interpretation of that short amendment is very important to this issue. The string has, thus far, appeared to assume that individual, private citizens of the United States indeed have unlimited rights to possess and bear firearms. I would contend this is not necessarily the case (My reading only here, I would welcome any further discussion and debate on the matter).
The exact text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Notice the first clause in that statement. It seems to put a limit on the People’s right to keep and bear arms. That is, the People have the right to bear arms only within the bounds of a “well regulated militia” and only to protect the “security of a free State”. It could be argued that the concept of the general citizenry outside of this scope taking up arms is not protected by the Second Amendment.
I am sure that this argument has been made in a court of law before, and flatly denied. I wish I knew someone in the legal profession who could give me a reading on this one. Anyone know a good lawyer?
Paco | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
Ok, so I don’t know if I even believe what I wrote in the previous comment. But I do think it is a perspective that will add a new flavor to the discussion, and stimulate an interesting debate.
I would like to raise one other point here. As things stand now I do believe that there are going to be guns on the street. Therefore, in order to minimize the damage those weapons can cause we should do everything we can to keep those guns in responsible hands, and educate prospective gun owners and their families about their safe use, maintenance and storage. That being said, I do think there are too many guns out there and we need to do what we can to reduce that number. I have seen it argued that, like drugs, the task of regulating guns or making them illegal is a daunting feat, approaching the impossible. And rather than undertake this task, we should find a simpler solution to the problem. I would simply offer that just because a job is burdensome and challenging does not mean we should abandon it in favor of more expeditious solutions. Some things are important enough that we must roll up our sleeves, accept the fact that we must face an unpleasant and potentially painful job, and tackle the root cause of the problem head on. Ultimately, all the education and screening can only do so much. The true cause of gun violence is the gun itself. And it may just be worth the pain that must be endured to remove that element. (My thought here applies to drugs as well, simply making them legal, while convenient, is not the answer to the drug problem).
I hold nothing against those who own firearms. It is your right to do so. But the only way to resolve gun violence is to restrict the gun, and get them off the street, even if this is the toughest path to pass.
Paco | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
Paco,
I am not 100% sure what you are advocating. Do you want to ban all guns or just restrict them? I will try to address either scenario
1. Banning. I have already expressed my feelings on the 2nd amendment so I wont repeat myself and look at gun banning from another angle. Politically speaking, it would never happen here. You want to know the real reason Bush won in 2000. Anti-gun rhetoric from Gore. The NRA, which I am a member of is extremely organized and motivated. Their members vote and rally. Even Bill Clinton credits the NRA for defeating Gore. I paid close attention to Hillary’s comments after the NIU shooting. She was campaigning in Idaho and did not cry for stricter gun laws like she had done in other mass shootings. Why? She was trying to court Idahoans votes. You would need a think 2/3 or 3/4 of Congress to overturn an Amendment and too many states are strongly pro-gun.
2. Restrictions. Actually there exists several tough restrictions today. There are background checks; in Illinois it is a 6 week process. There are waiting periods and restrictions on the number of guns you can buy in a month.
I will make a deal with you. As soon as anti-gun Rosie Odonnel, the President, Governor, and mayors of large cities get rid of their armed security details, I will give up my guns. I am joking but dont you see the irony of say a Mayor Daley who is about the biggest gun foe around and yet he is surrounded by armed bodyguards. Even his mother has a Chicago Police car parked in front of her house 24hrs/day. (I have seen it.) Maybe he can set an example for us and forego his security. I cannot afford a personal armed guard so I wont be giving up my own guns anytime soon.
RickMonday | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
RickMonday,
I conceded early on in my second post that guns are an inevitability. I am not naive enough to think that an effort to ban guns would succeed in this country today for the very reasons you outlined. So we have common ground there. My only point is that if gun violence is truly to be curtailed, the root cause must be addressed and that is the gun itself. I am not advocating any particular policies (I suppose in that regard I am like a politician, state the obvious problem but give nary a hint of a solution). And in addressing the problem of gun violence the less guns are available, the safer the country becomes. The pragmatist in me says an outright ban on weapons is too big a bite. Tougher restrictions, stiffer penalties, increased enforcement, better education for law-abiding gun owners are all good steps toward the ultimate goal of reducing the number of guns on the street. This will be a difficult path to take. But if we are truly dedicated to minimizing or eliminating gun related violence they are necessary steps. The ultimate goal has to be getting guns off the streets. If we lose sight of this goal, we are simply treating the symptoms of the problem and not the cause.
Paco | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
It’s an interesting proposal, but I tend to agree with Dave that it ultimately wouldn’t make a difference.
I would just add that the issue of how tough the restrictions are when purchasing a gun is a matter of opinion. Personally, I don’t find a 6-week background check and a waiting period before owning a deadly weapon to be a tough restriction. Actually I think it’s pretty weak. And,largely ineffective. The Virginia Tech shooter passed his background check because his history of mental illness was not part of his public record. And the NIU shooter legally purchased his guns as well, having had no previous run-in’s with the law.
I guess no laws and no restrictions are ever really enough to protect us from those who are bent on perpetrating that kind of violence. But it alwas seems like when these tragedies happen, the investigation that follows tursn up evidence that the person was troubled, had stopped taking medication, was having suicidal thoughts (the Ohama mall shooter), etc. If the background checks were more extensive, or the waiting periods longer, maybe this information could be uncovered before the tragedy took place.
Laura | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Laura and Dave,
Why don’t you think it would make a difference? I’m not saying it definitely would, but if it were feasible wouldn’t it be worth exploring in the interest of public safety? Or does your personal dislike of guns (a dislike I share) mean that no form of conceal carry could ever be an effective means of reducing crime so there’s no sense in studying the issue scientifically?
I personally don’t like the idea of giving needles to junkies, but if it can be proven that it helps stop the spread of diseases that could ultimately affect innocent lives, then I have to put my feelings aside for the overall benefit to society.
Paco,
In the debate between strict constructionalists and those who believe the constitution is a living document that should reflect the times, I fall somewhere in the middle, favoring the former or the latter depending on if it supports my personal views on a given issue. I’m fickle like that.
On the issue of the right to bear arms, M.B. makes a good point that the need for citizens to take up arms against their government doesn’t exist as it did during the early days of this experimental republic. We now know that our form of government, as faulty as it can be, is still probably the best option we have. If an individual feels tyrannized today, the answer isn’t to storm the White House with muskets blazing.
Another problem with the strict constructionalist viewpoint is the assumption that the framers of the constitution were somehow blessed with infallible wisdom on how a democracy should function. The fact is, they were just going with their best bets on what was then a pretty radical proposal on which to base a government. Granted they were wise and they’ve proven quite prescient, still, that doesn’t mean that they were perfect in their work or that changing times might not render some of their visions obsolete or ineffective.
That said, there is a danger when judges are given too much latitude in interpreting constitutional law. We do need the strong legal foundation that is provided by a rigorous constitution.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
I should have expanded my comment. I absolutely applaud the efforts of responsible gun owners like RickMonday who put forth ideas to increase gun safety and responsibility. And yes, a solution that doesn’t go all the way is better than no solution at all. Especially when there is no failproof solution. So I apologize for giving the impression that because I hate guns, no efforts made toward responsible conceal carry have merit. They absolutely do.
I was just trying to say that I agree with Dave that just like the police can’t be everywhere, the responsible, well-trained gun owner (who is also willing to go through that training and education and who doesn’t see it as an infringement on their absolute right to bear arms no matter what) isn’t going to be everywhere either, so just how much of a dent this could put in violent crimes is questionable in my opinion. This next statement could get me in lots of trouble, but it seems to me that the majority of people who would be willing to be trained in the manner and become the citizen vigilante aren’t frequenting the areas where the majority of gun violence takes place. So I still question whether this idea will put the right people at the right place at the right time.
Laura | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
2 things: 1. Although it may seem more frequent, the actually rate of gun massacres hasnt changed much over the year. The frequency may have increase only because we have a growing population. (I hope that makes sense.
). 2. Most of these shootings are occuring in supposedly Gun Free Zones. I am not sure about the Omaha mall but guns were banned at NIU and VT. So law abiding gun owners, which frankly most are, put their guns away. Now I am a realist and doubt that many students would have been carrying anyway.
I shudder to think what would have happened to me back in college when I went skeet shooting with one of the top NCAA trap shooters (who happened to be a woman by the way) and carried my 12 guage pump across Old Campus at 8am on a Saturday morning. Of course it was in a case, but today, I would probably be surrounded by the campus police in a matter of minutes and thrown in jail….whew!……or when I was a kid, I grew up in Sherwood, and my brothers and I would ride our bikes over to the railroad tracks, which are now a bike path, with our guns strapped to our backs and went pheasant hunting….My how times have changed.
RickMonday | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
I agree, a majority of crimes take place in places and during times when law abiding citizens aren’t just going to happen by and be able to intercede.
But what if there was a criminal justice major in that sociology class at NIU, and let’s say he’d already served honorably as an MP in the Marines for a few years. I would say that if he were legally carrying a handgun he could have quite likely ended the rampage sooner than it did, saving lives in the process. I realize that the likelihood of such a scenario isn’t great, but what’s the downside to letting a person like that carry a gun and at least be in a position to help should the situation arise.
So how big of a dent do you require when you’re talking about people’s lives? I admit that my proposal probably isn’t feasible, but if it were and you could be comfortable in knowing that the people carrying guns legally are stable and well-trained to respond to emergencies, isn’t that at least in some way an effective deterrence to crime, at least until we can get guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Dan
You seem to give a pass to stereotypically respectable individuals, but we all know that there are a lot of mad geniuses out there. We have school teachers having sex with students, priests and Boy Scout leaders molesting children, soldiers raping young girls….the list goes on and on. So your comment “and you could be comfortable in knowing that the people carrying guns legally are stable and well-trained to respond to emergencies” just seems a little optimistic. I meand, even a murderer has some history of never having taken a life. It makes me incredibly nervous.
Now on to RM’s call for gun owner education. Yes it’s a good idea. How would you feel about random gun checks for gun owners? Mandatory continued education? Regular mental evaluations, say once a year, and a requirement that all prescription drugs taken by a licensed owner must be reported within a day of the doctor’s order? Monkey may be able to answer this, but is there any cross-referencing in place in instances of domestic violence or threatening behavior and the legal possesion of a weapon? These would all be things I’d advocate for, especially since they wouldn’t inconvenience me in the slightest. There are restrictions on many, if not all of our rights, including free speech, so the right to bear arms should definitely have some to, especially in light of its potential to be so deadly.
Twice in Police Beat this week were stories about stolen guns. Just this week in little old Springfield! One of the accounts was astounding to me. A shooting range reports that a gun had been stolen from a display case sometime between January 1 and the date of the report (this week). That huge span tells me that there wasnt’ any significant damage to the display case or it would have been noticed right away. No damage would tell me that it was unlocked or easily manipulated so as not to cause a ruckus. That tells me that the weapon was in essence, unsecured. Furthermore, no one seems to have seen the gun being stolen, so the unlocked case was also left unattended.
Where is the accountability for the owner of that gun? Who is responsible for the crimes that are commited with it? The criminal that stole it for sure, but what about the irresponsible shop owner?
We have friends who have a lot of guns in the home. He’s a licensed dealer in fact. However, because he is extremely disciplined, no one would EVER be able to steal his guns from the massive, armoir-sized gun safe in his home.
What I DO know is that I am supremely comforted in the knowledge that none of your children or mine will EVER be mowed down at the mall, at school, or anywhere else by a gun stolen from my home. That is the kind of security I want for my children.
nancy | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
It is the perception of the danger of firearms that cause so much agonizing fear. Motor vehicles kill far more people per year than firearms ever will. Why isn’t reckless homicide or drunk driving a capital offense? It all comes down to convenience. Most if not all adults drive so they don’t want such limitations especially if they occasionally go alittle too fast or have one too many drinks or do their makeup or otherwise distract themselves while driving. It would affect them not to be able to do those things. Why is there no requirement for yearly driver’s training for every driver on the road? Why don’t automobile drivers have to keep driving logs like truckers? Sleepy drivers can cause accidents. Once again it is convenience. As Nancy said, she advocates putting requirements on gun owners/CC licensees because it does not inconvenience her. I’d like to see the same eagerness when it covers something she probably does most, if not every, day and would definitely be an inconvenience. I mean after all driving should have more restrictions, especially in light of its potential to be so deadly.
Gish | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
I will try to take a shot at addressing your very valid concerns.
First, I am all for ongoing education. Great idea. Here is why: I was shooting a little .22 handgun a few years ago and I knew for certain that it was empty after I finished shooting it. I would have bet anything that it was empty. However, I was always taught to treat every gun as though it were loaded. I didnt want to, as I thought I would be wasting my time, but I checked the undoubtedly empty chamber. Guess what, there was a round in there. It scared the heck out of me, but my training forced me to look in there and probably saved an accident.
Regarding domestic violence, I am not 100% sure but I do believe that if someone files an order of protection against you, that suspends your gun ownership rights, at least temporarily.
Now for your overall concern about otherwise “normal” people who may crack at any given moment, that frankly is something that we cannot control, so yes there is some risk there. So the question becomes where is the balance between gun ownership and controlling every aspect of someone’s life? I dont know where the line is but I think in America you have to favor the individual’s rights over the collective rights. To me, that is what makes America different and better. So to address your specific point about mental health checks and random gun inspections, I am against it based on I think it is an intrusion of my rights. (I know we will disagree on this but that is how I feel.)
Regarding the gun shop who had their guns stolen. I know this my sound like the standard NRA response but there is some validity in it. I dont think the original owner should be responsible. What happens if someone steals your car, drives drunk, and kills someone? Are you responsible for that death? I dont think there is any difference. In fact, Walter Williams had an interesting article in the SJR yesterday. He theorized that we could prevent around 50,000 deaths a year by lowering the speed limit to 15 mph. Why dont we do it? Because, sad as it is to say, those 50,000 lives are of lesser value than our desire to travel 65 or 75 mph. This then leads to a bigger argument that cars cause more deaths each year than guns, why dont we outlaw cars?
Again, I go back to one of the best ways to reduce gun violence and accidents. Education! It is true that more gun accidents happen between family members. Why? Lack of education and discipline. I mean we teach drivers ed, sex ed, condom use, etc.. in schools and yet no gun safety. It is frankly inexcuseable to me.
One other thing to take note of and something that really makes my blood stir is when the press makes a big deal about ‘SEMI-automatic’ weapons. They make them seem scarey, when in fact semi-automatic means that you pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. AUTOMATIC means that you pull the trigger once and multiple bullets come out. AUTOMATIC weapons are already banned. But the way the press portrays SEMI-automatic it is as though they are implying that they are automatic, which is not the case. Now on some guns you can redesign them to make them automatic but that is illegal and I would not even know how to do that.
RickMonday | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Gish and RM
The car being a deadlier “weapon” doesn’t really hold water. Rarely since the days of Jake and Elwood has someone used a vehicle to reak damage through a mall.
And I don’t hear a lot of drivers complaining about their rights being infringed on because of the rules of the road (anti-seatbelt enthusiasts notwithstanding). I think most reasonable people understand the potential danger of driving improperly and don’t find the laws to be an infringement on their rights. I would like it noted that I understand that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a “right”. I didn’t introduce the comparison into the discussion. But now that it’s here, I’ll address it.
I won’t dispute the facts that more death is caused by automobiles. Nor would I object to stricter restrictions, more education and more severe punishment for drunk drivers.
What I will dispute is that more purposeful death is caused by automobiles. We occasionally hear or read about elderly or absent-minded drivers who mow down a crowd or run into a building causing death. But most car-related death, such as those examples, is accidental. I find myself in a predicament here, but even in the case of drunk drivers I don’t think most have set out to kill somebody, but their irresponsible actions caused death anyway. We need judges to put them away on the first offense for a lot longer.
Additionally, there are more cars on the roads than guns (I hope!), so the relativity is skewed. Guns cause more death than water balloons, so let’s ban cars AND guns by that argument.
A car’s first purpose is to transport people from one place to another. A gun’s purpose is to injure or kill. It’s an invalid argument to compare the two. Because frankly, someone can pick up a tv, chuck it at someone and kill them with it. Obviously, tools of death are everywhere. But cars and tvs aren’t being used routinely by crazy people intent on taking out huge numbers of people. To put blinders on and deny that guns cause more purposeful death, both individually and rampage-style, weakens the debate.
RM, to clarify, I don’t suggest that intake of prescription drugs or even having some medically evaluated mental illness should automatically (or is that semi-automatically?) prohibit gun ownership in my scenario, but I do think it’s important that it’s noted and that follow-up is provided. After all, you can be arrested for driving under the influence if prescription drugs have impacted your ability to operate that, so the same should be true of operating a gun.
nancy | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
I am very tired of the knee-jerk “Cars kill people too!” response from gun advocates. I’d like to (very slightly) expand on Nancy’s point. One word here: INTENT. The intent of a car is to transport. Can it be abused? Yes, most certainly. The ONLY INTENT of a hand gun is to kill a human being! There is no other proper use for it. The two are not comparable. A hand gun, when used properly and according to its package directions kills a child or an adult. It’s only when used improperly that someone doesn’t die.
Rock Robster | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
I’m not giving a pass to “stereotypically respectable individuals.” I’m saying that anyone who wants to carry a gun legally should be subjected to both thorough background checks and intense training (see my original post). Could an evil genius slip through the system? Sure, but they wouldn’t have to go through all of that just to get a gun. As you explained, there are many stolen weapons being circulated or a person could buy a gun legally and carry it without the required license.
What I am saying is that there are responsible people who could respond to an emergency situation if they were carrying a weapon. And these people might be willing to take on that responsibility, but they aren’t willing to break the law if the law says it’s illegal for them to carry a gun.
So you’re proposing that the bad guys should retain the upper hand until your vision of a gun-free society is realized. I like the vision of a gun-free society, but until then, I want to stack the deck against the bad guys as much as possible.
The reality is that anyone who wishes to do harm with a gun can get one. My hypothetical proposal does nothing to make that situation worse. However, it could possibly (I’m not assuming anything here) tilt the balance of public safety towards those who mean no harm.
The thing that most troubles me about this debate is the unwillingness being demonstrated to even consider an idea. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of conceal carry, but I think it is worth taking a serious, objective look at the effects it could have if implemented correctly. If a consensus can be reached by non-partisan studies that show that conceal carry is ineffective or leads to more instances of gun-related violence, then I’ll concede that it’s not the way to go. Why don’t you demand such evidence before making up your mind?
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Dan
Maybe it was in your original post, but I think I did leave open the option for a more palatable (to me) concealed carry law. And in my most recent posts I spoke of some guidelines I’d like to see implemented in order to better ensure that guns are in the hands of legal, sane, clear-minded individuals. So I do see that gun owners are not going away.
I think you’re right that I initially dismissed your idea, but I do happen to like it IF there have to be so many people owning guns. Of course your idea makes sense and there’s not much objectionable about it, other than the obvious notion that a person could pass all the prerequisites that you describe and still go off the deep end. But like you say, the chance of that is much greater with the way guns are handed out to anyone right now. I didn’t mean to come off as contrary as I evidently did.
As far as demanding evidence, I think 10 people view “evidence” or studies in 10 different ways and seldom can everyone come to a consensus on such controversial issues. My mind’s open though and I do like your idea.
nancy | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
I’m not sure why you think that I would know, but as an insurance salesman I will give it a go. Rick Monday is correct in regard to a person losing their guns under a valid order of protection. The loss of guns can also be a remedy to a person convicted of domestic violence however I don’t think that happens very often.
In regard to the gun being stolen from the firing range I must caution you to “think outside the box.” My experience tells me that it is more likely that an employee at the range is involved in the “theft” for various reasons (insurance fraud, drugs, ect.) as it is a bad guy making off with yet another stolen gun.
The debate on this issue has been incredible. This topic is rather unique in that those taking up the debate are not as polar opposite in their views as many of the spirited debates on social issues found within the voluminous BFS annals. I have yet to see red while reading the responses.
And finally, mad props to the founding fathers. Think for a minute about how crucially important and unbelievably accurate the constitution is to not only us but the world. And they did it without toilets that flushed. Amazing.
M.B. | Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
M.B.
I considered that an employee might have/probably stole the gun from the shooting range. But the timeline is still troubling to me. From January 1 until the middle of February that gun could have been anywhere. I still say more oversight by the owner is necessary, especially if the guns are accessible to many people.
R.M.
At what point would you consider it to be a gun owner’s responsibility for not properly securing his weapon? If they leave it in their open garage? Front porch? How about just laying it out in the front yard? I think this underscores my problems with gun advocates who seem to want all of their rights, but only select responsibilities.
nancy | Feb 22, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
You are right in that there should be some responsibility on the gun owner to take some reasonable precautions. I havent really thought this through yet so I will try to give you my off the cuff remarks, with the opportunity to revise them .:))….Anyway, I dont know where the line is. Obviously they should not be laying (or is it lying Dan?) around the house. I recall an incident in Michigan where a convicted felon had a loaded handgun on the coffee table and his 6 year old nephew shot his sister. In that case, I think the owner or should I say, person responsible for the gun is at fault and should have been punished. However, if someone breaks into your house and steals your guns then I dont think the original owner should be responsible for any damages. I personally have a safe and keep my ammunition in a smaller locked box inside the safe. As far as leaving the gun outside or on the porch, etc…obviously that is not a good thing and I think the owner should be held responsible in those situations.
Now all of this begs the question as to what is safe storage. I dont think necessarily that gun owners should be mandated to have a gunsafe. Not only can they be quite expensive but it does take away some of the effectiveness of defending your home when a burglar breaks in. Before I was married my now wife came home one day and people were in her house. They ran out the back door and stole some coins but having a gun locked up would have done her no good. So I have to lean to having the gun definitely out of the reach of children but accessible in a reasonable amount of time to the owner.
I also wanted to state that although I am obviously pro-2nd amendment here, I am not 100% sure that I would carry my gun all the time, if at all, if Illinois were to enact a CC law. I dont even own a handgun.
I also wanted to comment on your,Rock Rockster’s, and Paco’s comments about the difference between cars and guns. I agree with the “intent” argument. I doubt very few people get drunk and say “I am going to run someone over on the way home tonight”. And yes, guns are built and designed to kill, whereas car are not designed for that main purpose. But at certain times there is a need to kill or wound another person. In those times, a gun would be come in handy. I guess it is sort of a circular argument because now I go all the way back to the framers intent. Plus of course there is the side benefit of harvesting your own meat from animals.
One thing that “irks me” to quote one contributor to this blog is when people who dont believe in hunting have no problem eating a steak at a restaurant or getting some hamburger from the butcher. Someone had to kill those animals. Most, not all, hunters hunt for both the “sport” (I know that will bring some comments) and the meat. Hunters contribute a lot to conservation and animal control. We have several million deer here in Illinois and every year there are many accidents and deaths caused by deer running into the road. Plus hunters contribute many thousands of pounds of venison to soup kitchens. 5 years ago, I planted 5000 trees on the land that I hunt, so I also like to think I am contributing to the green movement.
RickMonday | Feb 22, 2008 | Reply
RM
You say: “Before I was married my now wife came home one day and people were in her house. They ran out the back door and stole some coins but having a gun locked up would have done her no good”,
But having a gun out could have easily gotten into the hands of one of the people breaking in rather than your wife!
I could see where gun safety education in schools would be beneficial for all children. Even though there are not guns in my home, I know that my kids play at houses where there are and I would feel good knowing that they’ve been taught about safety.
I think gun education for adult gun owners is even more important. You liken it to driver education. But the difference I sense in your interpretation is that safety measures taught about guns are more like suggestions. In driver’s ed you don’t learn that it’s simply safer to stop at red lights, but rather that it’s mandatory or there will be repercussions should you get caught or cause an accident.
With gun safety, those precautions seem to be more optional and, if inconvenient, then an infringement on the rights of the gun owner.
nancy | Feb 22, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
HMMM, you are right. I dont believe there are any “mandatory” gun safety procedures required by law now. I would be all for incorporating some. ……Regarding on whether or not it is an infringement upon gun owners rights that is a tough question. Because technically, there would be some infringement but I would not know where to start with outlining them. If one were mandate that guns could not be loaded unless in the hands of someone..ie dont leave loaded guns lying around, then that to me is a reasonable request but a more pro-gun person than myself would claim that an unloaded gun would do no good and they would have a point. They tried trigger locks and those are a joke plus they contributed to the cost of buying a gun which one could also claim was similiar to a “poll tax”…ahh the tangled web we weave…I really dont know what to say to that.
Anyway, I have to get back to shoveling my drive for the 2nd time in the past hour.
Good Day.
RickMonday | Feb 22, 2008 | Reply
Did you folks see that a Hamas terrorist opened fire in Jerusalem today and killed 10 people? He was killed by a student with a gun. I think students are capable of shooting straight under fire without hurting innocent bystanders. This kid probably saved a dozen more lives thanks to his gun. Here is the article:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
RickMonday | Mar 6, 2008 | Reply