Marc2b
Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
|
Okay, its a few days later and I’m a little calmer now. The main reason why I believe that people should wait before discussing the issues right away when events like these happen is out of respect for the dead, the dying, and the grieving. I consider it to be tactless and classless to start the political finger pointing while the bodies are still warm.
The other reason is that our raw emotions can cloud our thinking. I consider it important that, despite our horror, sadness and outrage, we step back and look at things dispassionately… lest we allow emotion to trump reason. Mob justice is an oxymoron.
One of the big questions being bandied around is, naturally, “what can we do to prevent this in the future?” I think the first thing we have to do is accept that there is no perfect solution. There is nothing we can do that guarantees mass shootings of this sort never happen again… but there is much we can do to reduce the probability.
There are two issues being brought to the forefront by the recent shootings: Gun control and mental health. For now, I’m going to leave the mental health issue alone (maybe I’ll take it up later) and just focus on gun control.
How do we balance our individual right to bear arms with other people’s right not to get gunned down by lunatics or simply irresponsible people? I do believe that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms but we would be remiss not to realize that the Second Amendment was written in a different era. It was an era when a single individual committing a mass murder was nearly impossible. It was an era when you were considered an expert if you could load and fire your weapon three times in a minute. As has been noted before in this debate, the Framers couldn't even conceive of the ability to fire a hundred or five hundred or more rounds a minute.
I am loath to tamper with the Second Amendment because I am loath to set the principle that any of the Bill of Rights can be tampered with. Our rights are too important to have them rewritten by people with an agenda. I do believe there is a… loophole (not the word I’d prefer but it’s the best I can think of right now)… in the Second Amendment that would allow us to balance our individual rights with our safety. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms but it does not specify what arms.
Guns are not without their legitimate purposes and these could be categorized broadly as follows: defense of person and home, sport (hunting and target shooting), law enforcement and military defense. To some extent we already classify guns into such categories but I think we need to be more clear cut and stricter in enforcement.
Single shot weapons (by which I mean, you have to take some action to chamber another round after firing) such as pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, and single action revolvers would be legal to own by any adult without a felony record and with no documented case history of mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others (the term “mental illness” covers a broad range of maladies, most of which do not result in violent behavior. It is unfortunate that many people who suffer from mental illness – and who pose no danger to others – should have to suffer the stigma that arises from incidents such as the Connecticut shootings). These are weapons that can be legitimately used for home defense, hunting and target shooting. Weapons like these can still do a hell of a lot of damage in irresponsible hands but far less than automatics or semi-automatics. If nothing else, you have a chance to either run away, or engage the mother fucker while he’s reloading.
I would add two other conditions – and possibly a third – to the ownership of such weapons. First, completion of a gun safety course… nobody should own a gun until they understand the basics of gun safety.
Second, a waiting period and background check. All gun dealers would be responsible for checking a federal database to see if you are not on a do not sell to list.
As for your more powerful weapons, automatics and semi-automatics, those would be the weapons of law enforcement and the military. You do not need an automatic weapon to hunt deer. If you want to try your hand a shooting a .50 caliber machine gun… join the army.
As for that third idea I have (and this is an idea I’m still kicking around in my head)… let’s bring back the militia. People today tend to think of the National Guard as the modern day version of the militia but in its broadest sense the militia simply meant the armed citizenry. They would train once or twice a year and were expected to respond when called upon by the government in the event of an emergency. We should make it the responsibility of gun owners to undergo a refresher course once a year. In addition to reviewing gun safety, they would be trained in basic military/police procedures and organized in a chain of command. That way if local police needed some extra manpower (say, for a manhunt) they could call upon the militia. I would not require the gun owner to respond to such a call if they were unable (say for health reasons) but society would make it a point of honor for those able to do so. Like I said, I’m still kicking this idea around and I know it needs some refinement.
_____________________________
Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!
|
RE: Then Amend the Constitution - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread