One of the worst tragedies and one of the most horrific mass murders was perpetrated yesterday against a man's defenseless mother, classrooms of innocent children, and a handful of brave school administrators who died trying to save those children. The perpetrator, a man whom I refuse to give the dignity of naming in my blog, had in his possession several weapons at the time he committed all these murders. One of the weapons was a Bushmaster .223 calibre assault rifle. The Bushmaster .223 rifle is nothing other than an assault rifle, the purpose for which it was designed. A rifle of this nature is loaded with a magazine clip that holds from fifteen to seventy rounds of ammunition. What progress!
I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, the enumeration of our right to keep and bear firearms. Our founding fathers believed that the population needed to be armed, for various reasons. Today some of those reasons still exist. For instance, I am firm in my belief that an armed population is a great deterrent to the criminal element. Most, probably all, school districts in this nation have adopted a "zero tolerance" policy with regard to firearms, thus ENSURING that ONLY criminals will be armed on the school campuses. Yes, many campuses also have armed policemen, but seldom at the elementary and primary schools. Would this situation have ended differently if someone on the campus had been armed? We will never know. The criminal yesterday was armed with an assault rifle, so it may well be that no one could have gotten to the classroom in time, not before this man emptied a clip could have held fifty rounds or more. Again, this is merely vain speculation.
I have the right to bear firearms - an inalienable right, according to the Bill of Rights. But I doubt that even our brightest forefathers could have envisioned the kind of firepower that would be available to the average American just a few generations after the founding of this great nation. I also believe the founding fathers would have laughed at the suggestion that the American people should be unarmed. After all, theirs was a time when a simple trip to church could have ended in the tragedy of an Indian depredation. Since then, I am sad to say, not a lot has changed. We no longer fear Native Americans, but we fear ourselves, that is, the criminal part of our population. Again, I believe our founding fathers, if they were alive today, would stand up before the Congress and the President and demand that the freedom to bear arms be forever safe. But...
Once again I have to say that I believe our founding fathers had no idea of the kinds of weapons that would be available to their descendants. How many bullets per gun are "enough?" It was obvious from the days of the Conquistadors to the American Civil War that single-shot weapons were not the best answer. What if a single soldier faced multiple opponents? What if a traveller were set upon by two or more attackers? His one shot was hardly defense enough. The need for more shots without reloading was proven, and was justifiable. But, as with many modern inventions, "progress" took us beyond the point of necessary function, to the point of, well, overkill. We have passed beyond the point of filling a need, to the point of excess. Is mankind better off because a person can kill twenty or thirty people with a single weapon and a single load? I don't think so. I am sure the people of Newton, when they can see through their grief, will agree.
Is it hypocritical for one who is a proponent of our Second Amendment to also support the limitation on the types of guns, magazine capacities, and ammunition available to the general public? I do not believe so. I believe that we are all entitled, based on the Second Amendment, and on the Declaration of Independence, to have the means and ability to defend ourselves, as part of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness outlined in those two sacred documents. AND I believe that we have been graciously provided, by domestic and international gun makers, with all the firepower and stopping power we need for legitimate pursuits, including self-defense. And THEN SOME!
As I said, I firmly believe in our rights under the Second Amendment. I believe that those Americans who want to own guns should be able to do so, and those who do not should not be ridiculed or forced to own guns. I also firmly believe that armed, responsible people can intervene to prevent, or at least mitigate, the degree of tragedy and murder one man can inflict on innocent people. But now I have come to believe that our gun makers have gone above and beyond the call of freedom and protection. And we, the people, have allowed the gun makers to thrive by purchasing these weapons. I include myself in this number. I think we have truly reached the point where "enough" is too much!
I served as a police officer for over ten years. During most of that time I managed to survive using an antique known as a six-shooter, or revolver. It held but six shots. Yet at my best I was able to fire those six shots, reload and empty the revolver twice more, and place the bullets in the right spot on a target, all in eighteen seconds. During the last couple of years of my career, criminals developed a preference for high capacity semi-automatic pistols. These automatics held as many as eighteen rounds. Soon, as you might guess, the police felt they were outgunned. What followed was a weapons race between cops and crooks, with the gun makers getting paid by both sides. Then a third party joined in, sportsmen. This segment of the gun-owning population saw the higher capacity pistols and rifles, and wanted to join in the fun. Thus, by 2012 we have available weapons that raise the criminal's available firepower and stopping power to a level comparable to that of many modern armed forces. And I am sure "improvements" will continue into the next century.
My point is that the means of killing for soldiers, police officers, local militias, and sportsmen (as well as criminals) reached the point of fulfillment YEARS AGO. The need for weapons that fired more than six shots without reloading was never really a need at all. I suppose soldiers might disagree with me on this, but at least as far as domestic law enforcement, sports, and criminal activity are concerned, we have been in an overkill mode since the mid-eighties. Today, in 2012, as this tragedy illustrates, we have reached a point beyond that of good use and reasonableness. We have reached the point of madness, as far as the firearms race goes. I am not sure what can be done at this point. We are accustomed now to the availability of high capacity, military style weapons. Unfortunately, however, we have yet to come up with a means of keeping such weapons out of the hands of those who have sinister, murderous intent. No matter, though, the firearms manufacturers keep those new "toys" coming. And we keep on buying them even though we cannot count on all people to be reasonable, to use their weapons in a reasonable manner.
Many people, and many politicians, will use this horrible incident to call for the ban on certain guns and ammunition. Many will in fact call for the outright ban on gun ownership by law-abiding Americans. I said law-abiding Americans because criminals do not obey laws, registrations, or bans. They always seem to find ways to get to weapons. But, as tragic as the Newton murders were, the fact is that no laws were broken by any gun owners. And the fact is also that no one at the school was armed is just as much of an indictment of those who would restrict our 2nd Amendment rights as those who advocate for total derugulation of the firearms industry. And, the fact is that neither faction caused this tragedy. A mean and sinister man decided to kill. He stole guns from his mother. He killed her. Then he went on a rampage. And in all of this, no gun registration law could have stopped him, because he illegally obtained these weapons.
I do not believe the "Government" needs to pass more laws. The laws are all there on the books. And I do not make a call for no more gun control without proposing an alternative; one that does not involve the government at all. It involves ONLY the gun makers and gun dealers. I believe they can be just as "right thinking" as anyone. Conversely, they can be just as greedy, just as money-driven as the most corrupt and calloused politicians. But I call on the gun makers and dealers to do the right thing. I call on them to do the unimaginable...the unthinkable. I ask the gun makers to stop producing such high powered guns with such high round capacities. Sounds ridiculous, I know.
But let's play "What if...?" for just a moment...
Suppose gun makers and gun dealers would voluntarily cut back, would voluntarily reduce the firepower of their guns and ammunition. I believe two desirable outcomes would be possible. First, there would be no need for the "Government" to attempt to curtail our freedom. Second, the potential harm and damage a criminal could do to innocent people would be reduced. I know that the firearms industry would not be very hospitable to these ideas, and I know many Americans would not be very hospitable to these ideas, either. Yet, while these ideas would not be popular, I believe that the firearms manufacturers' own initiatives in these areas would help gain the trust of many Americans who are not comfortable with such firearms, would stave off any attempts by our government to intervene and curtail our rights, and would still allow Americans the opportunity to own weapons which are capable of both self-defense and meeting the needs of hunters and sportsmen. Yet these would be weapons that did not lend themselves so readily to mass murder.
Maybe this is just a dream of mine. I realize Walt Disney is not running the gun making outfits. Potential loss of profits is of course in the millions of dollars while these changes rippled through the firearms industry. But I am sure that we have reached the point today in which the needs of gun-owning Americans have been far exceeded by gun makers. Do we, any one of us, need weapons that fire thirty rounds without reloading? Do we really need armor-piercing bullets? I don't think so. If muggers attack, there are rarely more than one or two. A hunter can only shoot at one deer at a time. Yes, a few shots are great in case we miss the first time or if we are facing multiple attackers. But once a person is shot two or three times, there is rarely the need for further projectiles. Again, I am excepting military and police needs here. In battle or in law enforcement emergencies, the need for firepower is there, but so is the professionalism and skill of those using this extra firepower.
As for people, for us, yea even for me, it is quite likely that as long as powerful weapons and ammunition are available, then we will buy them. Mostly responsible people will buy guns, but also plenty of less than responsible people will as well. And of course, criminals will continue to obtain guns by illegal means, as they have since the days of Yankee Doodle. But if the gun makers gradually phase out such weapons, eventually people will be satisfied with the remaining stock. I hope also that more people will obtain their own handgun carry licenses, and that more people will be prepared to take action in situations such as we saw yesterday. Responsible people carrying legal and reasonable weapons, firearms dealers making and supplying only weapons that fill a reasonable need, and government not trying to stamp out our civil rights...now that would be progress!
I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, the enumeration of our right to keep and bear firearms. Our founding fathers believed that the population needed to be armed, for various reasons. Today some of those reasons still exist. For instance, I am firm in my belief that an armed population is a great deterrent to the criminal element. Most, probably all, school districts in this nation have adopted a "zero tolerance" policy with regard to firearms, thus ENSURING that ONLY criminals will be armed on the school campuses. Yes, many campuses also have armed policemen, but seldom at the elementary and primary schools. Would this situation have ended differently if someone on the campus had been armed? We will never know. The criminal yesterday was armed with an assault rifle, so it may well be that no one could have gotten to the classroom in time, not before this man emptied a clip could have held fifty rounds or more. Again, this is merely vain speculation.
I have the right to bear firearms - an inalienable right, according to the Bill of Rights. But I doubt that even our brightest forefathers could have envisioned the kind of firepower that would be available to the average American just a few generations after the founding of this great nation. I also believe the founding fathers would have laughed at the suggestion that the American people should be unarmed. After all, theirs was a time when a simple trip to church could have ended in the tragedy of an Indian depredation. Since then, I am sad to say, not a lot has changed. We no longer fear Native Americans, but we fear ourselves, that is, the criminal part of our population. Again, I believe our founding fathers, if they were alive today, would stand up before the Congress and the President and demand that the freedom to bear arms be forever safe. But...
Once again I have to say that I believe our founding fathers had no idea of the kinds of weapons that would be available to their descendants. How many bullets per gun are "enough?" It was obvious from the days of the Conquistadors to the American Civil War that single-shot weapons were not the best answer. What if a single soldier faced multiple opponents? What if a traveller were set upon by two or more attackers? His one shot was hardly defense enough. The need for more shots without reloading was proven, and was justifiable. But, as with many modern inventions, "progress" took us beyond the point of necessary function, to the point of, well, overkill. We have passed beyond the point of filling a need, to the point of excess. Is mankind better off because a person can kill twenty or thirty people with a single weapon and a single load? I don't think so. I am sure the people of Newton, when they can see through their grief, will agree.
Is it hypocritical for one who is a proponent of our Second Amendment to also support the limitation on the types of guns, magazine capacities, and ammunition available to the general public? I do not believe so. I believe that we are all entitled, based on the Second Amendment, and on the Declaration of Independence, to have the means and ability to defend ourselves, as part of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness outlined in those two sacred documents. AND I believe that we have been graciously provided, by domestic and international gun makers, with all the firepower and stopping power we need for legitimate pursuits, including self-defense. And THEN SOME!
As I said, I firmly believe in our rights under the Second Amendment. I believe that those Americans who want to own guns should be able to do so, and those who do not should not be ridiculed or forced to own guns. I also firmly believe that armed, responsible people can intervene to prevent, or at least mitigate, the degree of tragedy and murder one man can inflict on innocent people. But now I have come to believe that our gun makers have gone above and beyond the call of freedom and protection. And we, the people, have allowed the gun makers to thrive by purchasing these weapons. I include myself in this number. I think we have truly reached the point where "enough" is too much!
I served as a police officer for over ten years. During most of that time I managed to survive using an antique known as a six-shooter, or revolver. It held but six shots. Yet at my best I was able to fire those six shots, reload and empty the revolver twice more, and place the bullets in the right spot on a target, all in eighteen seconds. During the last couple of years of my career, criminals developed a preference for high capacity semi-automatic pistols. These automatics held as many as eighteen rounds. Soon, as you might guess, the police felt they were outgunned. What followed was a weapons race between cops and crooks, with the gun makers getting paid by both sides. Then a third party joined in, sportsmen. This segment of the gun-owning population saw the higher capacity pistols and rifles, and wanted to join in the fun. Thus, by 2012 we have available weapons that raise the criminal's available firepower and stopping power to a level comparable to that of many modern armed forces. And I am sure "improvements" will continue into the next century.
My point is that the means of killing for soldiers, police officers, local militias, and sportsmen (as well as criminals) reached the point of fulfillment YEARS AGO. The need for weapons that fired more than six shots without reloading was never really a need at all. I suppose soldiers might disagree with me on this, but at least as far as domestic law enforcement, sports, and criminal activity are concerned, we have been in an overkill mode since the mid-eighties. Today, in 2012, as this tragedy illustrates, we have reached a point beyond that of good use and reasonableness. We have reached the point of madness, as far as the firearms race goes. I am not sure what can be done at this point. We are accustomed now to the availability of high capacity, military style weapons. Unfortunately, however, we have yet to come up with a means of keeping such weapons out of the hands of those who have sinister, murderous intent. No matter, though, the firearms manufacturers keep those new "toys" coming. And we keep on buying them even though we cannot count on all people to be reasonable, to use their weapons in a reasonable manner.
Many people, and many politicians, will use this horrible incident to call for the ban on certain guns and ammunition. Many will in fact call for the outright ban on gun ownership by law-abiding Americans. I said law-abiding Americans because criminals do not obey laws, registrations, or bans. They always seem to find ways to get to weapons. But, as tragic as the Newton murders were, the fact is that no laws were broken by any gun owners. And the fact is also that no one at the school was armed is just as much of an indictment of those who would restrict our 2nd Amendment rights as those who advocate for total derugulation of the firearms industry. And, the fact is that neither faction caused this tragedy. A mean and sinister man decided to kill. He stole guns from his mother. He killed her. Then he went on a rampage. And in all of this, no gun registration law could have stopped him, because he illegally obtained these weapons.
I do not believe the "Government" needs to pass more laws. The laws are all there on the books. And I do not make a call for no more gun control without proposing an alternative; one that does not involve the government at all. It involves ONLY the gun makers and gun dealers. I believe they can be just as "right thinking" as anyone. Conversely, they can be just as greedy, just as money-driven as the most corrupt and calloused politicians. But I call on the gun makers and dealers to do the right thing. I call on them to do the unimaginable...the unthinkable. I ask the gun makers to stop producing such high powered guns with such high round capacities. Sounds ridiculous, I know.
But let's play "What if...?" for just a moment...
Suppose gun makers and gun dealers would voluntarily cut back, would voluntarily reduce the firepower of their guns and ammunition. I believe two desirable outcomes would be possible. First, there would be no need for the "Government" to attempt to curtail our freedom. Second, the potential harm and damage a criminal could do to innocent people would be reduced. I know that the firearms industry would not be very hospitable to these ideas, and I know many Americans would not be very hospitable to these ideas, either. Yet, while these ideas would not be popular, I believe that the firearms manufacturers' own initiatives in these areas would help gain the trust of many Americans who are not comfortable with such firearms, would stave off any attempts by our government to intervene and curtail our rights, and would still allow Americans the opportunity to own weapons which are capable of both self-defense and meeting the needs of hunters and sportsmen. Yet these would be weapons that did not lend themselves so readily to mass murder.
Maybe this is just a dream of mine. I realize Walt Disney is not running the gun making outfits. Potential loss of profits is of course in the millions of dollars while these changes rippled through the firearms industry. But I am sure that we have reached the point today in which the needs of gun-owning Americans have been far exceeded by gun makers. Do we, any one of us, need weapons that fire thirty rounds without reloading? Do we really need armor-piercing bullets? I don't think so. If muggers attack, there are rarely more than one or two. A hunter can only shoot at one deer at a time. Yes, a few shots are great in case we miss the first time or if we are facing multiple attackers. But once a person is shot two or three times, there is rarely the need for further projectiles. Again, I am excepting military and police needs here. In battle or in law enforcement emergencies, the need for firepower is there, but so is the professionalism and skill of those using this extra firepower.
As for people, for us, yea even for me, it is quite likely that as long as powerful weapons and ammunition are available, then we will buy them. Mostly responsible people will buy guns, but also plenty of less than responsible people will as well. And of course, criminals will continue to obtain guns by illegal means, as they have since the days of Yankee Doodle. But if the gun makers gradually phase out such weapons, eventually people will be satisfied with the remaining stock. I hope also that more people will obtain their own handgun carry licenses, and that more people will be prepared to take action in situations such as we saw yesterday. Responsible people carrying legal and reasonable weapons, firearms dealers making and supplying only weapons that fill a reasonable need, and government not trying to stamp out our civil rights...now that would be progress!
No comments:
Post a Comment