By Ron Reagan
Let me finish tonight with this: "Guns don't kill people," as the saying goes, "people kill people." True enough, but people with guns end up doing most of that killing.
In the wake of the most recent tragedy in Colorado, the National Rifle Association and its minions are no doubt bracing themselves for an assault on their constitutionally-protected obssession with firearms. That's not going to happen. Never has, likely never will.
But let me advance what I consider a sensible proposition around guns, if for no other reason than to annoy the NRA: let's start treating guns more or less like cars.
I know, I know — there's no consitutional right to drive an automobile, but neither are there any constitutional restrictions. After all, when cars first arrived, they were nothing more than noisy, smelly versions of the horse and buggy. No one was required to obtain a license. Pretty much anyone could drive as they pleased. Chaos predictably ensued, and sensible laws were soon enacted.
Let's do the same with guns and gun ownership.
Here's the deal: guns, particularly semi-automatic handguns, are designed to kill. When you purchase one for self-defense, you are announcing your intention, if threatened, to kill another person. That's serious business. So, let's take it seriously. Let's require gun purchasers to prove they know how to handle a gun properly, just as we test a new driver's ability to manouver an automobile, and let's test their knowledge of when and how they can legally use their weapon in self-defense, just like we test a driver's familiarity with traffic rules.
Pretty simple: no one loses their right to own a gun; they merely have to demonstrate competence.
Americans — many of us anyway — will not soon abandon our fetish for firearms. That doesn't mean we can't be more adult about it.
Leave a Comment:
Things are getting very bad here in America. When the people loose HOPE and see no CHANGE.... sad very sad......
The Republican leadership planned from day one of the POTUS's election to obstruct everything he did. It is sad when one party purposefully sabotages the economic recovery of a nation for their political ambitions.
Still the President has made America the shining example of what recovery looks like compared to every other western country who are still suffering thanks to their Republican style austerity measures.
Vote all Republicans out! 30 years of failed policies has been enough.
Right on, Ron! I second your opinion -- it's the most intelligent approach I've heard recently. To take the analogy just a bit further, motorists need to have a driver's license, and have to renew the license on their vehicle regularly. Maybe the same should apply to gun owners and their guns, too.
That will not work the way you need it to. Do you think that the bad guy is going to get a license for gun . they do not go to sporting good store buy gun they go other ways to get there guns and they will not get the license for there gun
And since drunk drivers do not stop driving even though they have lost their licence... I guess, licencing and breathalysers have beeen useless in lowering drunk driving? Something aimed at prevention is always better than NOTHING aimed at prevention.
Right on, Ron! This is the most intelligent commentary I've heard about guns and gun ownership in recent times.
To take your analogy a bit further, motorists need to obtain a driver's license in order to take their cars out on the public roadways. Additionally, they need to license their vehicles, and renew both personal and vehicle licenses periodically. Maybe it's time to apply this same approach to gun owners and their weapons.
Wonderful approach. Vehicle owner's are required by the states to maintain insurance on their vehicles, gun owners ought to be required to maintain insurance on their weapons in the event a discharged weapon causes bodily harm to an innocent victim. There is no justification that will ever convince me that automatic weapons belong in the hands of the public. The majority of Americans believe there ought to be tighter gun laws, someone needs to step up to the plate and take this on. thanks.
Stop lying. We know you don't really want to license guns just like cars.
If you tell me that you honestly want schools to teach gun education and training to teenagers, license any 17 year old to carry a gun anywhere in the US without a background check or mental health eval, and let me buy and sell those guns to anyone I like without so much as a by-your-leave, I'm going to call you a damned liar.
You don't want anything of the sort.
I own many guns myself. I do not support the NRA as they are a useless political organization and have been for years now. I'm coming around to registration for gun ownership where currently none is needed in the state where I reside.
I've noticed in Canada where there are many guns, maybe not as many as there are here, but still quite a lot, there is very little gun violence. I think a key difference is that there is gun registration. They are particularly strict with the ownership, registration, and carrying of handguns. One must show a valid reason for carrying a handgun, or it is not allowed and there are strict penalties for doing so.
Remember there are a lot of hunters there, so long guns are prevalent.
Do you know if there is a "rights" issue in Canada? Or, just lack of a shoot-kill culture there, in your opinion?
Like Europe, they seem to be like America was pre Reagan. We took a hard right turn in the early to mid 80's and went off the "conservative" deep end.
Common sense speaks to some type of regulation, but it is really a moot point, driving a car is a privilege, not a right!!!!
Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege!
I am liberal to moderate on most issues, but I learned gun safety in N.J. (Jersey Shore) from volunteer police on gun-safety at 13 years old. It was good program and taught how to use and respect fire-arms, I was marksman at 14 in all positions with "22"! I hate to admit it was a NRA Sponsored Program (this was before it became right-wing nut job organization).
In military I became expert with "38" long-nose revolver!
Today I do not own a gun, but I really do not want to loose right (and it is a right, no matter what my Democratic Party or liberal friends have to say about that) to own one, and most importantly a right to be "competitive" with other gun owners, both good and bad!!!!!!!
And for the record the 12 innocent people that were killed, no slaugherted, that is the most tragic, but again there was another 11 killed in an auto accident! No this does not in anyway diminish what happened in Aurora, but now is not a time for "feel-good" knee-jerk reaction!!
There is a stupid myth out there that the founding fathers did not mean military style weapons, only self-protection, plain and simple that was bulsh*t! The country at that time was based on citizen-soldiers!!!!!!
Gun safety and insurance issues could be addressed legally, but if the USA wants to change what type of guns or amount of magazines (100 magazine vs a 10-shot magazine) they would really need to define and do at very least:
1. Determine what is medium between self-protection and what is primarily major offensively driven weaponization, and artillery like, yes it would be difficult to do!
2. Training in other then just hand-gun weapons, to be accomplished thru minimal military service (6 months or less). I believe this would make many people pause (and respect awesome nature) before reverting to ownership of assault style weapons privately.
3. I believe this will accomplish what founding fathers thought and pondered about citizen soldger defense, and most importantly will create a better enviroment for people to understand for home protection that really needed is single shot rifles and/or handguns that are low shot and not really useful in offensive use, although some criminals and sick people will try any way to utilize!
Most Important, new amendment to constitution and ratified by I believe is 75% of states on clarification what is appropiate for self defense and what is not, no simple task!
But NRA/Texas Idea of everyone lock and loaded is retarded thinking!
Stricker laws will not help to keep guns away bad guys it will make it harder for the people that obey the law to get guns. I buy guns mainly because enjoy shooting them that includes semi and automatic. I do pratices shooting and take classes to improve my skills and meet lot of nice people some are peace officers trainers and normal people. Now for self defence yes have it to help protect myself but never was main reason. I hope that it never have to protect myself from someone but in return i am not going set there let someone kill me or people i love. If i am carring a gun that doesn't mean that I am bad person looking to kill someone thats never on my mind and not threat to anyone. For people to know that i have guns well try keep it to myself for my safety due to i trust very few we all are humans some good some bad. just like some good police officers and you have some that are bad and thats just the way it is to bad. person does't need gun they can use a car or other means to do the evil acts. With what happend in Colorado thats real bad thing but before we jumb let them try find out what happend then go from there. i do not agree with you there is a lot people with guns that will not kill. again just because you have a gun does't mean you are a killer or bad person. Licenses for gun thats not needed and wrong
This argument that stricter laws will not keep guns away from bad guys is a bogus propaganda statement used by the NRA to fool gullible people. First of all look at all these mass shootings we have seen over the last ten years or so. These "bad guys," have been people who have been normal people who have "snapped." They bought their guns legitimately or got their guns from relatives who did. Secondly the real "bad guys," are also getting their guns from supposed legitimate dealers or buyers who are buying guns en masse and then driving to big cities in other states and selling them on the street for profit. If the "legitimate" buyers/sellers had to register these guns they wouldn't be able to make these sales. It's all about profit for these people they don't care what happens after they make their money. Their just like the psychopath bankers, mortgage companies, or Republicans in Congress who just don't care about their actions.
A few points of clarification…
Ron Reagan’s comment that “Guns don't kill people," as the saying goes, "people kill people." True enough, but people with guns end up doing most of that killing” is nothing more than a statement of the obvious. Of course people with guns end up doing most of the killing. The use of a gun is the most expedient manner by which to dispatch a person at present. 2,000 years ago, the comment would have been “Swords don’t kill people, people kill people, but people with swords end up doing most of that killing. You could also insert the word “spears” or “bow & arrows” depending on what period of time you were referring to. 2,000 years in the future they'll be saying something similar about laser pistols or some other sort of energy weapon. Humans have been killing each other with the most expedient manner possible since we first became capable of developing weapons.
Sedwinmars you said it best when you wrote “These "bad guys," have been people who have been normal people who have "snapped." Exactly what legislation could be proposed that would prevent normal people who might “snap” from purchasing firearms? By that definition, none of us would qualify to own firearms! And who would make the determination that we could possibly snap? The guy that committed this latest atrocity was a graduate student in Neuroscience whose only scrape with law enforcement was a traffic ticket. How would new gun control legislation flag individuals like him thereby preventing them from purchasing firearms? Although he had purchased 4 firearms in the last 60 days, there is no indication yet that he purchased all 4 at the same time or at the same place. He did not have all 4 firearms on him at the theatre, nor was he carrying 6,000 rounds (60 boxes of 100 rounds each) of ammunition on him when he was caught. Neither is it clear yet that he even purchased all 6,000 rounds of ammunition at the same time or from the same place. And what difference would it make if he had? By all accounts, it appears that he fired off fewer than 100 rounds. Heck, I have several hundred rounds of .22 ammo in my gun safe and I could blow through most of that in one good day of "plinking".
What if the next time something like this happens the perpetrator uses a pump 12 gauge shotgun? Are we then going to propose legislation banning the sales of any shotgun other than a break-open single shot? And how would that address the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of pump shotguns that have already been sold? Attacking the weapons has never been the appropriate response and it never will be the appropriate response, because it doesn't address the REASONS people do these sorts of things. Imposing stricter gun control regulation only makes things more difficult for the 30 million (plus), law abiding, responsible, gun owners. Legislating the tens of millions because of the actions of several dozen psychopaths makes no sense at all.
Legislation that requires gun purchasers to demonstrate competence is not likely to prevent these kinds of atrocities from happening in the future, especially if the psychopathy of the perpetrator has not yet manifested. Worse yet, we will have insured that the psychopath is competent with firearms. Personally, I would rather psychopaths NOT be competent with firearms.
What disturbs me most is the increasingly cavalier manner by which those like Ron Reagan and Chris Matthews speak about regulating away the gun ownership rights our founding fathers fought, bled and died to preserve for us. Tench Coxe put into words the thoughts of many of our founding fathers when he wrote:
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The intent of keeping an armed citizenry was never about “recreational” use or hunting but, rather, as Tench Coxe wrote:
You don’t think those tyrranical kinds of abuses could occur nowadays? Just remember the actions of the notoriously corrupt New Orleans Police Department after Hurricane Katrina. Or how about the dramatic extension & abuse of executive power under President George W. Bush (sanctioned by Congress, I might add).
Historian*, a very, very good and thought-provoking argument. Moreover, you touch on some really important points from history and today. We still have a deep-seated problem and it is Congress' to approach, address, and repair: Weapons are being turned against the innocent more and more. That can not be allowed to putrefy and fester amongst a civilized people. Congress needs to lead, instead of following (whomever) on this issue of LIFE.
*I voted. Your post is a valid argument. We still have to resolve this, as history will judge us.
Calbab,
Thanks. I absolutely agree that a solution needs to be found to the recent trend of premeditated, random, mass shootings. I think that I can speak for all responsible, law-abiding gun owners when I say that those types of tragic crimes are reprehensible and abhorrent to us all. What I would ask of the general populace and our congress is that they avoid the natural tendency towards the knee-jerk reaction (i.e., a rush towards increased regulation). I don't believe that most responsible gun owners, or even the NRA for that matter, are opposed to regulation that would target the perpetrators of such crimes and prevent them from ever legally purchasing a firearm. The primary problem associated with legislating to prevent against such atrocities arises with our inability to determine which individuals will be predisposed to commit those crimes. Otherwise, we are just casting a wide net in hopes of catching a few individuals. Again, this is not fair to the vast majority of gun owners/purchasers, who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.
Rationally, we would think that when we understand what factors (societal or otherwise) lead an individual to commit an atrocity such as this, we should be able to legislate to prevent it. However, that may not be the case. It is a possibility we should be prepared to face.
As I have stated before I myself own many firearms and spent many years in the military specifically as an officer in special warfare.
I don't have a problem with civilians owning firearms but I've come to the conclusion that high round clips should be banned. I've come to this conclusion because so many people within our society are using them for crimes and killing large numbers of unarmed innocent civilians.
Your argument that we should have these to prevent tyranny simply doesn't wash. The reason is, even with 100 high capacity mags you're never going to defeat a blackhawk, a tank or a rocket propelled grenade despite what the movies portray and that's just the tip of what the military can throw at you. If you say to yourself, yeah but I'm smarter than that I'll sit back and fire from afar. Well snipers live by the rule, "one shot one kill," and that's because after one shot the military knows where you are. So again high capacity clips aren't needed.
Something else. These are some of the difficult issues we pay professional Public Servants to find solutions for. Practically speaking this is when we need Congress, the President, and the Courts to be on the same page. This is why each of these 3 forms of government being put-out with the other doesn't work for the Republic.
The Congress is made up of senators and representatives from all fifty states. The President and Courts have oversight and are voices into this division of goverment (Congress). There are solutions to every problem when this "bunch" takes their jobs seriously enough to look at the statistics, charts, data, future projections patterns, long and with reflection until they flesh out (pun intended) a plan for general safety.
In lieu of any hopeful plan; the agencies are engrossed in a bankrupt sport of severe castigation of one agency or the Other. Their conducts are what needs fixing first and foremost. We the People need Congress to be MATURE now.
This mass killing problem we have now, from where does it start? I have been briefly looking and viewing a timeline of the Worst shooting in U.S. History and Murderpedia: The Encyclopedia of Murders (focusing on the shooters).
I "researched" 7 shooters from the 'worst shooting' timeline. Remarkably, two causes stand out in these 7 mass shootings (1996 - 2007):
Each one of these seven mass shooters I have read, either complained to other people about needing/wanting help (2012: James Holmes sent a package to a psychiatrist before shootings in Aurora, CO), and/or they each suffered from anger management issues.
Perhaps this is a place to start for trained professionals. Run Public Service Announcements(PSA) to tell sick and hurting people where they can go to get some HELP.
It's worse than that. In at least two of these cases that I'm aware of, namely Aurora and Columbine, the shooters pre-warned authority figures that they were going to murder people.
So they should have been reported (actually the Columbine were), to law enforcement who should make sure that 1. They are mentally evaluated and 2. They do not have access to firearms.
Granted some people know how to kill and can do so without firearms. However, anyone can pick up a firearm and do massive damage especially a firearm with a high capacity clip.
So guys! What do you think of Murderpedia? Is this a weird site or what? I, being one to keep sunshine all around me, was leery of going to such a dark, creepy, website ('fraid of what...cooties?). But it is cool...for research. :)
Sadly...regrettably...these people...are memorialized there for the crimes they committed and the lifes they snuffed out. :(