There has been a lot of talk on gun control. On one side, gun owners are saying things like, “They are coming for your guns!”, “Guns don’t kill people, people do!”, “I have a constitutional right to have guns.”, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”, “The only way to stop a ‘bad guy’ with a gun is with a ‘good guy’ with a gun.”, “The only way to protect yourself from guns is with more guns”, “Stand your ground”. This seems to be a paranoia that is drummed up by the gun industry, fueled by the NRA and fed to the masses by the media. It is a bunch of noise designed to bury the real issues about sensible gun control.
On the other side we hear, “Ban assault weapons”, “Keep military weapons out of civilian hands”, “Put limits on gun sales”, “Background checks for everyone”. Seems to me that neither side is willing to compromise on this issue. I have a few proposals I would like to offer and open for debate. Arguing and being emotionally charged isn’t going to reach any solution, what is needed is good, honest debate. That is the only way we will make progress on anything. So here is a proposal:
I suggest limits on the ammunition that is purchased to keep at home and limits on magazine sizes for weapons at home. There is already an “assault weapons” ban that probably needs some redefining but, so far, has kept 50 caliber machine guns out of civilian homes. The way I see it, limited ammunition will make you think about firing that round in a situation when you may need it later for self-defense. Now, I realize that my example on ammo limits is just an example, real limits will need to be negotiated, please bear with me.
Example: Law states you can only buy one box of ammo per weapon per month. You want to go hunting in the upcoming season so the question becomes, how long will you need to save ammunition to have enough for the season? Is 12 boxes going to be enough to get your game for the winter? Yes, it sounds silly. One box, I would think, would be sufficient to kill a few deer during the season. On the other foot, you have a .22 and you enjoy target practicing. The ammo for a .22 comes in a 50 round box and I agree that plinking targets can burn up more than that in a session. So, the limit on that caliber could be one brick a month as opposed to one 20 round box for the 30-06 hunting rifle. Shotgun ammunition may have a different limit as well. That is my example of an “ammunition limit” law, it is negotiable, not set in stone.
Magazine capacity. Hunting rifles do not come with a 30 round magazine for a reason. If you need 30 rounds to bring down a deer, you probably should not be hunting. Five rounds are usually sufficient because if you miss with the first two rounds, the target isn’t there anymore. You have time to reload and I think that is the key. In a combat situation, you need to get many rounds downrange and in as short a time as is possible. American citizens most likely will never be in a combat zone and I might add, public places are NOT combat zones. A ten round magazine should be enough even for self-defense. The real question here is: How many rounds should we “allow” a shooter to fire before he needs to reload? While the shooter is reloading it gives opportunity for a few brave souls to tackle the shooter and keep him from shooting again, (gun not required to tackle). Having a gun with you in that situation does not make you braver, but it will complicate the situation in many ways. Who are your bullets hitting while you are shooting at the shooter? What about the confused officer arriving on the scene? Too many people with guns, safest course is to eliminate all of the shooters and ask questions later. True courage is charging the shooter when the opportunity presents itself. Limiting magazine capacity would permit the opportunity to stop the shooter with fewer people being injured/killed. So limits on magazines need to be established and again, this is part of the negotiations.
Shooting targets is fun, playing with fancy weapons is fun too! No argument on that part from me so how about another suggestion? Firing ranges, there are many of them, I’m sure, but let’s expand on that for a moment. A firing range with multiple targets out to say 1000 yards, (I’m remembering the military ones I trained on), and a side range for pistols and another for shotguns (skeet shooting). At the range, you can go in, rent ANY kind of weapon and buy all the ammo you want as long as it is used at the range. Yes, I said any weapon, I admit that it is exciting to burn 500 rounds a minute on full auto. So by renting the weapon to use at the range, you save money because you don’t need to buy the weapon to enjoy shooting it. Magazine limits and ammunition limits would not apply to the firing range, of course, the range would need to be licensed, approved and insured, but I think we can agree on that. There would be qualified personnel to assist in training you to use the weapon(s) of your choice and safety measures in place to keep everyone alive and enjoying the day. I think it would be a booming business on the 4th of July, right? Also, the range would be in charge of cleaning and maintaining the weapons and they could give lessons on that as well.
Gun collectors. As far as I’m concerned, you can own all the guns you want. There are restrictions on the ammo, so take it to the range. Yes you can go to the range and buy unlimited amounts of ammo for your “baby” as long as you use it there! Is that so bad? Buy that 50 caliber if you want, but the only place you could get ammo for it is at the range. Somehow I don’t think the neighbors would appreciate you firing 50 caliber ammo at a dirt pile in your back yard. Home “ranges” don’t qualify for “unlimited ammo”. This is not that difficult, my friends. If you really think you need a hundred guns and a 1000 rounds for each at home, then I believe you are paranoid. No one is “out to get you” unless you are doing something wrong. If you really want that kind of fire power, join the military, then you can “play” with guns to your heart’s content and it won’t cost you anything, you would get a paycheck! To my knowledge, no one has proposed “coming for your guns” and that would be unfeasible at best. I am so tired of hearing that from the NRA and the right wing media singing it endlessly, it’s just not true.
Self-defense in the home. The odds of someone breaking into your home with deadly intent is smaller than you are being lead to believe. I won’t argue that, in the major cities, the incident rate is higher. A handgun is a close-quarters weapon and at home is probably the best choice, personally I have little use for one. Stepping back to the ammo limits I mentioned above the question is: How much ammunition do you need to protect your home? Will you be firing so many rounds that you need to reload several times? Wouldn’t one box of ammo suffice? If you are limited to one box of ammo a month, wouldn’t you be able to save enough to get you through all of those break-ins in a year? A limit like my example wouldn’t affect your home defense much, would it?
Training, training, training. Just knowing how to load a weapon and pull the trigger is not knowing how to shoot, there is much more to it than that. The NRA used to teach hunter safety and how to care for your gun, they don’t anymore because they are too busy lobbying government for the gun industry’s interests. One rule that goes a long way with shooting is: “know your target and what is beyond”. Guns are not cameras and you don’t just “point and shoot”. Your bullets will not always stop at the target, they can pass though a body and be just as fatal to the next body beyond. I think that is something few people think about, after all, that never happens in the movies. Those of you who would open up on a shooter in a crowd could just as easily shoot more people than just the shooter they are aiming at. That is why “know your target and beyond” was part of the training. It seems no one thinks about the “beyond” part and that is a problem.
Here is another proposal. Mandatory 2 year military service right out of high school. You get good training with weapons, learn teamwork, get some career training and some life skills as well as a paycheck. After your service, you can go to college and/or universities to further your education. Education is the key, training is the door. So, if everyone had this training with weapons it would reduce the accidental shootings and in the event of a shooter, you could make a better decision as to when to pull the trigger. There is no argument that this would save lives and isn’t that the intent in the first place? I know the difference between a responsible gun owner and a crazy gun owner gets blurred in heated debates about guns and I have no issue with responsible gun owners. It’s always the bad apple the ruins it for the rest and there will always be the bad apples. Responsibility is in the education and training in the use of weapons and keeping children, friends, relatives and other innocents safe from guns. There should be no argument on that either. It all comes down to what should be “common sense” for everyone.
Background checks. I realize that this may have it’s share of snafus but it really isn’t a bad idea. If you are a known violent offender, on the “no fly” list or a terrorist watch list, then you shouldn’t be allowed guns and ammo. Sure, people with common names may wind up on the lists, but there should be a recourse to have your name removed. Currently it is a long process but I think there is room to improve that as well. I would think that a responsible person wouldn’t mind the wait to purchase a weapon with the knowledge that it helps to keep weapons out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them. Make your purchase, wait a few days for the check and if you fail the check, you get your money back and would have the path to “set the record straight”. Red tape, I understand that, but here we are, back to debate.
Licenses and registration. You must get training and buy a driver’s license to operate an automobile, shouldn’t we do something like that for guns? We already have some gun registration laws that I’m sure can be improved upon. You need to go to a driver’s education class, pass a written exam and pass a driving exam before you can get a license to drive a car. You need to go to hunter’s training classes before you can get a hunting license. You need to register your car before you can drive it and you need to register you guns before you use them. So, you need a driver’s license, why not a shooter’s license? You go to a qualified range with qualified instructors and qualify with the weapons and earn the license. Then, I think, you need to show said license to buy weapons, just like showing your license to drive. I think that having the “shooter’s license” to buy a weapon would alleviate some of the problems with gun shows and private sales and would be easier to implement. Show your license, buy your weapon and it gets registered to you. It would make it easier on law enforcement to determine a legally owned weapon from an illegal one. Confiscate the illegal ones!
I hope my suggestions will help make gun control become a belief and not a dirty word. Again, these are just suggestions and debates will be needed to iron out the details. I hope we can get sensible gun laws on the books that everyone can live with.
(* This is only my 3rd diary. I am aware that with all of the “Trump did this, Trump said that” going on, this will get lost in the shuffle. Bad timing on my part, I guess. I just wanted to put this out because mass shootings are becoming far too common place. My hope is this will give us a starting point for discussion and not just “piss" people off. Thank you for giving it a read.)
Saturday, Mar 10, 2018 · 5:29:46 PM +00:00 · RRG3DAV
Some of the responses I have had, since this post, had a few good ideas. In one suggestion, we discussed the firing range idea where the range could provide storage for your personal arsenal. I suggested that the range could have a lobby with gun lockers to store the weapons you would usually use at the range. If you think of a small town post office, it’s lobby is open 24/7, the mailboxes have their own key so you can get your mail anytime. The window is there so during business hours, you have qualified assistance for what ever your needs might be. At a firing range, the lobby could be open 24/7 so you can access your personal weapons locker at any time. During business hours, the trainers and range personnel would be available to meet your needs. You would always be able to take your weapons outside the range for legitimate hunting purposes, although I don’t think people do much hunting at night. That makes no difference, you still can have your gun when you want it. I do like the idea of a firing range lobby. Do you have lots of land? Want to start a business that potentially makes buckets of money? Consider starting a firing range!
Something else that I missed in the first posting, was insurance. You need insurance on your car in case of an accident to keep you from being sued into poverty and that might be a great idea for the weapons as well. In cases of accidental discharge of the weapon, the insurance would be there to cover medical expenses or, sadly, funeral expenses, or damage to property and keep you from being sued into poverty. Deliberately shooting people would not be covered of course, that is still murder and is covered under different regulations.
We had some debate over open carry vs. concealed carry as well. In my personal opinion, you shouldn’t be arrested because you just came into town from a hunting trip and still have it on. On the other hand, I see no reason to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, in public. Weapons do not belong in our commons, our public places, schools, libraries, churches or worse...bars and saloons! Nothing makes you feel safe in a bar full of rowdy drunks carrying guns.
The “wannabe” cops/heroes that think they are out to stop criminals are delusional in this thinking. That is the job of the police, not you. Just by having that weapon on you, you are putting targets on everything/everyone around you. All it would take is someone who sees you with your gun, freaks out and pulls their gun, shoots you and when the shooting starts, everyone pulls their guns and starts shooting at whoever they see that has one. The cops show up, everyone is shooting, what is he supposed to do? That’s right, take out ALL of the shooters and ask questions later when the shooting is over. You “good guys with guns” just became “bad guys with guns” because someone saw someone else with a gun and was “in fear for their life” (stand your ground laws, I’m looking right at you!).
How many innocents will get hit when the air is full of lead? The NRA would have you believe that in a shooting situation the only answer is to put more lead in the air. By that thinking, the more bullets flying, the safer you are? I think there is (literally) a fatal flaw in that “logic”. The American public commons are NOT a combat zone and weapons don’t belong there.
Now this may piss off a bunch of people, but I need to say this about the NRA. The NRA USED to be all about gun safety and proper hunting methods. When I was discharged from the military, I became a card holding member and was for years because I thought gun safety was a good thing. That changed during the Reagan years. The NRA abandoned gun safety to “sell as many guns and ammo as you can”, lobby/”bribe” congress to pass laws to make guns/gun makers immune to legal repercussions and cause as much chaos and confusion as possible to the people. They are hell bent on making a few millionaires/billionaires/arms corporations richer while killing off the population. I dropped my membership in the early 1980’s and sent them a nasty letter when I saw the switch from safety. They no longer represented my beliefs.
I intended to make an update to this diary with the afore mentioned suggestions we had in a couple of decent debates on this subject. It seems this discussion is long overdue. “Now is not the time to talk about gun control”, said by nearly every politician after every mass shooting and repeated endlessly by the media and the (surprise) NRA. Well, if the time isn’t right to talk about it after a shooting, then lets talk about it before the shooting, pick your time! Yeah, thoughts and prayers are really working.
OK, I’ve had my rant, thanks again for reading. Now let us open the conversation and have a real debate instead of arguing about who is right and who is wrong.