In the wake of the latest tragedy, this time in Aurora, Colorado, the inevitable debate regarding gun control has already arisen. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is perhaps the most notable person to call out for action. It is a legitimate debate. In my view, the whole scandal we know as Operation Fast and Furious came about as a result of the current administration's desire to limit the sale and ownership of guns in America. But given the long history of gun violence in America, is the answer to try and eliminate guns altogether in this country in order to create a safer society? Since I am no stranger to guns, I think it is an opportune time to weigh in with my own perspective.
I spent a total of 27 years in law enforcement as a military policeman, US Customs agent, and DEA agent. I first learned to fire a weapon when I was 8 years old and attending military school. All that experience has not left me today as what some might term as a "gun nut" or a fan of guns. What I will say is that I have an enormous respect for guns simply because I have seen first-hand what they can do. In my career, I was involved in three shooting incidents, one of which was a full-blown shoot-out, in which three of my colleagues were wounded and the shooter killed, and another of which was an accidental discharge, in which a fellow DEA accidentally dropped his gun. It went off and he was killed. Suffice to say, I don't consider guns as toys.
The issue we must grapple with is whether law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess firearms. There is debate about the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, but I would rather focus on the issue of the citizen's right to protect himself, his home, his family, and his possessions especially in a violent society as ours. Regardless of the historical reasons as to why there are so many guns in our country, the simple fact is that there are millions of weapons out there in the wrong hands. The inescapable fact is that if we outlawed weapons tomorrow, only the law-abiding citizens would comply and turn in their guns. The criminals would not. They would have to be seized as part of legal police actions. The result of such a policy is that the innocent citizens would be left defenseless. Only the police could rescue us from a life-threatening assault. In Aurora, the police arrived on the scene in 90 seconds.
It was too late. They could not save 71 people from being shot, 12 of whom died.
Imagine, however, if someone in that theater had been armed. Imagine back in 1969 if someone in the home of Sharon Tate had been armed when the Manson family came through the door. The one statistic that nobody ever talks about when they tell you how many people have been killed by guns is how many have been saved by guns because someone at the scene of a violent assault had been armed and took action before the police could get there.
Of course, there is a down side to that. It means that we will have tragedies in the home during a domestic dispute when one party becomes so enraged that reason goes out the window. It means that an occasional child will pick up a gun out of curiosity and be killed with it. It means that some drunk in a bar fight will reach for a weapon. It also means that the occasional James Holmes, who had no criminal record, will fall through the cracks and be allowed to purchase a weapon. In the end, it is a trade-off. Either we leave ourselves defenseless before the violent criminals who prey on us, or we suffer the occasional tragedies that come with legitimate gun ownership. If we lived in a so-called "civilized" country where nobody had guns and we didn't have to fear violent crime in the first place, such as those European countries that used to be that way, I could see the sense of having tight gun laws. With the society we have in America, I feel strongly that the innocent law-abiding citizens must be able to protect themselves at the moment of threat before law enforcement can reasonably be expected to arrive.
That brings me back to the question of what is legitimate or reasonable ownership of weapons for the average citizen. I support the idea of background/criminal record checks. I also think we need to question who needs weapons like AR-15s, AK-47s, Uzis, and the like for self-protection or hunting. Is it reasonable for anyone to walk in off the streets in Arizona, pluck down a bag full of cash and walk off with multiple semi-automatic rifles? C'mon. You don't need weapons like those to hunt deer. As for protecting your home, unless your name is Tony Montana or Davy Crockett, they are not reasonable.
Until we become the civilized society we proclaim ourselves to be, I have to support the right of law-abiding people to be armed for self-defense. Yet, it seems to me that handguns are sufficient to keep in the home or even carry if you have a concealed-carry permit. For that, I am willing to accept the trade-off I mentioned above knowing there will be tragedies.
"But", you say, "Doesn't that take us back to the old Wild West?" Of course, it does. But I ask you: When did we ever leave it?
4 comments:
I agree with your post, on the issues. We will see a renewed efforts of the anti-gunners to extinguish the Second Amendment, after the horror and grieving from this horrendous carnage pass. The farthest Left have already spoken and the rest will soon appear on the scene. The spin on reality will twist the narrative way out of proportion.
I agree with the questionable use of tactical rifles and shotguns used as home defense, unless one lives in the wild, such as Alaska or Montana, where a bear can literally come through the front door. The only use for tactical weapons in the urban community is for law enforcement or the enthusiast that likes to target shoot.
In the case of this latest atrocity, gun laws are sufficient to take care of business. It is the lax attitude and enforcement regarding the laws that are in question. Questions such as why two Glock .40 caliber handguns, plus a Smith and Wesson .223 tactical rifle, and 6000 rounds of ammunition. True, it is cheaper to buy 1000 rounds of .223 at one time. A 1000 round that box can be polished off in one session with a few friends at the range. But 6000 rounds is a bit much and should be questioned, in relationship to other recent purchases such handguns and a Remington 870 shotgun. This information plus a threat assessment may have helped to prevent the massacre. We already know that the shooter was a loner, which is one danger sign.
Squid
Good analysis Gary.
Generally, I support (and I believe the Second Amendment protects) the right of citizens who have not committed a violent felony to possess firearms.
I think it is reasonable, and not a violation of the Second Amendment, for municipalities in crowded urban environments to regulate or even prohibit carrying loaded weapons in public spaces.
I doubt that someone firing back in a crowded, darkened theater would have hit the responsible party with any accuracy. More likely they would have killed several more innocent movie watchers.
But there have been some recent cases of armed robbers shot in the act. That's good when it works out right.
Siarlys,
I have written previously about all the cases of armed, off-duty law enforcement personnel who have been able to intervene in crimes in progress. (Inc myself)
Gary is right on with about 98% or more of this posting. I would respectfully take exception, or at least comment on, a couple of points.
I must take the position that, given some relatively recent SCOTUS decisions, there is no remaining debate, or at least legitimate debate, as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, which is that law-abiding citizens do in fact have a fundamental Constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”. It is also clear, however, as it always has been, that government may restrict that right, as it may restrict all, or essentially all, other rights. The debate, or questions, in my view are the extent to which rights may be curtailed without converting them to privileges, and why we would restrict rights to no purpose. I believe that most are of the opinion that the less restrictions, the better, and I do not see how gun rights are inherently or intrinsically any different than other rights.
What Gary refers to as “trade offs” are what I call “consequences”. Any way you cut it, there are always consequences to either the exercise or the restraint of individual rights or, for that matter, other constitutional “due process” considerations. For at least two reasons, I believe we end up on a slick incline when we start talking about restricting, and particularly banning, so-called semiautomatic “assault rifles”, especially in terms of the absence of any perceived “need” to possess them.
First, we do not, as far as I can see, have any requirement to demonstrate a “need” to exercise any of our other rights. We vote, we have abortions, we write to our elected officials and newspapers and post on blogs (even if hate and anti-government speech may be involved), etc., because we want to, and we have tremendous freedom to do so. Why guns would be different is beyond me.
Second, any restrictions such as licensing/registration, or even banning, of these weapons will follow the law of unintended consequences and almost certainly result in firearms which are purely sporting rifles ultimately coming under the same restrictions.
In addition, to quote Gary, who is absolutely correct here, “The inescapable fact is that if we outlawed weapons tomorrow, only the law-abiding citizens would comply and turn in their guns. The criminals would not. They would have to be seized as part of legal police actions.” If outlawing weapons is ineffective, then so, for the same reasons, are licensing/ registration ; accordingly, there appears no logical/rational justification to deny “assault rifles” to ordinary law-abiding citizens.
Post a Comment