Posted on 12/16/2012 4:10:11 PM PST by hoagy62
Here is something my sister forwarded me about the current, ongoing debate of what "needs" to be done in the wake of the Newtown Massacre. It is an article posted by J. Michael Straczynski, creator of 'Babylon 5', among many other things....
In the aftermath of the tragic events at Newtown, I posted figures from the Children’s Defense Fund showing that nearly 3,000 children per year are killed by gun violence and tens of thousands more are injured. I then posed a question: what, if anything, can be done to minimize or mitigate the ongoing, tragic loss of life by gun violence? Are there any common-sense solutions that would be acceptable to both gun owners and non-gun owners?
The initial response was pretty much what one would expect: a retreat to the usual positions on left and right, fueled by complaints that any attempt to deal with this would trample on the rights of Americans to own firearms. It was fractious, angry and defensive.
Then something interesting happened. A conversation broke out, propelled in large measure by the fact that no one, on either end of the political spectrum, ever wants to see dozens of children murdered in their own classrooms.
The model we began to use for the conversation was, in a way, similar to the one applied to cars. For decades, highway deaths were frequent and brutal, but no one suggested banning cars. No one can prevent accidents or forecast the pathology of those who would deliberately do harm. The focus was on finding common-sense, reasonable ways to minimize death and injury. This led, in time, to the development of seat belts and better safety standards, child seats and improved windshield glass. The number of deaths and injuries slowly declined as a result.
So that became the thrust of our discussion: what common-sense, reasonable steps can we take within the template of the Second Amendment, to minimize death and injury, to simply lower the numbers a bit? If life is precious and has value, then if we can decrease the number of people killed deliberately or by accident, through lost or stolen firearms, then that would be a victory beyond price.
Slowly, inch by inch, people on both sides of the discussion began to set aside their hot-buttons and their agendas and concentrate on the issue at hand. What began as an argument turned into a level-headed, honest discussion of the problem and ways to solve it. The increasingly polite back-and-forth of ideas was wonderful to behold, showing that despite the naysayers and the skeptics we can, indeed, set aside party and policy to figure out our problems together.
Out of that conversation, in just a few hours, came the following suggestions:
1) The development of classes in gun use and safety taught at the high school level, to run alongside driver's education, sex education and other civil education classes. Give kids the knowledge they need to avoid accidental death and injury, and to understand how to deal with threats.
2) The establishment of regulated shooting classes and competitions in either high school or colleges, emphasizing gun safety and proper use.
3) Required classes in gun safety and use as part of purchasing a firearm, with a sliding scale of hours per class determined by the type of firearm being purchased. The more complex the weapon, the longer the class. (So a handgun purchase might be just one hour, but an automatic weapon might be three.)
4) As part of those classes, gun owners will have the opportunity to purchase discounted firearm lock boxes and receive information on how to better control and keep the firearm they’ve purchased from being stolen or misused.
5) Possible criminal penalties for those who legally own guns who deliberately put them in the hands of those who subsequently use them for criminal purposes. (This would not include situations where the guns have simply been stolen or left out.) A kind of provable negligence leading directly to harm.
6) If a person joins the military at 18 and gets military training, he can have ownership of a firearm, otherwise the national limit would be 21, unless the person who wishes to buy the firearm takes part in military-grade firearm training classes and receives certification. That would allow people under the age of 21 to own firearms in a safer fashion.
7) Periodic invitations -- voluntary or mandatory (depending on the state) to have guns inspected for safety purposes and to confirm that no weapons have gone missing or stolen. As an incentive for those states where the process is voluntary, free cleaning and inspection would be offered, along with the possibility again of discounted lock boxes. This will cut down the number of deaths and injuries due to faulty, lost or stolen firearms.
The discussion is still ongoing, examining ways to improve person-to-person re-sales, for instance, and to improve voluntary background checks. Can tax incentives be used to encourage gun owners to voluntarily upgrade or exchange their older firearms for ones using biometric technology that prevents them from being fired by unauthorized individuals?
We cannot change the culture overnight. We cannot prevent the pathology of those who would kill and maim with whatever weapon is nearest at hand. But by the same token, to argue that there is simply nothing that can be done flies in the face of the fact that there is no problem created by humans that cannot be solved by humans if we are willing to be smart, and open, and to actively engage one another with mutual respect regardless of our views. This can’t be an all-or-nothing problem, with banning or no action at all our only options. We must grow beyond binary thinking.
We cannot solve every problem, but if we can solve some parts of them , or nibble away at them in constructive fashion...don’t we have a moral obligation to do so?
If we in this discussion could come up with those guidelines and suggestions, then you have to know that a smarter, larger group of people could do even more.
So I throw this out there with hope and with a challenge, to anyone reading this: pass the word, pass along the list, and encourage a respectful, open discussion among ourselves, our representative and others to find ways to minimize gun deaths and injuries both to children and the rest of the citizenry. If even a few of new ideas can be successfully developed and implemented, and lives saved, it will be worth it.
The conversation can be had, if we are willing to have it.
The childrun of the Marxist children’s denfense fund would all be safer if Michael did not have the freedom of the first amendment anymore.
What you said.
Although, I do approve to armament safety classes in our schools...
Childrens’ Defense Fund, having an anti-Second amendment bias, classifies as “children” the teen-agers that die early as a consequence of their participation in the urban gang and drug culture. A sad situation, to be sure,but not a credible argument for restricting the self-defense or recreational firearm needs/desires of the law abiding.
“Some of these propositions do go beyond what is just common sense, and enter the realm of intrusiveness.”
Especially number 7, some of them are good common sense that possibly some of us already abide by. They missed the one that would really make a difference “NO GUN FREE ZONES”
absolutly none, courtrooms , courthouses, hospitals, churches, schools, malls, etc.
I like the idea of teaching gun safety, including students actually fireing guns as part of the curriculum, we would end up with more individuals carrying and thus a safer society of free citizens.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to demand to inspect a private citizen’s weapons. There’s a more fundamental problem, which is that operating a motor vehicle on public roads is recognized by the law as a privilege, while gun ownership is a right government is bound to respect. The two aren’t comparable.
***tragic boating accidents and lost all your guns are going to take them for those “mandatory” inspections?****
We take the inspector to where we lost them, toss him overboard with a cinder block tied to his foot.
But, the whole children gangbanger gun death number is low anyway. The vast majority of people killed are 18-44 years old. Even gangs don't kill their 'young' to what is portrayed in the media. These are still chicken feed compared to suicide by gun.
I think “odo” was a typo and should have been “to do”
First thought I had on those black boxes was swapping the one out on my car for one on a car owned by a paraplegic who never drives.
3000 kids per year? and liberals are saying anything that can save even one life should be done.
then how about the 3,000 kids killed EVERY DAY in the US? wouldn’t you think they would want to stop that?
abortion in the US kills 3,000+ every day... over 1.2m per year
the hypocrisy of the left is mind boogling
And does that number include those children that are killed by abortionists everyday?
Those places are full of weapons ~ and criminals.
The slime at Children’s Defense Fund stretches the term ‘child’ into the 20s. Gang bangers capping each other over drug dealing territory are considered ‘children victims of gun violence’.
The Second Amendment allows the government to do an annual show ~ given that it’s couched in the language of “keep and bear arms” ~ the first part, keep, having to do with just all sorts of things besides sharp items and explosives ~ your right to go to court, to demand a judge at your trial, to be entitled to lodge complains against others, to serve on a jury....., and the second part, bear, meaning on your own behalf, that of your family, dependents, employees, your estate, your liege lord, your local government, your state government, the federal government, ..... and all of that with your own stuff ~ you want to ‘bear’ you also pick up the obligations of the knights of yore ~ which included showing your stuff!
LOL As much as I drive these days they might conclude that I am nearly completely disabled. And I’m not, just to be clear.
Heck no, I needs boating saftey course first!
“Shall not be infringed. Period. Paragraph. Turn the page. Amen.”
What is it that “Shall not be infringed”?
If the “it” that “Shall not be infringed” is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, what exactly is that right? What are the parameters, the limits, the definition of that right?
If you say that there are no limits to this right, you will find opposition on this forum from those who say that one person’s right to bear arms is limited by another person’s real property rights (which I also have not seen a good definition of).
Just as the Second Amendment notes “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, the Fifteenth Amendment notes “The right of citizens of the United States to vote...” but it is generally agreed that there are limits on the right to vote.
If something is not covered by “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” it will not be considered an infringement to outlaw that something.
If we don’t discuss “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” with a view toward developing a strong position on what’s included, it will be done for us and we won’t like the outcome.
Guns are not causing the massacres by mentally ill individuals. That's a healthcare issue and a place the Left failed miserably to deal with.
There's nothing to discuss. My right (and power) to keep and bear arms was given by God, and is not subject to limitation by Congress, law, or the people.
Don't like it? Too bad. You can kill me, but you can't eat me. I am just one of millions.
/johnny
First, there are already more than 20,000 gun control laws actively on the books today and none of them prevented this tragedy. Second, millions upon million of people in America own guns and 99.9999% of them have never and will never do anything like this.
So, let’s lose the hysteria and analyze the facts - a PERSON did this, NOT a hunk of steel. In Portland, a PERSON killed two people in the mall, NOT a hunk of steel! In Denver, a PERSON shot up the theater, NOT a hunk of steel!!
NONE of these facts will matter to the gun-grabbing nanny-staters, because they focus solely on the gun and nothing else. So, what happens if ALL guns are outlawed and forcibly collected by the feds? Someone bent on committing mass murder may turn to knives, hatchets, chainsaws or machetes. So, we outlaw those. The next person to commit a heinous crime may use a bat, poison, poison gas or a semi-tractor. And the one after that may use a car, a pen or pencil, a rock, his hands . . . . . . so when do we blame the PERSON and NOT the inanimate weapon!???
The fact remains that until the left understands that murdering humans by ANY means including their favorite method, abortion, human life will be valueless and more copycats will come out to exercise their demented mass murder of innocent people.
All of that said, it occurs to me that the gun-grabbers are from the leftist school of complete control. What that means is that if 1 person commits a gun crime then, under the leftist theory of the “collective” and “groupthink”, they believe that ALL gun owners will commit mass murder unless they eliminate guns (good luck with that!). So, the calls for more gun control by the left after these incidents is twofold - eliminate the “balance of power” the Founding Fathers so carefully wove into the Constitution and gain total control over the people.
Another part that affects all of this is the fact that laws, whether gun laws, robbery laws, or whatever, are written solely to affect law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are called “outlaws” and criminals because they DON’T adhere to the laws created to control or stop their illegal activities.
So, should the left create additional gun control laws, will it prevent the next gun-related crime? Of course not. Laws only affect those of us who obey them. Those who disregard the law won’t be stopped from committing whatever crime they want to commit.
As a final note, Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used to murder all of the people at Sandy Hook Elementary. They were his mother’s guns and they were all legally purchased and registered. Which begs the question, what will any NEW gun control laws accomplish?
It is worth noting that, back in the 50s and 60s, gun safety training as well as shooting ranges were present in most schools. But, the suggestions ignore the circumstances - Newtown wasn’t about gun safety, it was about a heinous act committed by a demented kid with mental health issues. So, this whole episode isn’t about guns, it’s about protecting the rest of the population from those with mental health issues who MAY do the unthinkable one day.
What sage advice does your committee of know-it-alls have to offer about that!??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.