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.
Hogwash!! During a home invasion, are you going to ask the invaders to wait while you open your gun safe so you can protect yourself and your family??
I have a loaded gun under my bed and my wife has her loaded gun on the headboard.
Quoting “Children’s Defense Fund” ends my reading right there...
They are a left wing group which Hilary Clinton is tied to....the “It’s Takes A Village” crowd
Taking guns away from honest law-abiding citizens is not the answer
There are locking mechanisms that make it very easy for those who understand them to instantly open the case. Pay real bucks for something more sophisticated than a combination padlock.
Couple in my neighborhood used to get drunked up and they'd go out and fire at each other from the windows through the house.
She was a bright red-head.
This is a very tolerant place so we just waited for the to sell out and move away, and they did so. Ever do that?
“My right (and power) to keep and bear arms...”
Please define that right. Is it the same as mine? If you invite me into your home or place of business, do I have the right to bear arms in said location even if you say I can’t?
I'll not invite you onto my property if I think that you shouldn't have a weapon. Whether you have one or not. In fact, I'll strongly suggest you leave.
Property rights and firearm rights are not in conflict.
That is a straw man argument by weak sisters.
I have the right to keep and bear arms. You have the right to keep me off of your property. The two have nothing to do with each other.
/johnny
“The two have nothing to do with each other.”
If you know that for a fact, one would think you could define that right as I asked you to do. Please do so. If you can’t, then how do you know the above statement is true?
/johnny
Prisoners in max security lock up make arms. How can you stop a free man?
/johnny
“I have the power to keep and bear arms,...”
So that’s how you get your Chef’s knife on the airplane in carry on luggage.
Never mind. You don’t seem to have an answer right now. Please think about it though.
You seem to think there is something to negotiate away. I don't.
/johnny
Sounds like anti-freedom hogwash mixed with reasonable ideas that don't need any legislative basis, like firearms safety training for teenagers.
For starters, lets see what that idea of "periodic invitations" sounds like when applied to another right, the right to free assembly, as set forth in the First Amendment.
Periodic invitations -- voluntary or mandatory (depending on the state) to have your phone, travel, and calendar records inspected to confirm that you have not associated with known criminals, or other individuals who might be dangerous to associate with.
Sounds like anti-freedom hogwash to me!
Why on earth would anybody think "periodic inspections" to make sure your property hadn't been "stolen" was anything other than a warrantless search?
“What answer are you looking for KK?”
I want some discussion, not just from you.
I want to know the meaning of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. Everybody concentrates on the “shall not be infringed” part, but exactly what is it that shall not be infringed?
Some people on this forum say that the right of a person to keep and bear arms ends at a property owner’s property line if the property owner says so thereby forbidding it. For the sake of argument, let’s say they are right. If they get a law passed making it illegal to “keep and bear arms” on the property of an owner who forbids it and that the crime is over and above simple trespass, is that an infringement of the right to bear arms? How could it be an infringement if the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to the property if the owner says it doesn’t?
It’s late and I’m not going to check all my sources, but:
I believe Jefferson said that no free man should be debarred the use of arms. Does that mean it’s not an infringement to debar an unfree man from the use of arms? At the time of the Constitution’s writing they did not generally allow criminals being held prisoner to keep and bear arms. Was their right being infringed or did the right not extend to someone being held prisoner therefore it could not be infringed?
Some of the first State Constitutions said something about bearing arms for the defense of the state, the person and for hunting. Does that mean the right to keep and bear arms is limited to those purposes?
In the beginning of the nineteenth century, some states made the carrying of concealed weapons illegal. The argument was that open carry was perfectly legal, that honest men would do so, and that anyone carrying a concealed weapon was doing so for for dishonest, nefarious reasons to get unfair advantage. So, is it an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms if such keeping and bearing is made illegal because it is done for dishonest purposes like bank robbery? Firearms disguised as pens, cigarette lighters, cell phones and such are illegal. The underlying rational is that such guns have no legal or moral purpose, that their only purpose is assassination, murder, approaching someone without having an obvious weapon in hand and killing them. Is it an infringement to make such guns illegal or are they still covered by the “right to keep and bear arms”?
I don’t see much if any discussion about this except for the “property rights vs gun rights” thing, and that gets futzed up because some people forget that there are personnel property rights as well as real property rights.
I don’t want to negotiate anything away, but I believe our disloyal opposition, and some of the loyal ones, will start hammering on the limitations whatever they may be if they even exist, of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and claim that whatever nonsense they propose really isn’t an infringement because it addresses things that are not covered by the right.
I am concerned that our side will be caught flat footed because we have not discussed the matter, that we will only have shouted “shall not be infringed” without understanding sufficiently what it is that “shall not be infringed”.
Please bear in mind, it’s late and I did this pretty much in one take. I don’t know if I composed it as well as I would have liked.
You didn't. I'll pretty much warranty that. ;)
Personally, I won't go on anyone's property that doesn't want me or my firearm there. I have a right to bear arms, he has a right to say 'go away'. I don't see a big issue with it.
I smoke. Like a chimney. When I go to some places that don't want that, I don't smoke, or I don't go.
How hard is that?
You are conflating bearing arms and property rights.
They are separate.
I can tell you not to come onto my property because you have red hair (not that you do), and that's my right.
I can, and have, had a weapon check in at some parties I've hosted. Don't want to comply? Leave.
That doesn't take anyone's right to carry away from them. They can carry. Just not at one of my parties. Not one of those parties, anyway.
Birthday parties for the kids were better secured than most government officials. Everyone was sober and armed.
/johnny
I won't give up my weapon(s), regardless of anyone's sufficient understanding.
That's what it means in the real world with dirt underfoot. Come and take them isn't just a logo on a flag.
/johnny
I’m all for the education and training, but not for the extra regulatory crap.
I’d like to know more about the fathers of these homicidal maniacs.
...I posted figures from the Children’s Defense Fund showing that nearly 3,000 children per year are killed by gun violence...
You forgot to mention that 90% of these “children” are 13-19 year old gang bangers, and are typically killed by other 13-19 year old gang bangers.
Nope. The 20 shot kids are a horror story; but 20 pre-birth murders are not even on the media radar.
Yep. Had a similar issue across the street. He was a former sheriff's deputy and would get drunk and take a few shots in the neighborhood. We moved.
As for the 2 year-old, keeping them away from the guns, alcohol and other things that are dangerous is something called discipline. Instead of being the 2 year-old's friend, they will live longer and be respectul of other people's property when they are taught discipline. Gun safes aren't the answer, discipline is.
Typical 2 year old vocabulary isn’t big enough for that degree of understanding.
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.