Email
PrintWhich came first – the shooter or the gun?
Op-Ed
That was the interesting and provocative conclusion of the Jan. 11 Op-Ed column by Ray Schuster.
Mr. Schuster’s assumption is that firearms unilaterally kill people. The fallacy here is that a person has to consciously obtain the weapon, buy ammunition, load it and then point it at someone and pull the trigger.
In the cases of Columbine, Sandy Hook, the Aurora, Colo., theater – pick one – the criminal first had to satisfy a need, however insane, in attacking and killing others. Let’s assume that same person, sane or not, wanted to take as many lives as he/she could to satisfy a very sick and misguided need.
Let’s say guns are not available, they have been banned from the face of the earth. How could this taking of lives be accomplished?
How about filling a couple of bottles with gasoline or methanol, stick rags in the tops, smuggle them into the theater or school, light the wicks and toss them into the room.
The effect would be just as heinous as the harm done with an AR15 or a shotgun or any other weapon. So, do we ban bottles, gasoline, shotguns, knives? Where would it end?
The problem is not the weapon, it’s the person using the weapon, that’s what needs to be addressed. The laws we already have on the books are not being utilized and enforced throughout the country. In the case of Sandy Hook, the shooter did not buy the guns, he stole them from his mother. The point being, more controls on sane and law abiding gun owners is not going to prevent a recurrence of Sandy Hook.
California has some of the most stringent gun ownership laws in the country and tough requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit. Neither have reduced gun violence. Bad people will get guns if they want them. Smokers will get cigarettes, if they want them. Druggies will get drugs, if they want them.
The NRA’s idea of arming teachers is not all that outlandish. We use armed guards to protect our politicians and our money, why not our greatest treasure, our children?
I need not remind the reader of the 2nd Amendment. It’s very clear in its meaning, ”A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Our forefathers had very specific reasons for writing this amendment and those reasons haven’t changed. The types of arms were not specified and the assault weapon of that day was a flintlock which most households owned. It just happens that the assault weapon of the 21st-century is the AR15 or AK47.
The taxing of cigarettes, the banning of alcohol, the criminalizing of illegal drug use haven’t stopped their use. What makes anyone think the banning of guns will stop people for getting them and doing harm with them?
Perhaps there’s some merit in issuing carry permits to sane and responsible people. Maybe, just maybe, a massacre can be prevented by a sane person with a legal weapon, who is trained and mature enough use it.
• • •
R.W. Piazza is a resident of Sonoma.
Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.
"What makes anyone think the banning of guns will stop people for getting them and doing harm with them?" --
2nd amendment aside, If a ban wouldn't be effective, why does the NRA worry about it? :-)
Actually, a gun ban would easier to enforce than one on alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs (and have other social benefits).
1st - the latter's physically addictive properties make it harder to reduce demand. The addicted go to greater extremes to get "stuff." Not so with guns, though you wouldn't think it the way some people cling to them.
2nd, production & transport (smuggling) of booze/tobacco/drugs from domestic/foreign areas where they are distilled/grown/mftr'd is a lot easier than with guns. It takes a fairly sophisticated factory to manufacture decent/safe firearms on anything approaching a profitable ROI, a problem exacerbated by greatly increased cost for security & concealment during mftr & shipment. It would be a lot easier for ATF/Coast Guard to detect, track & interdict guns and gun parts & material involved in gun mftr.
3rd, Enforcement would be easier. Getting drunk/stoned in the basement can be concealed & doesn't affect (directly) public safety. Using a gun (why buy one to sit on the shelf?) is noisy & often leaves a body or holes, and lots of angry/frightened people willing to point out the guy with a gun.
4th, Tack on major felony jail time for mere possession, and the desire to be anywhere near a gun goes way down, especially among millions of gun-lovers alleged (of course) to be rational and "law abiding."
5th - Possessing a gun would then be hazardous to one's liberty & economic well-being. Spouses/neighbors annoyed by jerks they know have a gun(s) would have a slam-dunk way to get rid of them: Report them to police, giving probable cause for a search warrant. Police find & snatch the gun (battered wife points it out) and he's -- Gone! Cheaper than divorce, more effective than a restraining order.
First and overarching , all speculative scenarios predicated upon restrictions on or removal of firearms from citizen ownership presume , first , the abrogation of a 250-year-old contract with the American people called the Constitution . Convenient re-interpretations of the 2nd amendment...or any amendment....are , at best , discussion topics guaranteed in the 1st amendment ; nothing more . Advocating alteration of the 2nd amendment affords an extremely dangerous precedent for altering any and all amendments .
I take exception to the ubiquitous use of the misnomer " assault weapon" . This term is contradicted by firearm experts and has been effectively introduced by non-expert media to impart imagery of a hellish war tool . The AR-15 is simply a rifle , differing only cosmetically from the familiar Remingtons and Brownings used for a century by sportsmen .
Finally , as advocated by Mr. Edwards , the draconian imposition of penalties and enforcement to prevent citizen ownership of firearms requires an unthinkable intrusion of government into our already-compromised personal freedoms ; an insufferable affront to the American concept of liberty .
Kudos to the IT for printing an opinion that is opposite to the editorial position against private gun ownership.
Great points George!! I find it interesting (and hypocritical)
that Mr. Edwards would propose measures that are so invasive
regarding search and seizure but denounce George Bush's
cell phone wire taps under the Patriot Act. I am assuming
Mr Edwards (being a vocal Liberal himself) felt that these
taps were a violation of the right to privacy. Even though
these taps were primarily used against non-citizens who lived in the
USA. I do not like selective application of the Constitution
as many people seem to do. They are for it when it fits
their ideology, cause, or beliefs, but drop it off the cliff
when it does not.