I appreciate the thoughtful way you presented your ideas regarding a responsible approach to firearms safety.
I am a former federal officer, a firearm salesperson for one of the nation’s largest FFLs, a father of two sons, the husband of a middle school teacher, and a lawful, law-abiding firearms owner.
I would like to respond to some of the ideas that you presented - and present an idea that you DIDN’T address.
First, dealing with a sensationalized media is NOT a long term problem, it is, in fact, a driving factor in mass shootings that can and MUST be addressed immediately. The infamy achieved by these shooters is documented to be one of the goals of many mass shooters, their way to achieve notoriety and some form of immortality. A media that sensationalizes and rationalizes coverage of mass shooting events in the name of “the public right to know” is at the foundation of the uptick in mass shootings. This is easily solved by adopting an approach to reporting such events that minimizes: they are reported factually and without editorializing, they are covered as any other crime, and the attacker’s identity is minimized - in contrast to the almost celebrity manner in which they are covered now, with every detail of their lives being put on display.
Sensationalized media also leads to the misconception to which you gave publicity: the AR-15 is NOT the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters. That is a notion driven by a media intent on 1) sensationalizing mass shooter events and 2) pushing an agenda favored by liberal politicians to vilify and eventually ban scary looking black guns. According to Amnesty International, mass shootings comprise less than 1% of all deaths involving firearms. According to the National Institutes for Justice, fewer than 1% of ALL shootings taking place in the US involve a rifle of any kind; shootings utilizing so-called “assault rifles” comprise a fraction of that single percentage point. The weapon of choice in 77% of mass shootings is, in fact, the humble and ubiquitous semi automatic handgun. But because of the sensationalized media coverage you correctly identified as part of the problem, you and many others have bought into the notion that modern sporting rifles are the weapons of choice. To that point, neither a minimum age of 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL nor mandatory waiting periods in several states have stopped underage or adult mass shooters from acquiring handguns; why do you assume such a limitation will have a different effect on the acquisition of AR-15s?
Second, I DO believe that so-called “red flag” laws have some validity.
I do believe there are some people who shouldn't have firearms. As a firearms salesman I have stopped a number of transactions over the years because I believed safety would be at risk if I allowed the transaction to proceed.
I believe certain, well-defined individuals should have the right to petition the courts to remove firearms from individuals when they truly pose a risk to themselves and those around them; I DON'T believe this provision should be accorded to everyone who gets a hair crosswise or simply has a bias against firearms. THAT is the danger inherent in such a provision, and in my years as a firearms salesman, I have witnessed just such attempts.
I will get behind this provision IF - and that's a ****HUGE**** if - DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED.
Contrary to what Donald Trump said while he was still in office, due process rights come FIRST. We don't take the firearms early and worry about due process later.
The Fourth Amendment still states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, ***but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***", EMPHASIS ADDED.
The Fifth Amendment likewise still states, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law...", all caps added.
These aren't suggestions, they are CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.
GUARANTEE that those CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS will be honored TO THE LETTER and I will get behind this provision.
Third, it is an established fact that 77% of mass shooters acquired their firearms from FFLs LEGALLY, meaning that they passed background checks to get them. In some few instances, the shooter was able to take advantage of the PROVISION - NOT a loophole - in the Brady Act that allows for the transfer of a firearm after three business days in the absence of a final determination from the NICS system. The distinction between loophole and provision is not merely semantic, it is substantial. A provision is a consideration explicitly written into the verbiage of a law. A loophole, by definition, is a gray area in a law: an area of ambiguity of verbiage or an omission that may be manipulated. I AM in favor of eliminating the three day provision currently existing in the Brady Act to mandate that a firearm transfer may not take place unless and until the NICS system delivers a determination.
Further, before enacting so-called “universal” background checks, fix the current system. Report after report in the aftermath of mass shootings reveal numerous prior interviews with law enforcement due to reported concerns, psychological evaluations, reported concerns from school officials, even military service-related failures to report incidents of domestic violence and other mental and behavioral issues, etc. All of these things are already required by law to be entered into the NICS background check system - but in many instances, they aren’t, and there are seemingly no efforts to rectify this. As 77% of firearms used in mass shootings were obtained after passing a background check, this one fix alone would prevent many mass shooters from acquiring their firearms. And for the record, the existence of HIPAA laws has ZERO bearing on this: an exception to HIPAA to allow reporting of medically significant concerns into the NICS system was engineered into the law. In other words, ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books. Stop allowing states to pick and choose what data they will report. And stop allowing criminals to plead out of weapons charges. What’s the use having the laws - or creating new ones - if they aren’t enforced?
Finally, there is one other action that must be taken immediately to address mass shootings - but you aren’t likely to support it. Immediately repeal the federal Gun Free School Zones Act.
For over thirty years an experiment has been conducted on the American public, and that experiment involves testing the notion that criminals obey laws, that declaring a given area “gun free” somehow appeals to the “inherent goodness” that supposedly exists in all people. After thirty years, the results speak for themselves: “gun free” zones, whether they be schools, malls, churches, hospitals, or federal buildings, have protected no one and prevented nothing, but they have proven to provide shooters with unlimited sources of defenseless victims. “Gun free” zones have proven to all who have eyes to see that criminals do not obey laws or designations, that they will, in fact, use those very laws and designations to their advantage.
That this is the case is hardly a new revelation. The eighteenth century criminologist, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, recognized this fact in 1764:
“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons,” emphasis added.
This realization is echoed by Thomas Paine in his Thoughts on Defensive War:
“…The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation [or criminal - added] refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
Even the left-leaning think tank, the Rand Corp., posted this statement to their website regarding the effect of “gun free” zones:
“… [I]f the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas.”
There is a saying: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make them safe. The corollary to that saying is: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make criminals less dangerous. Thirty years of experimenting with so-called “gun free” zones have affirmed the veracity of this saying. A study of active shooter events by security experts experts found that such individuals seek out “gun free” zones. The fact is, criminals do not typically attack targets with low probabilities of success, which is why they don’t attack gun shows, gun dealerships, and most banks.
Eliminate “gun free” zones - IMMEDIATELY.
I also believe in responsible firearms ownership. I am trained, I continue to train, and any firearms that I am not actually carrying are secured - not because I fear my sons getting their hands on them, but as a safeguard in case someone breaks into my home, to make it more difficult for a criminal to steal my firearms.
But RESPONSIBLE firearms ownership is also INFORMED ownership.
Meaning no disrespect, you need to become better informed.
No comments:
Post a Comment