My very simple thoughts about the Connecticut shooting and what needs to be done next
I own several guns that I use for hunting. That said:
If I were in elected office the first thing I'd do on Monday morning would be to propose bans on 20+ round clips, military grade assault rifle sales to civilians and make a mental health screening part of the existing background check. Start there.
Enough of this, "We need a national dialogue" crap. We've had "dialog" for a generation and an increasing number of predictable tragedies has been the result. We don't need a "national dialogue", we need "national action". You can't have a "dialogue" with a group of people who will never compromise and who's fantasy about being the main character in some twisted "Red Dawn" replay is more important that the lives of 20 small children, their 40 parents and the multitudes of people around them.
If you're in elected office and don't take action on this, and soon, you're part of the problem and your heartfelt "Our thoughts and prayers…" press release the next time this happens is as worthless as your ability to be an effective leader.
You were elected to do something. So DO SOMETHING!
Comments are closed.
Dan,
I know you to be an incredibly bright individual. I also know you to be an incredibly good steward of our community. All that said, your commentary with respect to what it is we ought ‘do’ about the tragedy in CT is misguided at best.
Consider the following for a bit if you would:
You cannot legislate crazy. Period. Take for instance the tragedy at Columbine. One of the instruments they used was a sawed off shotgun with a pistol grip. Well, that firearm was banned under the then current legislation. How Dan could they have gotten that firearm, I mean, it was banned, right? Furthermore, the assailant at Virginia Tech had 19 ten round magazines and two pistols (one .22 and one 9mm). He did a lot of damage with the firearms and magazines he had, none of which was an ‘assault rifle’, nor a 20+ round magazine. By the way, what is an assault rifle? If you consider an AR-15 an ‘assault rifle’, well, you’re just flat wrong. In fact, AR denotes one of the original founders of the platform, Armalite, and has nothing to do with ‘assault rifle’. It is however a .223 rifle. Less powerful than the hunting rifles I’d likely guess you own and use.
Although suggesting we should ban those ‘scary looking black rifles’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ sounds all sweet and precious, it would have had zero effect on Columbine, Virginia Tech, or the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook.
What our elected officials SHOULD do, is not continue to take the easy road, the road that feels all good and fuzzy, and start to look at things critically and propose solutions: Include a mental health background check as part of the process, sure I’m game. Ensure that Felons can’t buy a gun, check. However, a ban on anything won’t do a thing, and I’d venture to guess you’re smart enough to know that.
We can’t win a ‘war on drugs’, a ‘war on guns’, a ‘war on poverty’, a ‘war on hunger’. So, if you think you’re a better citizen (because you have a semi-automatic .308 to hunt with) than I am, and you don’t want to own a 30 rd. magazine, so be it. That said, please keep your legislation out of my household,. I’ll choose what it is I’d like to maintain to protect my family and property.
“Assault rifle” is a continuous-fire automatic rifle, which is not legal for civilian use now. “Assault weapon” is a term invented by the anti-gun lobby designed to blur the distinction between military-style assault rifles and single-shot rifles with military or military-looking features. Assault weapons, banned by the federal government between 1994 and 2004, are specifically defined in the legislation passed, and Connecticut has a state statute that mirrors the expired federal statute’s language. The Newtown gun was legal in Connecticut, it’s not an assault weapon (and certainly not an assault rifle, as you infer) as it does not fit the definition of assault weapon that the federal government established when the term was first defined. “Assault weapon” has no other usage than as defined in the assault weapon ban law, since it didn’t exist before then. If you think that “assault” means “scary looking”, as you apparently do, you are wrong.
Wow, jimri, perhaps you ought to look up the definition of ‘rhetorical’. Next time, I’ll dumb down my response so you can understand it.
On a side note, since I was answering Dan’s commentary directly, I welcome a response.
Happy Holidays,
Mark