The Tally Stick

Taking measure in our times

Why disarming America will ultimately not work

without comments

In the recent aftermath of the latest horrific mass shooting in America, we are seeing the same debate on the direction on where the United States should move in the area of gun ownership and what restrictions should be placed on them.  Admittedly, this is a divisive topic in American politics.   You have three basic camps; people who support private ownership of firearms, other who want to restrict them and the last the people who want to removed entirely from society.   Clearly from the title of the article, I am in the camp that support private ownership of firearms but I am not so dogmatic to think there are some compromises we could make that would clean up our gun regulations without infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

The latest shootings we are now seeing a pattern of the criminals having purchased their firearms legally, having no criminal background and not exhibiting any archetypal behavior that we associate with extremist views that have a proclivity for violence.  When you see people that are willing to basically be under the radar and commit such senseless violence, you really have the re-think about the approach that is used to combat and ultimately deter these actions.

In the United States of America we are a society that values life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   With this we have a Bill of Rights that enumerates the rights of United States citizens.  It tells us the limits that the government has on its powers to affect it citizens and limit their actions.  In my estimation we have seemingly forgotten these rights and what they mean.  Of these rights, the 2nd Amendment is one that address what protections a citizens can use to defend themselves, it also tells us that we are expected to trust our citizenry with the private ownership of firearms.  Firearms in America serve three of many good reasons; 1.) Self-Defense 2.) A deterrent to tyrannical rule in a Democratic Republic 3.) A decentralized domestic force to assist against any foreign or domestic invasion.

With all the point above taken into consideration, disarming the American public is inconsistent with the Social Contract that was made when the country was founded and recorded with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights.  Critics will say that we did not have these issues in 1776, so know we need new rules to govern a nation in the 21st century.  This is incorrect thinking, what it means is that our governing representatives need to do their in this reality and to enact policy that is consistent with the rules set forth by our founding fathers.

Take San Bernardino, in this case, all our checks were defeated that were set forth to stop unqualified people from attaining firearms.  Humans that a determined to create havoc and stay off the radar are very dangerous not just because they “could” be anyone but that they are a threat to everyone’s rights because of the justified outrage we have after any mass casualty events.  We are a free society so this can happen so the people need to understand that you will never have perfect security or really anything close to it from these determined lone wolves.

Disarming the public will not stop criminals or terrorist from harming or killing people.  It will only make sure that in places where they are determined to commit these despicable acts, will have less risk of someone at the scene to be able to engage the criminal and potentially prevent or reduce the harm created.  If citizen disarmament laws worked so well, why are the cities with the strictest anti-gun laws have the highest levels of firearm homicide?  If you removed the 5 U.S. cities with the highest firearm homicide rate, we actually far near the bottom globally for gun violence.  Critics never address this, because if they did, they may need to concede that ultra-restrictive gun laws do not actually stop gun crimes.

In the opening, I said I was not dogmatic about guns in America and I do have a solution that I would support to address some of the concerns that I believe are reasonable about people that have a low opinion of private firearm ownership.  They mention that many people are not trained and we have too many preventable accidents, that also follow-up that the 2nd Amendment mentions “a well regulated militia”.   I agree that this is an issue and something needs to be done.

If I had a decisive vote, I would make a training, proficiency and safety class be required with any new firearm purchase.  It would basically be how you now purchase firearms but after you fill-out the paper work on your local gun-dealer, he would schedule you for a class 5-7 days after the initial purchase.  You would show up at the schedule time for a class run by the gun dealer or local range, they would go through the curriculum & proficiency test and once you pass this basic test, you would be given your firearm and the public can rest a little easier knowing that every new firearm owner has had to demonstrate that can safely and accurately (close range) operate that firearm.  Over time as the training gets good, you may even have situations where crime is prevented because of people who are trained to react in a situation where police can not be everywhere and seconds count.

Written by Tally Stick

January 3rd, 2016 at 4:19 pm

Posted in Commentary

Tagged with , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.