After the recent mass murders in Thousand Oaks, Calif., and at the Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh, solutions for preventing such horrific events were abundant —stricter background checks, requiring a license to own a firearm, expansion of mental health services, especially for those prone to violence, and many more. While these corrective actions all have merit and should be taken seriously, they all have flaws and do not get at the heart of the problem. Unlike all other first world countries, we are awash with guns. It’s not just revolvers and hunting firearms, the casual fare of the average person. The most imminent danger seen in the vast majority of mass murders is the frightening proliferation of military assault-type weapons capable of firing 50 to 80 rounds or more without stopping to reload. You don’t see these massive numbers of gun ownership and military weapons in other first world countries, especially those in Western Europe, thus the rarity of mass killings there.
This is why all guns capable of firing more than a limited number of rounds should be illegal for the average citizen to own. So what should that “limited number” be? I don’t have the answer, but it should certainly make any type of military assault rifle illegal for the average person to own. Some would say that we don’t need such a law. Just make sure any person prone to violence is prohibited from owning a firearm. But how do you identify such individuals? People prone to such violence can easily escape mental health screening. It is not hard to conceal one’s hatred or violent intents from therapists and the law enforcement community.
Some would say just limiting the number of rounds that can be fired would not stop a killer. True, in some cases, but we need to get into the mind of the killer. He is red-hot with anger and hate. His intended targets represent all those who, he thinks, have treated him unfairly over the years and have prevented him from achieving success. It will not do to kill just three or four, which would probably be close to the limited number he would kill if his weapon was limited to, say, six rounds. No, he wants to make sure his message, name, and grievances are heard throughout the country. The best chance he has of achieving this goal is arming himself with a military assault-type rifle, which will allow him to achieve maximum carnage. His revenge is now complete. And as a result, Congress and all those who refuse to support sensible gun laws have blood on their hands.
Hawkeye63 says
Herb, who is really unreasonable? You have not suggested one thing that would prevent gun violence, even if your ideas had a shred of a chance of being implemented, which they do not.
I have suggested several ideas that would help. I can prove that is true, given that the schools that have implemented the NRA sponsored “SCHOOLSHIELD” program have experienced zero mass killings or murders.
You can research it on line. I suggest you do so.
America can do a much better job preventing felons and mental incompetents from obtaining weapons. Denying law abiding citizens the ownership of hundreds of thousands of the most common class of firearms is counter productive, grossly ineffective, and would do nothing to protect law abiding citizens.
The sooner lawmakers abandon such ridiculous notions and concentrate on actual solutions the better.
Herbert Panko says
Hawkeye I have tried to be patient and civil with you despite your torrent of sarcasm, put-downs, and insults. I have lost my patience. You seem to think insulting and bullying your opponent makes up for your lack of sound logic and your pòor debating skills. What’s more I’m wonderìng if you were in remedial reading classes in elementary and high school. Why do I think that? You keep asking what guns I would banish despite the fact that I have indicated at lèast three times I would ban any weapon that fires more than sìx rounds before reloading. Any 5th grader could comprehend that. I can only conclude that you don’t have the maturity or debating skills to partake in this type of discussion. Perhaps you should work on your reading skills and on your personality defects.
Herbert Panko says
You seem to be having great difficulty understanding simple details and facts. First of all if you had read my commentary objectively, you would know my proposal does not deny a gun from anyone who qualifies (no criminal background etc). It’s not really much different from getting a driver’s license. There are restrictions that prevent you from obtaining one. Freedoms have restrictions designed to protect the public good. My proposal simply restricts the type of firearm you can own and and use in public. It’s not much different than laws that prevent me from operating certain vehicles on our highways. I can’t, for example, drive a tractor or tank down the interstate. I will not respond to any more of your posts. You are not really interested in having a true, respectful dialogue. You are most interested in bullying, belittleing, and insulting your opponent. Until you learn how to partake in a mature discussion, you are wasting my time.
Herb Panko says
Hawkeye63
Are you capable of giving a response that is not filled with sarcasm and insults? Please read Andy O’Connor’s
comment on these pages to learn how to deliver a well-written response delivered with thoughtful contemplation and deliberation. Now as to your last comment. All of your suggested remedies would ultimately fail. Why? As long as the sale of military-like assault weapons capable of firing like 50 to 100 rounds without reloading are available and legal on the open market, anyone with a pathological, murderous intent will find a way to obtain such a weapon. We already have a number of laws and regulations on the books that are supposed to prevent any deviant person from obtaining such a firearm. For a number of reasons, they just aren’t working and won’t as long as there are thousands and millions of such weapons freely floating around in society. We must find a way to get them off the street.
Ask yourself, if the Las Vegas mass murderer had had only a gun capable of firing not more than six rounds before reloading, would he have been able to kill 50 plus people? Not likely. There simply is no logical reason for the ordinary person to own a weapon that fires more than six rounds before reloading. If such a restrictive law were passed, the number of mass killings would begin to decrease. Not immediately, of course, because it would take time to get these dangerous weapons off the street.
Please don’t use the tired argument about the 2nd amendment. We legally infringe upon the 2nd amendment all the time in some people’s eyes in order to protect and not harm the innocent and for the public good.. No smoking rules? Seat belt rules? No farm tractors or implements on our freeways? No raising of livestock within the city limits? Hunting regulations? We could go on and on. I think we have exhausted this topic.
Hawkeye63 says
Great logic Herb.
Outlaw hundreds of thousands of commonly owned firearms. Require the owners of them to turn them in or become subject to prosecution for a felony.
Now you have rendered millions of honest, law abiding citizens powerless to resist depredations by evildoers who have them hopelessly outgunned because criminals will never turn their illegal weapons in.
So far you are batting a thousand.
You have utterly failed to successfully define what it is you want to ban.
You have failed to suggest anything that has any chance whatsoever of becoming law.
You have refused to admit the value of positive changes to the NIBCS that would make it much harder for criminals and mental patients to obtain firearms.
You want to keep soft targets including schools.
And this is your ” Sensible Pathway.”
Herb, do yourself a favor. Stick to something you actually know something about. ( not sure what that would be) You owe it to the teaching profession to refrain from involvement in discussions that are far beyond your area of expertise.
Depriving honest, law abiding citizens of arms has never, ever proved beneficial for people in the long run. And you know it.
Hawkeye63 says
Congrats, Herb. It must be a wonderful feeling to know what 250 million of your fellow citizens need or do not need for firearms. If only all the rest of us inferior people could just have the remarkable and superior insight to “know” things the way you do!!
How about these ideas.
Eliminate soft targets and so called gun free zones.
Clamp down on states that do not submit data on felons and mental defectives as they should, thus rendering the National Background Check System ineffective, or far less so than it should be.
Implement effective security systems in schools, as suggested by NRA, who will send safety experts free of charge to any requesting school.
I could go on, but why waste my time? People like Herb are not really interested in effective measures that don’t penalize law abiding gun owners. They only want gun confiscation as another step toward rendering citizens powerless to resist the radical progressive agenda. Same with controlling healthcare, energy, etc.
Herb, what part of ” The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
Andy O'Connor says
I would advocate for tighter restrictions on obtaining a firearm, as well as not allowing John Q. Citizen access to military style weapons with nearly an infinite number of rounds available. However, here’s a case for us to consider: knowing that a Ruger 10/22 for example isn’t commonly considered a weapon of destruction to most of us who grew up in this area and plunked around or hunted small game with one, the ability to purchase multiple clips as well as higher round clips is as simple as hopping online and doing so. It can also be modified to take on the look of an assault rifle, but underneath all this window dressing, it’s still just a Ruger 10/22. On the flip side of the coin, with these modifications, and in the hands of someone who knows their way around, it’s still a semi-automatic weapon, and while the caliber isn’t considered earth shattering, multiple shots can be squeezed off, it’s pretty simple to swap clips and if hit, it’ll ruin your day at the very least.
As for the individual committing a crime, while firearms are “mainstream” devices of destruction so to speak, it’s a safe bet that if someone wants to inflict harm, they will find a way to do so, whether it be with a gun, a knife, a bomb, a vehicle, etc… The human factor moves this conversation to another common theme in these scenarios, which is the recognition and treatment of mental health issues; we ultimately learn that the perpetrator of the crime did in fact have underlying conditions such as schizophrenia, depression, anxiety or PTSD. Did untreated, or improperly diagnosed and/or treated mental health conditions cause the individuals to commit these heinous acts? Perhaps not exclusively, but coupled with life in general, maybe a couple of bad breaks here and there, these people may have been pushed too far and just snapped. The method or manner in which they carried out their violence is in some respects inconsequential.
It would seem that I’m running in circles here, and maybe I am a bit, but I think that it’s really where we’re at when we debate gun control and mass shootings, I just don’t think that it’s as simple as those who totally oppose firearms, or the most die-hard NRA supporters on the other end of the spectrum, consider it to be. You’ve got the weapon, you’ve got the state of the shooter, you’ve got the current social climate that we are in and all said and done, this is an issue that bears much thought, discussion, debate and will require compromise from all parties at the table. Bottom line: this is a complicated issue that is too often tilted toward just the physical gear, which obviously can’t be dismissed, while we need to also consider the health aspect, specifically mental, before we have to deal with the physical health aspect, or lack thereof, post incident. I wish there was an easy answer to this, that there was a quick fix, but this is unfortunately going to be an ongoing issue for the foreseeable future.
Herb Panko says
The type of firearm, assault weapon or not, is not the point. It makes no difference what you call it or how you define “assault weapon.” In my opinion no ordinary citizen needs a high-powered firearm that will fire more than six rounds without reloading. They simply should not be available to the general public. The greater the number of rounds capable of being fired without reloading, the greater the number of victims in any mass murder attempt. This is not rocket science!!!
Hawkeye63 says
Right Herb. Now that’s real sensible. Out law hundreds of thousands of commonly owned firearms including the Henry Repeater which has been around since 1870. The 97 Winchester, patent 1897. The model 12 Winchester, patent 1912. Etc, Etc.
So lets say that is achieved. ( We all know better, but for discussion, let’s say it happens.)
All the law abiding folks turn in their banned guns. What is your plan to get criminals and mentally deficient people to turn theirs in? Or would you be fine with a jump in violent crime of nearly 46%, as happened in Australia?
When has it ever proved beneficial to disarm honest citizens?
Common sense? Ha. You are a retired teacher Herb. Surely you can do better then this claptrap.
Thomas E.H. says
//Or would you be fine with a jump in violent crime of nearly 46%, as happened in Australia?//
You know the thing about spikes? They are a spike. They go down after the sharp up. What are the overall results Hawk? It’s been 25 years. What are the numbers now? And I see you said “violent crime.” Would you rather be a victim of violent crime or a dead victim from a shooting?
//When has it ever proved beneficial to disarm honest citizens?//
Well, Australia, actually!
Hawkeye63 says
As usual, what Herb thinks is common sense makes no sense at all. I challenge him to define” Assault Weapon”. Of course he cannot, as he obviously knows little or nothing about firearms or how they function.
So let’s hear it Herb. Tell us specifically what it is you want to ban.
Then explain your plan to get criminals and mental defectives to turn theirs in along with all the law abiding people who would never commit a crime. I can’t wait.