Common Sense and Gun Laws, why can't we have both?
Every time we have a “Mass Shooting” the anti-gun crowd immediately calls for Common Sense, meaningful gun laws to be passed. Most of what is mentioned in the Media promotes this cry and the public is forced to go along to get along with these ill informed, wrong headed ideas. What they want will not work,hasn't worked and will never work. Laws only work when the people obey them. Criminals, by definition, do not. That's why they are criminals. Take “Gun Free Zones” for example. Federal Buildings are Gun Free Zones and have metal detectors and armed guards to ensure that they remain that way. Hanging a “No Firearms” sign on your front door is like posting a “No Sharks” sign at the beach.It may make the lifeguards and Park Police feel good, but, they are still going to be pulling bloody bodies out of the water because sharks don't read, just like criminals don't obey laws.
Where is the common sense in passing more laws when they aren't enforcing the ones we already have?
So I have a few suggestions which mayor may not go over well with the anti-gun crowd, but, I at least tried to use a little common sense while crafting them.
First off, UBC will not work if the data base is not up to date. President Trump gave us Fix NICS and after reading it, I can tell you that it is a good idea, but,woefully lacking in effect. It only applies to Federal agencies and they must report valid information to NICS every six months. So if someone is convicted of a violent felony or domestic abuse and becomes a prohibited person at that point, they still have up to six months to purchase a firearm and can still pass the UBC. How about this? We live in the age of computers and the internet which give us instant access to unlimited information so why can't the Government use that same technology to make NICS work the way it was intended.Let's use that elusive common sense and start by really fixing NCIC. Any and all prohibiting convictions could be reported to NICS within 7 days. Come on Washington, every court in the country uses computers and has internet access. Can't you guys get on the same page? Before you start passing more laws, maybe you should make sure the system your laws depend on actually works the way it is meant to. Three days to do a check and now they are talking about making it ten days? In Nevada we use our own system which is probably more up to date and much more thorough than NICS and it only takes about three minutes.
After we manage that, then we should address the Universal Background Check. My idea on this is both simple and effective and should actually work. The Federal Government has already mandated the Real ID program and once they fix NICS, all of the state DMV's could do the background check for all Driver License and ID's when they are issued. What's an extra three minutes at DMV when you have already waited three hours for your turn at the window? Prohibited persons would have a “No Firearms” symbol printed on the front of their ID which would prevent them from buying a firearm legally. Anyone convicted of a crime which voids their firearms rights would get a “No Firearms” symbol on their ID.While they are at it maybe they could require an ID to vote, just a thought.
Secondly, I feel that it is about time that we re-visit arming teachers. The “gun free” school idea has been a abject failure and the kids have paid the price. My idea on this one is so simple I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned before. Require all school personnel to carry a “Fanny Pack” at all times. They make the students wear uniforms, why not do the same for teachers. I know, not a great fashion statement, but who cares as long as it works. We can allow any and all school personnel who wish to qualify for concealed carry to do so. Training can be provided at low or no cost by local Police Departments, they can certainly use the good press, and they may be able to furnish firearms from their seized property lockers, also at low or no cost, and if not I'm sure the local firearms dealers would be more than happy to help out with discounts. This program would be voluntary and no one would be required to carry a firearm, however, the “Fanny Pack” would be mandatory. The local State Farm agents might even donate those. With a few, or many, armed personnel walking around the school, anyone thinking of attacking might just re-think their decision and walkaway. After all, in almost of the mass shootings where the shooter met armed resistance, they either gave up or shot themselves. Those that didn't were quickly dispatched or arrested. I know, people don't like the idea of arming teachers, but, I have a hard time believing that those same teachers wouldn't rather die shooting back than huddling in the corner trying to cover up their charges. Given the choice, I truly believe that at least some of them would rather be shooting back. We should also remember that the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment gives them that right. The cost involved in this plan would also be substantially less than installing metal detectors and armed security officers at every school, and as an added bonus, it can help teach the students about the Constitution and how it was written for all Americans.
As to Red Flag Laws, that's not only putting us firmly on the slippery slope, it's shoving us right off the cliff. Not only do they rely on specious information, they violate the constitution in so many ways that we may as well throw the entire bill of rights out the window. Can anyone say “Due Process”? Recent events have pointed out in very clear terms that these laws, no matter their intent, are wholly pointless. The only people who profit from these laws will be the lawyers suing and winning over civil rights violations. Existing laws, coupled with diligent law enforcement, have removed several potential mass shooters from our midst in just the last few weeks. These people broke the law by posting threats and were arrested and their guns confiscated before they could harm themselves or others and no rights were violated. So you see, if the government does it's job and utilizes the power it already has, tragedies like mass shootings can and will be avoided.
My last idea I borrowed from someone else, but, it makes more sense so I'm using it. Let's punish people who commit gun crimes. You commit a crime with a gun, 5 years, no parole or early release. You fire that weapon during that crime, 10 years, no parole or early release. You wound someone, 15 years and you kill someone, LIFE. No parole, no early release. If the criminals are off the street, the crime rate goes down. Again, Common Sense.This actually serves two purposes in that it rids society of those who shouldn't be members, and it also makes those of us who are responsible gun owners mindful of our actions as well.
In closing, I have a question. Why is it that newspapers are not taxed because the people have a right to be informed and the newspaper is the most universally inexpensive way to accomplish that, but, they tax the heck out of firearms which is the most universally inexpensive method of self defense? Making firearm ownership cost prohibitive deprives the poorest among us of their rights to self defense. I would think that inner city residents are far more likely to need the protection firearms provide than middle class suburbanites. Shouldn't they be afforded the same protection as the rest of us?
Every time we have a “Mass Shooting” the anti-gun crowd immediately calls for Common Sense, meaningful gun laws to be passed. Most of what is mentioned in the Media promotes this cry and the public is forced to go along to get along with these ill informed, wrong headed ideas. What they want will not work,hasn't worked and will never work. Laws only work when the people obey them. Criminals, by definition, do not. That's why they are criminals. Take “Gun Free Zones” for example. Federal Buildings are Gun Free Zones and have metal detectors and armed guards to ensure that they remain that way. Hanging a “No Firearms” sign on your front door is like posting a “No Sharks” sign at the beach.It may make the lifeguards and Park Police feel good, but, they are still going to be pulling bloody bodies out of the water because sharks don't read, just like criminals don't obey laws.
Where is the common sense in passing more laws when they aren't enforcing the ones we already have?
So I have a few suggestions which mayor may not go over well with the anti-gun crowd, but, I at least tried to use a little common sense while crafting them.
First off, UBC will not work if the data base is not up to date. President Trump gave us Fix NICS and after reading it, I can tell you that it is a good idea, but,woefully lacking in effect. It only applies to Federal agencies and they must report valid information to NICS every six months. So if someone is convicted of a violent felony or domestic abuse and becomes a prohibited person at that point, they still have up to six months to purchase a firearm and can still pass the UBC. How about this? We live in the age of computers and the internet which give us instant access to unlimited information so why can't the Government use that same technology to make NICS work the way it was intended.Let's use that elusive common sense and start by really fixing NCIC. Any and all prohibiting convictions could be reported to NICS within 7 days. Come on Washington, every court in the country uses computers and has internet access. Can't you guys get on the same page? Before you start passing more laws, maybe you should make sure the system your laws depend on actually works the way it is meant to. Three days to do a check and now they are talking about making it ten days? In Nevada we use our own system which is probably more up to date and much more thorough than NICS and it only takes about three minutes.
After we manage that, then we should address the Universal Background Check. My idea on this is both simple and effective and should actually work. The Federal Government has already mandated the Real ID program and once they fix NICS, all of the state DMV's could do the background check for all Driver License and ID's when they are issued. What's an extra three minutes at DMV when you have already waited three hours for your turn at the window? Prohibited persons would have a “No Firearms” symbol printed on the front of their ID which would prevent them from buying a firearm legally. Anyone convicted of a crime which voids their firearms rights would get a “No Firearms” symbol on their ID.While they are at it maybe they could require an ID to vote, just a thought.
Secondly, I feel that it is about time that we re-visit arming teachers. The “gun free” school idea has been a abject failure and the kids have paid the price. My idea on this one is so simple I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned before. Require all school personnel to carry a “Fanny Pack” at all times. They make the students wear uniforms, why not do the same for teachers. I know, not a great fashion statement, but who cares as long as it works. We can allow any and all school personnel who wish to qualify for concealed carry to do so. Training can be provided at low or no cost by local Police Departments, they can certainly use the good press, and they may be able to furnish firearms from their seized property lockers, also at low or no cost, and if not I'm sure the local firearms dealers would be more than happy to help out with discounts. This program would be voluntary and no one would be required to carry a firearm, however, the “Fanny Pack” would be mandatory. The local State Farm agents might even donate those. With a few, or many, armed personnel walking around the school, anyone thinking of attacking might just re-think their decision and walkaway. After all, in almost of the mass shootings where the shooter met armed resistance, they either gave up or shot themselves. Those that didn't were quickly dispatched or arrested. I know, people don't like the idea of arming teachers, but, I have a hard time believing that those same teachers wouldn't rather die shooting back than huddling in the corner trying to cover up their charges. Given the choice, I truly believe that at least some of them would rather be shooting back. We should also remember that the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment gives them that right. The cost involved in this plan would also be substantially less than installing metal detectors and armed security officers at every school, and as an added bonus, it can help teach the students about the Constitution and how it was written for all Americans.
As to Red Flag Laws, that's not only putting us firmly on the slippery slope, it's shoving us right off the cliff. Not only do they rely on specious information, they violate the constitution in so many ways that we may as well throw the entire bill of rights out the window. Can anyone say “Due Process”? Recent events have pointed out in very clear terms that these laws, no matter their intent, are wholly pointless. The only people who profit from these laws will be the lawyers suing and winning over civil rights violations. Existing laws, coupled with diligent law enforcement, have removed several potential mass shooters from our midst in just the last few weeks. These people broke the law by posting threats and were arrested and their guns confiscated before they could harm themselves or others and no rights were violated. So you see, if the government does it's job and utilizes the power it already has, tragedies like mass shootings can and will be avoided.
My last idea I borrowed from someone else, but, it makes more sense so I'm using it. Let's punish people who commit gun crimes. You commit a crime with a gun, 5 years, no parole or early release. You fire that weapon during that crime, 10 years, no parole or early release. You wound someone, 15 years and you kill someone, LIFE. No parole, no early release. If the criminals are off the street, the crime rate goes down. Again, Common Sense.This actually serves two purposes in that it rids society of those who shouldn't be members, and it also makes those of us who are responsible gun owners mindful of our actions as well.
In closing, I have a question. Why is it that newspapers are not taxed because the people have a right to be informed and the newspaper is the most universally inexpensive way to accomplish that, but, they tax the heck out of firearms which is the most universally inexpensive method of self defense? Making firearm ownership cost prohibitive deprives the poorest among us of their rights to self defense. I would think that inner city residents are far more likely to need the protection firearms provide than middle class suburbanites. Shouldn't they be afforded the same protection as the rest of us?
