"What is your suggestion for trying to regulate guns better? I don't
believe we'll ever stop gun violence, but I'm all for accountability,
idk how we'll accomplish it, but I'd like to see it attempted..."
What
would I do to regulate guns? I certainly wouldn't do anything more than
what is already being done. Honestly, I'd probably do less.
Let
me explain. Guns are already heavily regulated. If you buy a gun from a
gun dealer, you have to fill out paperwork and undergo an instant
background check. You're not technically registering your gun, but the
shop where you buy it does have to keep that record on file (with your
personal information, address, serial # of gun, etc.) for the duration
of their business. If the shop closes, they must send all of their files
to the BATFE. If a crime is committed with a gun, it can be traced back
(to at least the original purchaser) using those records. That is
something that gun owners have had to deal with for a long time and
something that will probably never change.
That is just if you
want to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. If you want to purchase
something like a short-barreled shotgun or rifle, a suppressor, or a
full-auto firearm, you have a lot more hoops to jump through. These
weapons are classified as Class 3 items under the National Firearms Act
(NFA) of 1934. To purchase a Class 3 item, you have to request and fill
out the proper paperwork (i.e. register) with the BATFE and pay them a
tax. Then you have to wait to receive your tax stamp in the mail (which
is around an 8+ month waiting period) before you can purchase the item.
The
cost of the tax you have to pay for Class 3 items is $200 and you have
to pay that fee for every item. For instance, if you wanted to purchase a
short barreled rifle, you would pay the cost of the rifle plus $200
more for the tax. Then, if you later wanted to add a suppressor to it,
you would pay the cost of the suppressor plus another $200 tax.
Personally, I feel there is no need for such a high tax or even a need
for them to be registered with the government. Remember, the NFA was
enacted in 1934 and the cost of the tax has always been $200. $200 today
is nothing to sneeze at, but in 1934, it was a staggering amount to pay
for such an item. It was set at that amount to be used as a deterrent.
It has been and always will be an unfair tax. It's a shame that these
items are so hard to acquire unless you're very wealthy. I can make the
argument that short barreled firearms and "machine guns" are no more
dangerous than their counterparts. Also, I can argue that suppressors
would actually be beneficial to public health. However, I'll save that
for another time.
We have already tried an assault weapons ban
and regulating magazine capacity with the Federal Assault Weapons ban
from 1994-2004. I won't go into details on that but it did prove to be
ineffective. What we do have an abundance of right now are "gun free
zones". I am a concealed carry permit holder and I always carry wherever
I am legally allowed. However, the amount of places I can do that get
smaller all the time.
I believe having all of these "gun free
zones" is a major problem. The post office, other government buildings,
the court house, schools, many hospitals, and many businesses all have
polices where you have to disarm yourself if you enter their property. I
know you probably keep hearing it trumpeted that only the law abiding
citizen is going to actually follow those policies. Well, that is
exactly what we keep seeing. The Colorado theater shooting was at a
business that didn't allow guns. Sandy Hook was at a school where no
firearms were allowed. The navy yard shooting was a gun free zone.
Now,
you asked what would I do to regulate guns and then you immediately
started talking about stopping gun violence. You're implying that
regulating guns will somehow stop gun violence. Honestly, I don't see
how they correlate. We have regulated guns and we have regulated them
some more and we still have gun violence. The NRA gets a bad wrap and I
don't agree with everything they do, but I don't think they were far off
in the statement that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a
gun is a good guy with a gun". I honestly believe if we want to start
reducing gun violence, then we need more people who are prepared to
protect themselves and their family and less people (the government, gun
free zones, etc.) from hindering them.
I know people will argue
that more citizens with guns will increase more shootings. They will
say that they will be more likely to injure an innocent bystander than
actually stopping a threat and so forth. I say it is our responsibility
to be prepared anyway. If you are a firearms owner, I implore you, get
some training with it. Learn how to be safe with it and learn how to use
it efficiently. Going to the range and shooting from the bench or
shooting a few soda cans while standing still (while fun) isn't enough.
Getting your concealed carry permit isn't enough. You need to actually
get some combat training and work on different drills if you plan on
carrying a firearm.
Even then, that still might not be enough. I
agree, a person could have excellent skill with a firearm but may never
get the chance to use them if caught in a violent situation. The person
with a firearm could be shot before they ever have an opportunity to
draw their weapon. They could be facing a shooter but unable to fire
because of innocent people in the way. There is an infinite number of
variables. But when facing someone with a firearm with the intent to
kill, you are only presented with so many options. You could try to
flee. You could try to hide. One of those may very well be the best
option in a given situation as well. But being able to defend yourself
gives you one more option. I know if I am ever faced with a situation
like that, I want as many options as I can get. Like I said, fleeing or
something else may be the best option at the time but I don't like
having my options limited.
I don't see background checks,
cosmetic features, or magazine capacity to be much of the problem. I
think gun free zones and a lack of responsibility to be prepared to
protect ourselves and our family is more of a problem. Why don't we have
more programs that encourage gun use and safety? The KSP and other
agencies offer a citizens police program, but it focuses mainly on
police procedure. Why don't law enforcement agencies offer gun safety
and training courses? I understand that owning firearms and being
prepared to use them in a role for self protection is not for everyone
and I'm fine with that. But why not help the ones that choose to instead
of making it harder for them?
I hope I answered your question somewhere in there and hope I didn't get too far off topic.
-Matthew Weddle
