Thursday, September 19, 2013

Gun Control Question Response

"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

No comments:

Post a Comment