Guns and definitions
Advertisements
July 25, 2012
Public opinion on gun control suggests it remains one of America’s most polarizing issues. According to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Americans have become more conservative on gun control since the last two presidential campaigns. Some 49 percent of Americans say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45 percent say it is more important to control gun ownership.
In light of last week’s devastating murders in Colorado, carried out by a lone gunman who managed to amass an arsenal of high-powered weaponry easily and quietly, such surveys help define the problem. Thanks to an increasingly radical National Rifle Association, “gun control” has been misrepresented in increasingly radical ways. Even incremental limits on the ability of individuals to acquire military-style weaponry — restricting the sale of automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds with the squeeze of a trigger, limiting the sale of outsized bullet magazines, tracking assault weapons from the point of purchase — are met with howls that liberals are out to “ban guns.” By equating limits on some weaponry to a ban on all weaponry, the NRA has managed to strike fear into the hearts of responsible gun owners. And by lavishing campaign dollars on pliant candidates, they have managed to shape policy in Washington for the worse.
It is possible, however, to imagine a dialogue that is not about “banning” guns, or denying anyone their “rights,” but instead about a commonsense approach to regulating highly dangerous products, which, in the wrong hands and without reasonable restrictions, could lead to awful consequences. We do this with automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and even the things we eat. When the right to purchase and consume these products clashes with public health, states and the federal government have agreed on reasonable restrictions, oversight, licensing, and training.
The tragedy in Aurora — and a daily plague of gun violence — calls for a national dialogue on guns that would lead to new, sane policies. It need not be a dialogue of gun owners versus gun “haters.” Rather, it could be a conversation of moderate, serious people on both sides who value human life and respect individual rights, and political leaders who can strike the proper balance between the two.
Comments
Chuck Anziulewicz
July 25, 2012
Dudley Brown is the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which advocates for firearms owners’ rights. This is what he had to say: “We’re different than other cultures. We DO allow Americans to possess the accoutrements that our military generally has.”
“Accoutrements.” What a pleasant way of describing the weapons and ammunition and body armor that James Holmes had accumulated over a period of a few months.
Doesn’t ANYONE find this just a bit disturbing?
Someone who wants to own a handgun for the protection of his family and property, and/or a rifle to go hunting with, who is also willing to go through background checks and reasonable registration requirements? THAT’S what I would call a responsible gun owner.
But to suggest that the Second Amendment guarantees that anyone can have an arsenal, stocked with as many guns as he wants, of any type of gun and ammunition that he wants, just because it’s his HOBBY? That’s just nuts.
All can say is, if this is the way it’s going to be, then we should simply dispense with the hand-wringing when the next massacre takes place. James Holmes did not have a criminal record before he opened fire on a crowded theater. He went about accumulating his weapons and “accoutrements” the same way gun hobbyists everywhere do. We might as well get used to it, because no one has the guts to stand up to the NRA.
Amram Hakohen
July 25, 2012
Allow me to direct you attention to a Rabbi’s rebuttal to this in accurate and wrong-headed editorial:
==
NJ Jewish News Misses the Target
by Rabbi Dovid Bendory
I regret to inform you that in “Guns and Definitions”,,, you have been duped by the advocates of “gun control.”
You state: “Even incremental limits on the ability of individuals to acquire military-style weaponry – restricting the sale of automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds with the squeeze of a trigger, limiting the sale of outsized bullet magazines, tracking assault weapons from the point of purchase – are met with howls that liberals are out to ‘ban guns.’”
1) The sale of automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger are already highly restricted and regulated, requiring a special federal license from the BATFE for purchase. Very few civilians own such firearms, and the shooter in Aurora neither used nor owned one. Such firearms, by the way, are illegal for civilian purchase in New Jersey and in many other states. These firearms have been highly restricted for decades.
2) Assault rifles—indeed, all firearms—are already tracked from the point of purchase. All firearm sales from factory to firearms dealer to retail purchaser are tracked and recorded already. That is how the purchase points of the firearms used in Aurora were identified so quickly. But I’m curious, how does this gun registration bureaucracy help prevent crime? It does, of course, quite successfully create a nuisance for law-abiding gun owners.
3) As for restrictions on what you call “outsized bullet magazines”, what exactly is “outsized”? Standard pistols today—common for civilian use for personal defense and for target shooting—carry 12-17 rounds. “Gun control” advocates are crying for an impaired-capacity 10-round restriction. Are we also going to restrict the police to ten rounds? Obviously not; doing so would be dangerous. Why is it not dangerous then to restrict civilians to ten rounds? After all, it was civilians who were on the front line in Aurora—by the time the police arrived, the murderer was getting into his car. Shouldn’t we let our civilians, as the first-responders to violent criminals, have the same firepower as the second-responder police?
If such a shooter came into your synagogue, would you want your synagogue to be a self-declared “gun-free” victim disarmament zone—like the theater in Aurora? Or would you want your law-abiding, upstanding congregants to be able to respond—with normal capacity magazines in their defensive sidearms?
Sincerely,
Rabbi Dovid Bendory
Rabbinic Director
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
(http://jpfo.org)
Rabbi Bendory is an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor.
© Copyright Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership 2012.
Bruce R Booker
July 25, 2012
Chuck, I think that you miss the point of the Second Amendment in the first place: the REASON for the Amendment was to prevent a tyrannical goverment from establishing itself in the United States. Remember, we fought the Revolutionary War against King George III of England.
To fight against him and his government, we had to have the same weapons as they had.
Tyrannical governments abound in this world today and as a Jew, we should look back to the Nazi government of Germany to understand that a disarmed populace easily becomes the victim of such a government. If you think that such a government cannot rise today in this country, then you join the ranks of many of those who perished under the Nazis and sais, “It cannot happen here! We’re Germans first!” That’s not how the Nazis saw it.
We honor the Warsaw ghetto uprisers every year for their heroism against the Nazis, yet we forget that in order to present such a threat against the Nazis, they had to have weapons commensurate to those of their oppressors.
We did the same against King George III, so our Founding Fathers wisely placed the Second Amendment into our Constitutions Bill of Rights. This would also mean the “accoutrements” that our police forces and military would use.
You may not see any sense to it, but fortunately the Founding Fathers did and provided a means for the People, who the government SERVES, to throw off that government should it veer off the course that the Constitution sets before us.
Eugene V.
July 25, 2012
Forget about the 2nd Amendment, forget for a moment, that statistically, gun control does more harm than good and think about this:
There are people in this world who want what is yours and are willing to take it regardless of what you think of it. It could be your property, your land, your life, the lives of your loved ones.
Are you willing to fight for your life and the lives of your family and your countrymen?
If yes, then you must have the tools necessary to do what you have to do.
Do you really want some politician who has the convenience of armed security to dictate to you what you may or may not have “for the good of the people?”
My grandfather had seven siblings in 1939, in 1941 he was the only one left, because somebody decided that his kind is unworthy and that the “master race” would make better use of his land. He lived because he fought.
He just had his Mosin-Nagant, but if it’s my turn, I’ll have my AR in one hand and my AK in the other (all NJ legal, no need calling the ATF on me, people.)
Are you willing to fight if the time comes? If yes, then you better tool up and start training.
Daniel
July 25, 2012
I think most folks have stated what I feel, but simply put the citizens of this great country are in charge of it. Handing your life and the care of it to the government is not where we should be headed because it doesn’t work.
The AR rifle can be fitted with a 223 or 308 barrel. The 308 is great for hunting, and the 223 is great for target shooting. The AR style rifles are not assault weapons given the practical term adopted by Germany in WWII. This definition is still used today. One major caveat is that it is select fire, meaning it can shoot a single round or fully automatic, which this killers gun was not.
That being said, the killer was not wearing body armor, he purchased as best as we can tell a tactical jacket, which is nothing more than a vest with pockets. Hunters buy these, competition shooters buy these, and it is nothing more than nylon and string, with some zippers and buttons.
Reports show that the police and first responders entered the theater approximately 90 seconds to 240 seconds after the shooting started. We haven’t seen a break down of injuries but if there had been a few CCW holders in the theater, there wouldn’t have been so many killed and injured. Tactical experts have reviewed the information as best they can, and all agree on this.
If we want to take into account on what will happen if we disarm ourselves, look no further than DC, CA, and Mexico.
Eric Dailey
July 25, 2012
This editorial misses the central point that bad guys will ignore all the new laws and bans you make just like they do all the laws on the books now. The Batman shooter took guns in to a place with a no guns policy. That policy only stopped the good guys from shooting back in defense.
Russel
July 26, 2012
The proof is indisputable, the more guns in the hands of law-abiding, responsible and trained citizens, the less violent crime there is, period. Most people would agree there should be a limit to what is sold legally, and I think in order to get a gun permit (or carry permit) there should be extensive training, just like police get.
The genie is out of the bottle, massive amounts firearms are out there. The only thing we should do now is make sure we have the means to defend and protect ourselves properly because the bad guys either have them or can get them easily, they don’t follow the law after all.
Plus, for the population of this country and number of firearms out there, there is a relativity low incidence of gun massacres, they just get played up by the media a lot which I believe adds to copy cat events.
Mordechai
July 26, 2012
As the Rabbi quoted above pointed out, most of what you advocate for in your editorial is already in place. The simple fact is that so-called “assault rifles”, despite their cosmetic similarity to military weapons, are no more lethal and are probably much less lethal than many commonly owned sporting firearms, from pump shotguns (which I understand was the primary weapon used by the Aurora shooter) to deer rifles.
When faced with the horrific and inexplicable, people inevitably look for convenient boogeymen (eg, the NRA) and simple solutions (“ban ‘assault weapons’!). Unfortunately, neither are readily available. What might we do to reduce the number of people killed in gun crimes every year (roughly 10,000, about the same number killed by drunk drivers)?
1. Improve mental health care and reporting in this country.
2. Institute background checks on private gun sales (yes, I disagree with the NRA on this). Although guns purchased in private sales account for only about 1% of all guns used in crimes, it seems that small hole can be plugged fairly easily without infringing on gun owners’ rights.
3. Rationalize concealed carry laws in the few holdout states like New York and New Jersey so that people with clean criminal and mental health records and a reasonable amount of training can carry a firearm for self-protection outside the home.
4. Stop plea bargaining down gun crimes. Caught in the commission of a felony while in possession of a firearm? Mandatory 25 years behind bars.
Finally, accept that there are evil and/or mentally ill people in this world and that we can’t stop all of them. Let’s work towards creating a more civil, compassionate society, while preserving individual rights, including the fundamental, inallienable right to self-defense.
Torch of Liberty
July 27, 2012
I have always said that one of the safest places in the world to be is an Israeli school. The reason is simple. Most teachers, administrators and even older students are armed with at least a side arm. Gun free zones are the dealiest places to be. Case in point is the violence in Mexico which has extreme gun controls and equally extreme violent criminals who disregard gun controls as they do any other law. Only the law-abiding suffer due to gun controls but if criminals have to take a chance because an intended victim may be armed, that is the best deterent against crime.
“Reasonable” gun controls depend on who is being reasonable. Sarah Brady wants all handguns banned. Let’s begin there and work our way backward.
For my Jewish friends here visit this site, http://jpfo.org .
Shalom