Gun Violence vs. Gun Rights

The Daily Beast had this article:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/a-former-navy-firearms-instructor-and-proud-gun-owner-on-why-we-need-common-sense-gun-control.html

A Former Navy Firearms Instructor and Proud Gun Owner On Why We Need Common Sense Gun Control

A gun owner and former Navy firearms instructor makes the case for common sense gun control and why we need to adopt it now, before the next tragedy.

Why do we only talk about gun control after the most unbearable national tragedies? Why don’t we adopt the common sense gun control regulations that have broad public support and might actually prevent the next tragedy?

Before half the country decides that I am a crazy liberal and stops reading here, let me note that I am a security professional, and a 12-year veteran of the Navy, where I served as a weapons system technician, base police officer, and firearms instructor. I am a proud gun owner. I’m also a single father. I do not want to ban guns but I do want to protect my son from the dangers they pose.

Our nation has settled into a very predictable routine of public discourse regarding firearms. A deranged individual—a neo-Nazi, a disillusioned ex-employee, or even a disturbed child—commits an act of public violence. The 24-hour news cycle obsesses on every morbid detail, speculating on motives and puzzling over “who’s to blame?” The righteous left preaches “never again” by way of tighter restrictions and more regulation, and the fringe right accuses them of politicizing a tragedy and warns that the government is coming for our firearms.

And then, nothing changes.

Depressing as this picture is, however, the gun control conversation should be happening even more frequently. Deaths due to poor knowledge of firearms happen on the small scale every day; just this past weekend, 11-year-old Hunter Pederson was accidentally killed by his uncle, who was showing off a laser sight by pointing it at the boy’s forehead.

The fact is that thousands of deaths all across our country can be prevented with solid intelligence sharing and common sense regulation. Between 83% and 91% of the country supports background checks for all gun purchases and yet, somehow, this simple provision is consistently written out of proposed legislation. It is time that we make this a permanent policy priority rather than a set of talking points to be rolled out alongside the names of our next shooting victims.

I am proud gun owner. I’m also a single father. I do not want to ban guns but I do want to protect my son from the dangers they pose.

I love my guns, and I’m no hypocrite. But I love my son more. I love taking him to school, a movie, or simply around the block without fearing for his life. It is dangerous and shortsighted to require so little of our fellow gun owners, because—as 11-year-old Hunter’s case tragically shows—they hold the very lives of those around them in their hands.

So what can we do? The best proposals are all about common sense and moderation—too often four-letter words in politics. Background checks and mental health evaluations for all gun owners, on a five-year verification cycle, would be a great first step.

Requiring licenses and negligent discharge insurance would be part of common sense reform. Much like vehicles—which are also key pieces of personal property that can take lives when they are operated irresponsibly, firearms should require a license to own and operate. A tiered licensing system could apply to different types of weapons. Insurance could cover any damages caused by negligent discharge, and skyrocketing rates might prove discouraging for repeat offenders.

Prudent limits need to be imposed. We should consider putting a cap on the number of firearms purchased for personal use. Allowances could be made for licensed gun dealers, but home protection and hunting require don’t require individuals to keep an arsenal. At the very least, misdemeanors such as DUIs, drug charges, and white-collar crimes should be added to the list of crimes that preclude offenders from owning firearms.

Opponents will no doubt ask how we intend to pay for all of these new requirements. A tax on ammunition and weapons manufacturers and end-users seems like a relevant place to start. With $617 billion spent to fund our national defense, we can certainly grab a billion or two to fund these lifesaving reforms.

For some gun-rights advocates, no amount of smart budgeting will change their mind because for them any attempt to restrict firearm ownership amounts to an assault on liberty. But most sensible people, even those who own guns and value the 2nd Amendment, understand that the exercise of rights requires some trade-offs. After all, a majority of NRA members support background checks too.

Tragic assaults on public safety by dangerous people are only part of the problem in the United States. A good guy with a gun can turn into a bad guy due to one slip up or a simple misunderstanding and an itchy trigger finger. It’s time we prioritize the debate on gun control and see some real change.

I responded thus:

Are we required to receive training to determine our fitness to vote?  Are we then required to pass a screening periodically in order to maintain that right?  There are certain restrictions placed on the right to vote:  Must be of legal age.  Must be a member of the local, county, state or federal population in which you are casting a vote.  There are even limitations of voting by convicted criminals.  These things are not the same as having to prove you are responsible enough to vote.  Or saying you can't vote because your vote might be dangerous.

Do we have to have approval of our message before we exercise our right to free speech?  True, often we must request a permit to peaceably assemble but the permit may not be denied because what we have to say is not acceptable to some.  If the permit is denied, the speech can still be uttered, just not in the center lane of the San Francisco Bridge.

Do I have to have anyone's approval in order to justify being secure in my person, house, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?  What committee of panel should decide such a thing for each citizen? Only allowing acceptable people to have such a right means your collection of vegetarian cookbooks meets the annual rights renewal review but my collection of Jewish holocaust concentration camp photos might be deemed too subversive or potentially harmful.

Don't tell me it's different with guns because they kill people.  It is not.  It is as much (or more) dangerous to require burdensome proof and acceptability screening to vote or exercise any right... it only seems reasonable because the horrific harm is incremental and not so shockingly abrupt.  Ask those who are doing cheetah-flips over something as seemingly benign as voter ID.

If no amount of blood spilt was too much to stop the fledgling American nation from establishing these rights, no amount of blood spilt can justify giving them up.

And I WILL say it.  Your 6 years olds life is not MORE important than any of the rights established by the Bill of Rights... no one's child... not even mine... ever.  It is for the very safety of our children and their future that I will denounce and defy anyone attempting to take away any right.  Be they trying to seize it whole-cloth or trying to chip-away at its edges.