NRA out of touch

Yeah, this is also going to be tangentially related to gun-control because yesterday the NRA finally showed its face and held a press conference.  It probably would be better for them if they hadn't, but hey, why keep silent when you can say something stupid.

The NRA, as I'm sure you've heard by now, called for armed guards in every school in America because this is going to somehow prevent horrific tragedies from occurring.  Yes folks, the answer to solving violence committed by legal guns is to give more people legal guns.  Amazing isn't it?

Let's begin by looking at the latest shooting.  A young man, fully committed to murder, planned an assault on a school.  His mother worked at the school, so he knew it fairly well.  We're to believe that an armed guard was going to be anything but the first victim?  Ok, so lets assume the armed guard isn't the first victim, the gunman goes in a different door and possibly only kills maybe 6 or 8 people before....what?

A gunfight with the officer ensues with him having a pistol and something to live for versus someone who cares nothing for their own life or the lives of others armed with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine?  Ideally the guard takes out the shooter and the tragedy is "only" 6 or 8 dead instead of 28.  Better?  I suppose, but it still did nothing to PREVENT the tragedy from happening.  It merely mitigated the damage and while in my hypothetical scenario 8 dead is better than 28 its a far cry from NO dead.  Which is what we want!

So, outside of the problem that merely having armed guards does nothing to prevent disturbed individuals from getting their hands on powerful weapons, let's go to the second issue.  Who's going to pay for this?  Now, if the NRA wants to step up and do so, that's fine by me.  But, otherwise, many schools can't afford enough staff as is.  Where are they going to get the money to pay for armed guards?  Even if the local police department provides the guard, the money still has to come from somewhere to pay their salary.

And, schools aren't just in use from 7:30 to 3:30 M-F.  Is there going to be an armed guard on premises any time the school is in use?  It seems like such a simple thing, but simply from a logistical standpoint its not.

The NRA is out of touch with the average American gun owner.  They portray themselves as staunch defenders of gun owners rights, when in reality its basically a lobby for gun manufacturers.  The NRA wants its members to buy as many guns as possible, hence the constant scare tactics and fear-mongering, because this brings in hefty amounts of cash from the companies benefiting from the gun purchases.

The government isn't going to come into your house to take all your guns away.  But maybe, just maybe, its time to put some logical safeguards in place that might help prevent the next Sandy Hook or Aurora.  In a country that has almost 1 gun for every person you can't realistically do away with guns.  But if you can start to minimize the opportunity for disturbed people to get their hands on guns in legal methods, its a start.

So please, gun owners.  If you are NRA members, it might be time to rethink that.  The NRA don't care about you or about the best interests of gun owners.  They care about your money and the best interests of the gun sellers.  There are organizations out there that can support your right to own firearms that do it in a sensible and humane manner.

We also need some radical reform of our mental health services in this country, though while it appears the Sandy Hook killer possibly had some mental illness, his actions were completely pre-meditated.  He just didn't care what he did in his final act, he just wanted to cause as much pain and suffering to as many as possible on his way out because mommy wasn't giving him what he wanted anymore and was scared of him.

Apparently not scared enough to get the freaking guns out of the house, but hey, we can't speak ill of the dead right?

Rambling on Gun Control.

So, I've held off on this for a few days, but the statistics being bandied about are just making me crazy.  For the record, I do not support banning guns.  However, I do support tighter gun control, making it harder to get guns, and limiting or banning certain types of guns and accessories.

But on to some thoughts on statistics.  The hilarious thing about using statistics to say how we don't need tighter gun controls is how it also utterly disproves the point of needing a gun for protection.

Yes, statistically the number of murders committed by legally owned guns is fairly low (though they make up a surprising number of the guns used in mass murders).  And the number of murders and violent crimes in general in the US are still fairly low compared to most points in the last 50 years.

But, if those things are the case, why do so many people need guns for protection?  Statistically your chances of being in a situation where you NEED a gun to defend yourself is almost 0, maybe, MAYBE 1 time in your life.  (And the chances of being in a situation where you need a high capacity magazine or an AR-15 to defend yourself IS zero  Unless you want bullets punching through a home invader, through the walls of your house and ending up god knows where.)  Fear is good for gun sales though, which merely creates the potential for MORE gun violence as there are more guns out there to have accidents with, to get stolen, etc.

The interesting thing about guns for protection as well (outside of that being the EXACT SAME REASON gang members and drug dealers need guns, funny how that mentality is shared isn't it) is that with the chance of needing it being SO LOW that its mostly going to escalate non-violent or non-lethal situations into violent or lethal ones.

Florida currently has at least 2 cases, the Travon Martin case, and a second case where, because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, legal concealed carry folks killed unarmed citizens after confrontations escalated.  Would those confrontations have happened if the antagonist hadn't been armed?  I don't know.  Maybe, but for SOME (not all) knowing they are carrying gives a false sense of security or invincibility.

I am not saying all gun owners are trigger happy fools, most aren't, very few are.  BUT, again, guns are a force multiplier beyond knives, baseball bats, and pretty much anything outside of explosives.  Why do we need anyone besides highly trained professionals carrying them on a daily basis? (I believe a citizen can be a highly trained professional, they just need to prove they are before they are allowed to concealed carry and they must go through tests yearly to keep their card.)

Since overall violence is down, why do those guns (semi-auto military styled rifles and high capacity magazines) need to be out there?

Sure, they are fun.  I'm even for people being able to own them, they just must be kept at gun clubs where you go to shoot them.  You don't get to have them at home.  You can still have hunting rifles, even semi-auto hunting rifles, but nothing with a clip holding more than 10 rounds.  (I'd say 6, but would settle for 10.)

One more piece of false logic the pro-"all guns all the time" folks trot out there.  "Oh, there's too many of these guns out there, we can't put the genie back in the bottle."  This type of broken thinking is how we are in the debt mess we're in as a nation.  Sure, there is no instant fix, but that means we shouldn't do anything?  Maybe we should apply this logic to cancer!  "We can't cure ALL cancer and it costs a lot of money to fight cancer, so we should just stop trying."  Hmmm, doesn't make much sense there does it?

I think its pretty simple.  Ban sales of high capacity magazines NOW.  No more sales of them, at ALL.  (To you screaming BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COMPANIES THAT SELL THEM! JOBS!! I would say 1) stop being merchants of death 2) after legislation is passed, the magazines can be sold to the gun clubs, who can then sell them to members for use ONLY at the gun club.)

Then, work out the details of how to get them out of people's homes.  Don't make it a ridiculous offense. If someone has a FOID card, but still has now illegal weapons in their home, they can 1) register the weapons with whatever local agency will be registering weapons now (I have to register a car, why do I not have to register every single gun I own by serial number?) and then take the weapon to the local gun club or 2) turn the weapon over to the local agency and get paid fair market value for it (paid for by registration fees).  There would be a five year window where you could do these things for free (only new guns would require registration fees).  After that five year period, if you could show your FOID card, you'd pay a small fine and then be allowed to register your weapons. and pay a fee.

See, people can own guns, it will just be more costly.   You can still shoot your guns, just certain types have to be shot at certain places.  This is NOT rocket science.

Will this stop gun violence or the next massacre?  Of course not, evil people or ill people can still find a way, but it will make it harder to do so and that DOES help prevent crime.  (There are actual statistics to back that up too.)

If you think this is the gov't taking away your rights, I don't care.  You can still own guns, you just have to do it in a way that makes sense.  The way we currently do it MAKES NO SENSE and needs to change.