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.