While President Obama's proposed gun legislation is clearly facing an uphill battle with Congress, not to mention the National Rifle Association, the three major components of his package seem reasonable, and do not appear to be a serious challenge to, or outright snubbing of, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The three pieces of Obama's proposal are: the introduction of criminal background checks on all gun sales, the renewal of the ban on military assault weapons, and a ban on high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing ammunition.
So what is the big deal about background checks? These are done routinely for various reasons, such as employment or when applying to work in almost any capacity with children. One of the NRA's claims is that not enough is being done to identify and treat mentally ill persons who end up with weapons, which is probably a fact. Would not such a background check help immensely with that identification, in addition to determining whether or not the individual has a criminal background?
The second piece will likely be the toughest to enact, since it is viewed by pro-gun folks as an attempt to "take away our guns!" But as noted over and over, assault-style weapons are unnecessary in nearly every circumstance – certainly for hunting purposes. And if the Second Amendment affords us the right to own assault weapons, then should it not follow that private citizens should be permitted to own bazookas and mortars?
For similar reasons, the third piece seems reasonable. Having the capability of rapidly firing 100 shots or more with a gun is unnecessary, and there is no question that armor-piercing bullets are "needed" only to kill persons wearing bullet-proof protection – usually law enforcement officials.
The claim by some gun enthusiasts is that they feel they must be armed in the event of an attempted government take over. [Chuckle.] If the government would ever make that decision, no private arsenal of any kind or size would be enough to stop tanks, flame throwers, drone missiles, etc.
Using the most recent figures available, among 75 nations the United States ranks 10th in the number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population. Among those ranked ahead of us are the highly unstable, Third World nations of Guatemala, Colombia, El Salvador, and Swaziland.
For the purposes of comparison, it is striking that the number of murders by firearms (not counting suicides) in the U.S. in 2009 was 9,146, while the number for Great Britain, where there is fairly rigid gun control, was 648. Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of U.S., this is equivalent to 48 times fewer murders than in the U.S.
It is only fair to point out that the rate of gun murder in the U.S. is at its lowest point since at least 1981. The high point was in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.
Regardless of the falling rate of gun murders, when innocent children are among those being slaughtered, the president and Congress absolutely must act to change things.
No comments:
Post a Comment