By Jefferson Flanders
In the aftermath of the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech, there have been renewed calls for a consideration of America’s ragged quilt of federal and state gun laws.
No one disputes that the gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, a troubled student with a history of mental health problems, apparently acquired his weapons—a Walther .22-caliber pistol and a Glock 9 mm pistol—legally. Cho purchased, and used, a 15-round ammunition magazine, which was prohibited under the federal assault-weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004. Such magazines allow rapid firing without reloading.
Some of the questions being asked include: did Virginia’s notoriously lax gun laws make it too easy for Cho, (who wasn’t even an American citizen!), to get the guns? Is it time to think anew about restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and those with high-capacity ammunition magazines before another massacre occurs? Why shouldn’t sensible gun control become a national priority?
These are questions the National Rifle Association, the NRA, the chief lobby in this country for unchecked gun ownership, doesn’t want asked. And that’s what wrong with the NRA.
The NRA has taken an absolutist position on the Second Amendment, fighting any meaningful regulation of guns, despite the fact that Americans support stricter gun laws (a Washington Post/ABC News survey in October 2006 found 61 percent favoring tighter restrictions, while 37 percent opposed them.)
The NRA has decided that the Second Amendment trumps all other rights. Again, that’s what is wrong with the NRA. The organization’s refusal to compromise, and accept common-sense gun controls such as the assault weapons ban, dooms efforts to curb gun violence.
Let’s remember: the “right to bear arms” is not absolute. Our lawmakers have decided that some weapons—bazookas, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic weapons—shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians, (and rightly so). That Second Amendment right is curtailed if you are a felon or mentally ill. Many states have laws about carrying concealed weapons (you may need a permit) or regulating the sale of guns.
All of these restrictions on gun ownership have held up in the courts. So it is not a Constitutional debate we should be having, but a debate about what sorts of limits a civilized society should place on firearms.
Here are some of the questions Congress should be considering.
- Why should non-U.S. citizens, like Cho, be granted the right to purchase or own firearms?
- Why shouldn’t there be a mandatory waiting period when someone purchases a gun?
- Why shouldn’t we regulate gun shows, dubbed “arms bazaars for criminals and terrorists” where you can buy and sell guns on “a cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis”?
- Why shouldn’t we require gun safety training and ask owners to pass a safety test? (Would we let someone drive a car without training and testing?)
- Why shouldn’t we ban weapons primarily designed for military use (such as semi-automatic assault rifles) that are designed for rapid-fire?
- Why shouldn’t we ban the high-capacity clips for semi-automatic weapons which allow the firing of multiple rounds in seconds?
- Why shouldn’t we mandate traceable ammunition, allowing police another tool in fighting crime?
None of these reforms should trouble any law-abiding gun owner. Firearms for self-defense and hunting would remain available. (There are already some 250 million privately-owned guns in the United States). These stricter regulations would serve to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and would make it harder to acquire and use a gun impulsively.
It is not just the specter of Virgnia Tech that should move us to action. Urban violence in cities across the nation is fueled by easy access to weapons and, as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will testify, tough gun laws can make a difference in the crime rate.
Sadly it looks like the Democratic Congress, fearful of political backlash in rural states, will sit on its hands when it comes to meaningful gun control, and the presidential candidates of both parties will also shy away (or bow before the gun lobby), concerned about the influence of the NRA with swing state voters.
And that is just wrong.
Reprinted from Neither Red nor Blue
Copyright © 2007 Jefferson Flanders
All rights reserved
Loading ...
7 users commented in " What’s wrong with the NRA "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI don’t find it amazing at all that in the aftermath of the Virgina Tech massacre that Gun Control is on the front burner again. Why isn’t the ban on any handgun at Virginia Tech (Virginia Tech is a Gun Free zone) by registerd concealed carry permit holders is not being talked about. I believe that Virginia Tech is a state run institution. If concealed carry permit holders (whose liceanse was issued by the state) were free to carry there weapons on the campus I think that might be a little bit of a deterant to anyone wanting to commit a crime. The criminal would not know what situation they would be walking into. It is possible that a concealed carry permit holder with a weapon could have been able to at least defend themself and slow down the killer.
Concealed permit holders do go throught training to obtain there liceanse. They also realize that they must conceal there weapon well so they do not cause anyone to panick. They are not going to be walking around advertising that they have a weapon. No concealed permit holder ever wants to have to use there weapon, but if they have to they will have it to defend themself.
“The organization’s refusal to compromise…”
HAHAHAHAH! Ha ha! *Snort*
Knowing that you (like any of us) could experience a decline into mental illness and be diagnosed as a “Danger To Yourself and Others”, would you be ok with a law that would prevent the legal sale of guns to you?
After listening to a bunch of co-workers rattle-on about the VT shooter this morning (blah blah blah), I raised that question.
As expected - there was outrage at that idea.
Co-Worker:
“What! I have been to therapy - do I not get to have a gun?”
Me:
“Well “Joan”, if you have been diagnosed as a threat to others,
I would be ok with saying: no guns for you.”
She was not happy!
I quickly changed the conversation to Sanjaya / American Idol.
Common sense seems not to apply to the guns debate.
“Cho purchased, and used, a 15-round ammunition magazine, which was prohibited under the federal assault-weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004. Such magazines allow rapid firing without reloading.”
The capacity of his magazines had very little effect on what he did. He carried multiple spare magazines and reloaded his guns several times. An experienced shooter can reload a handgun very quickly, which means you aren’t out of the fight very long. He only would have had to reload slightly more frequently.
“An experienced shooter can reload a handgun very quickly, which means you aren’t out of the fight very long. He only would have had to reload slightly more frequently.”
he was not an experienced shooter. he had just bought guns a couple of months ago.
The reason that the federal assault weapons ban, not renewed by Congress, and that some state laws limit the clip size is to minimize the number of rounds fired before reloading. California, for example, limits magazines to 10-rounds.
The question we should be asking is this: what legitimate purpose can semi-automatic weapons be put to? I’d argue that you should be able to defend yourself without having to fire multiple rounds, and most hunters would reject semis as not sporting. So increasingly we have to weigh the benefits versus the costs of having military-type weapons in the hands of civilians.
“what legitimate purpose can semi-automatic weapons be put to? I’d argue that you should be able to defend yourself without having to fire multiple rounds, and most hunters would reject semis as not sporting. So increasingly we have to weigh the benefits versus the costs of having military-type weapons in the hands of civilians.”
So what you’re saying is to carry a gun you need to be able to make the one hit shot that also disables the shooters arm? If you’ve ever fired a handgun you would know why, they aren’t accurate and aren’t stabilized. Hunters use guns that are highly accurate (or there’s no point in hunting) and stabilized on at least their shoulder allowing them to get a very accurate and lethal shot. Multiple shots are taught to military who are trained and you think a citizen needs accuracy far surpassing that as to have the ability to place a slug through the brain since no where else on the body will instantly disable and almost certainly kill, military is told three shot method where you put two slugs in the chest near the shoulders before shooting at the head. Also, non-military grade weapons are worthless is you think that we need to carry less ammunition since they tend to have a high jam rate and have inaccuracy since they aren’t made to a certain quality, such as the Jennings Arms .32 ACP considered a “Saturday night special” is very poor quality and in my use has had 2 jams out of less than 100 shots which is very high. Your arguments are contradicting and require the people with the guns to be very lucky and very good shots that surpasses military.
Leave A Reply