The Washington Post reported yesterday:
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
Over at Red State, Moe Lane responds:
…None of which would have stopped the Newtown atrocity. The shooter stole the guns from his mother, who passed a background check (Connecticut has that); the guns, being stolen and used rather than resold, would have been effectively invisible to a hypothetical database; the guns were not in fact owned by a mentally unstable, violent person who used them to murder children (they were stolen by somebody who used them for that); and penalties for possession of firearms around schools or by minors obviously had no effect on the shooter (who was, by the way, a legal adult).
He makes a legitimate point.
As this debate moves forward, and it will, it's important to keep our heads, and wits, about us. The administration who vows to "never let a crisis go to waste" will certainly move to enact something here, although I suspect and terribly restrictive legislation will have a difficult time moving through Congress.
What we need to me more concerned about is Obama's already demonstrated penchant for running around Congress.
Tom Gresham has a rational, thoughtful op-ed today in which he says:
We have a clear track record of what works to increase our safety. We know what doesn't. Arming good people does, in fact, reduce crime. Banning certain types of firearms, or the loading devices, does nothing to stop mentally ill people and criminals.
Focusing on the failed siren song of gun control diverts us from doing things that actually work, such as programs to secure firearms. Congress eliminated the funding for “Project Childsafe,” a program created by the firearms industry to educate gun owners about safe storage and to distribute millions of gun locks.
As a sort of grounding plug to this whole debate one only need consider the story in the news today of the woman hiding in her attic who had to shoot an intruder to protect her two children. She had absolutely no choice in the matter.
I was reading some discussion about this case on Michael Yon's Facebook feed; Yon wrote:
There are numerous lessons here:
1) Do not break into someone's castle
2) .38 is too weak. Always has been. Always will be
3) 6 shots are not enough. What if there had been three intruders? She hit this guy five times and he was still alive and talking, which means he could still pull a trigger.
4) Do not mess with momma bear when she has cubs.
In the comments there was discussion about what a good shot this lady was. She hit him five times with her .38 revolver. He's got a punctured lung, punctured stomach, and a punctured liver yet he was still able to get in his car and try to drive away. I suspect she might upgrade to a weapon with a little more firepower. Or upgrade ammo.
If the gun-control advocates have their way, she wouldn't be able to upgrade to a semi-automatic style weapon with a clip or magazine.
Michael Yon raises a good point, though. What if you're attacked by more than one intruder and you only have six shots?
We need to keep level heads as this discussion moves forward. There are bad people out there, crazy people to be sure, and it's a plain fact that no amount of gun control will keep weapons from them. None of the proposals mentioned so far would have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre.
As for me, I'm going to learn how to shoot. I'm signed up for my first class already and I'm looking forward to learning.
(More at Memeorandum)
8 comments:
There's nothing wrong with a revolver - or with a .38 with +P+ ammunition (some .38's can't shoot +P because it's too hot). For those .38's that don't shoot hot loads, a very soft "wad cutter" works. IF YOU HIT THE TARGET.
I'm not opposed to high capacity magazines. Far from it. It's just that speed and volume is fine but accuracy is final.
Gun control measures won't work. They don't work anywhere on the planet. Mexico is the poster child for dramatic violence in the face of very tough gun control legislation. There rules are tougher than those in the US and 100,000 people (or more) were killed by organized crime over the past six years.
Many people who are buying firearms now are doing so out of FEAR OF THE GOVERNMENT. How's that for hope and change?
Good luck with your classes. It's the right first step.
Very well said, Pat. Level heads will win the day.
Agree totally, Pat.
I hate to say this but... Have level heads won much of anything in the last 4 years?
Obama will push major gun restrictions with the help of his screechy choirs in the MSM and then will bypass Congress when nothing moves forward. He's constantly daring the Repubs to take him to the Supreme Court.
Looks like Obama is coming for your gun! Can you say executive order?
I would say that it is past time to consider ending this union. There is no sense constantly fighting our government to maintain our freedom. Now we have the New York mayor telling us we should hurt more so that we can reduce the number of pain pills that people have. Maybe a good answer is a country were the government does not constantly tell you what to do. I am supporting secession. The US has lost its way and voting is not getting us back on track.
Keep pluggin'!
So what is your opinion of the president's proposals?
Post a Comment