Regulate firearms sanely

  • Follow Letters

I would like to applaud Augusta Chronicle sports columnist Scott Michaux for his Dec. 16 column (“Tragedies won’t stop if we hide from issue”). It takes fortitude to speak out on such a contentious issue. I am sure he will receive significant hate mail for speaking his mind, but I thank him.

We need to have a real discussion regarding sensible gun laws. No, not revoking the Second Amendment or banning all guns as the fearmongers will immediately scream, but rational gun laws.

If guns only had the same level of regulation as cars, we would be considerably better off: a title for each gun; license and registration at each sale (even gun shows where 40 percent of guns are bought with no background check at all); required firearms instruction; and passing a test to prove your ability to handle the responsibility of gun ownership.

Requiring guns to be “street legal” makes sense. We don’t let NASCAR or Indy cars on the road, and we don’t need automatic weapons, assault rifles or extended magazines for home protection or hunting. If you can’t get the home invader or deer with the first six to eight shots, you probably shouldn’t have a gun.

I would remind National Rifle Association Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre – who thinks more guns are the answer – that Columbine had an armed policeman; Virginia Tech had an entire campus police force; and Fort Hood is an Army base.

Comments (43) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
KSL
120747
Points
KSL 01/01/13 - 01:16 am
5
2
One man's opinion.

One man's opinion. By the way, the shootings in a theater in Texas that occurred 2 days after Sandy Hook, were conducted by a shooter with non assault gun(s). Oh except for the off duty police woman who was working at the theater and stopped the shooter before anyone died. Feinstein's ban on assault weapons would include her Glock, the weapon she used to take down that maniac.I have to respectfully disagree with some of the good doctor's points.

usmcbuckner
42
Points
usmcbuckner 01/01/13 - 04:34 am
6
1
The only problem with your proposal..

The only problem with your proposal is that the second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting and very little to do with home defense. The framers of the constitution understood that the a man's right to defend himself and his family from harm was a right endowed by the creator. The framers' intent behind the second ammendment was the understanding that a man must be armed as well as or better than the government so that he may defend against tyrany. The purpose of automatic firearms and destructive ammunition is to be able to defeat armor. The reason that most states do not register firearms is to prevent a tyranical government from simply pulling up a list of firearms owners. Additionally, if you look at the laws, the only restrictions preventing racing cars on the road is lighting and safety equipment and the fuel they burn. Also, FYI. on a military base, very few people are in posession of firearms and live ammunition. Private firearms are very tightly regulated, only allowable for use on a firing range. Only a select few military personnel are regularly armed.

carcraft
24035
Points
carcraft 01/01/13 - 06:03 am
5
1
Let's not make it harder

I will never forget the women here in Augusta who was in an abusive relationship. She found out that her abuser was about to be released from jail for violating her protective order. She went to the Sheriff’s office fearful for her life. The Deputy told her very bluntly that the police could not defend her 24 hours a day seven days a week, get a gun. She listened to the police officer and bought a gun that after noon. That night her abuser was trying to break in and hurt her again when she shot and killed him. So yes let’s make it harder for someone like this woman to defend herself. The liberals want to regulate you but not them and the term hypocrite applies. Take Rosie O’Donnell, she wants her body guard to have guns to protect her and her child; sorry you can’t have one to defend yourself. Feinstein wants to regulate guns for you, but I will bet you that her conceal carry permit will remain valid. Look up Carl Rowan, very liberal anti-gun columnist who ILLEGALLY owned a gun for self-defense in DC and ended shooting a child in the foot. Rowan’s excuse of course was that he needed it for self-defense. Liberals bemoan more guns in schools while Obama’s kids go to a school with high security and armed guards. You must realize thought that all these liberals think they are VERY IMPORTANT AND SPECIAL and you just are not quite that important and special!

Young Fred
15723
Points
Young Fred 01/01/13 - 07:20 am
3
1
How do YOU define “sanely”?

How do YOU define “sanely”? Is your definition the same as others who would portend to define this issue? Should I allow, let's say, Al Franken to define “sanely”?

I do however like this line: “If you can’t get the home invader or deer with the first six to eight shots, you probably shouldn’t have a gun.”

Good one! Totally misses the point and is irrelevant to the debate, but a good one-liner!

Riverman1
79032
Points
Riverman1 01/01/13 - 08:08 am
5
1
"Rational"

Should we have "rational" laws about speech and religion, also? The other amendments that protect us from government? The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from government by making citizens the equal of armed soldiers. It is a right, not a privilege.

For specifics you mentioned, at Columbine, the school safety officer got off two shots at the killers early on. With a little luck, he could have stopped the killing of innocents. At Ft. Hood Hassan went where the troops were not armed. That's probably why he picked that building.

Riverman1
79032
Points
Riverman1 01/01/13 - 08:10 am
7
1
I'd rather hear from Rob Pavey

I'd rather hear from Rob Pavey than Scott Michaux. Michaux doesn't even like high school and college football much less gun sports. He needs to concentrate on holding his putter steady without anchoring it.

LillyfromtheMills
12481
Points
LillyfromtheMills 01/01/13 - 08:26 am
2
1
Young Fred
15723
Points
Young Fred 01/01/13 - 09:22 am
5
1
What is the solution?

That would take pages and pages to answer. The short version is: retool society.

Chad
57
Points
Chad 01/01/13 - 09:40 am
6
0
Those places did have an armed response

Thanks for pointing out about those locations that had armed force. Ft. Hood thousands of trained weapons handlers. However, on a military base the only people carrying are the MP's. Carrying concealed on base is a federal offense. VT yes has a police force. How fast can a person walk through a building shooting a person before police arrive? All the responding force is there for is to stop the shooter from killing any more personnel. There will be deaths in an active shooter. Average response time for police is around 2-3 minutes at best how many people can be killed in that time? When someone is actively engaged in shooting it will continue until someone with a weapon shows up and attempts to stop it. Remember Criminals don't follow the laws and mental people don't care who gets hurt.

LillyfromtheMills
12481
Points
LillyfromtheMills 01/01/13 - 09:52 am
5
2
Sure wish we had a leader

I wish I had a crystal ball to see where our nation will be in 4 years - first time I can remember being afraid for our country. Wait until we hit the 5th year and we have to recover from this mess - there will be rioting in the streets - the good guys shooting it out with the bad guys! Ya'll better hold onto your weapons! I'm ready!

wribbs
373
Points
wribbs 01/01/13 - 10:09 am
6
1
There is no amount of

There is no amount of regulation or law that would have stopped what happened in Connecticut. Deranged maniacs do not follow laws. I've read that the killer broke 41 different laws in committing this crime. What additional law would have prevented it? The author's suggestions would only make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, not criminals.

Also, if the author knows about gun shows that are allowing people to purchase firearms without a background check, he needs to report them to the police. When you purchase a gun at a gun show from a registered vendor, you undergo a background check just as if you were standing in his store to buy it. Why do people keep repeating this 'gun show loophole' nonsense?

myfather15
49167
Points
myfather15 01/01/13 - 10:10 am
3
1
Mr. Hines, can you explain

Mr. Hines, can you explain clearly (without senseless rhetoric) how ANY of your suggestions would make us more safe? Isn't that the bottom line, making us more safe?

Little Lamb
43803
Points
Little Lamb 01/01/13 - 10:23 am
5
1
Good Will, Hunting

Oh, boy. Here we are again with the hunting argument. Thank you for addressing it above, usmcbuckner. The left keeps bringing it up, so we small-government advocates must keep refuting it. Back when the second amendment was approved, hunting was a necessity widespread among society. We did not have large beef cattle spreads in the west with massive slaughterhouses, freezers, railroads & highways to get safe, frozen meat to market anywhere in this vast land. People had to hunt.

The delegates who approved the second amendment did so not to put a blessing on hunting, but instead to put a blessing on citizens forming militias when (in the course of human events) it became necessary to oppose oppressive and/or tyrannical governments. When today's statists talk about hunting, beware.

CobaltGeorge
149696
Points
CobaltGeorge 01/01/13 - 10:38 am
4
2
@Christopher E. Hines and M.D.

You have just been shot down with common sense 13 accurate bullets by the above post.

myfather15
49167
Points
myfather15 01/01/13 - 10:42 am
4
1
Hunting has absolutely

Hunting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. Citizens should be able to possess a "assault rilfe" for the protection of their home. If you're at home and a group (meaning more than one) of criminals comes to do harm to you, would you rather have a pistol or a firearm capable of rapid fire? Everyone who owns ANY firearm SHOULD go through proper training of the firearm, but that is personal responsibility.

This is just senseless blather from another highly educated DOCTOR, who doesn't possess a single shred of common sense. He wants people to be mandated to register their firearm. Do you think the Hell's Angels, Monguls, Outlaws, Bloods, Crips, Gangster disciples, Folk Nation, MS-13 or Latin Kings, once this law is passed, are going to stand in line to register their firearms? What about the Sandy Hook shooter? Did he register his firearm before going on a shooting rampage? No, because he stole the firearm after killing his mother. So if she would have registered it (which she did), did that make us more safe? Connecticut has some of the toughest guns law in the Country, did those laws prevent this shooting? Chicago, Ill has what some say are the tougest gun laws in the Country. Yet, they had 500 murders in 2012 and 85% were gun related. Boy, those tough gun laws are really working well, aren't they?

Do you think Jared Loughner would have registered his firearms if they would have required it, months before he went on his shooting? What about the DC snipers Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad? Do you honestly believe they would have registered their rifles, if required? No, because in DC it was already illegal to possess a firearm of this make. Wow, those gun laws seriously protected the victims, didn't they?

The only logical reason to register firearms is so the government will KNOW which LAW ABIDING citizens own certain firearms. Then when the day comes, they will be able to round up those firearms, when they make them completely illegal. But it will happen, watch and see. May I remind you of what George Washington said; "A government who doesn't trust it's citizens with guns is a government who doesn't trust it's citizens with guns because it has an evil plan." But I almost forgot, people like Dr. Hines are soooooo much smarter than those dead white guys who had no clue about todays society.

People like Dr. Hines should stick to what they know.....medicine. Because it's clear he knows nothing about the law and how it works. Unfortunately, it's people like him that eventually run for public office after a lucrative career practicing medicine. How many doctors, lawyers and businessmen make up our elected representatives?

Why? 1) because they have developed a respectable reputation in the communities and 2) They have obtained wealth to be able to afford to at least partially fund a campaign.

I for one, love seeing common folks elected. Such as firefighters, law enforcement, small business owners, etc. They seem to have the common sense to make reasonable decisions. You watch, with Dr. Hines having such a strong opinion on this issue, he will run for an office one day.

RMSHEFF
13735
Points
RMSHEFF 01/01/13 - 10:47 am
4
1
Liberals are in the camp of

Liberals are in the camp of "do something, even if its wrong or won't help" all emotion and no rational thought. Look at the "war on poverty" declared by LBJ. We have spent trillions on this war and there is more poverty now than when we began. Liberals never look at the results of their programs and ideas and try something different when it does not work, they just say we need more of the same thing that has failed.

Young Fred
15723
Points
Young Fred 01/01/13 - 10:52 am
4
1
"When today's statists talk

"When today's statists talk about hunting, beware."

Words of wisdom!

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 01/01/13 - 11:53 am
3
1
Who gets to judge Sane Gun Laws?

Owners or those who wish Bans, there lays the problem.
We all know Official Controls & Traceability best serve the future hopes of any Oppressive Government efforts.

Personally
I question any Law that restricts the ownership of a weapon by a person with NO History of Mental Competency issues, and/or NO Criminal record which includes Physical Threats or Physical Harm to others. If you can't control your temper, or can't wait to go shoot a criminal, you shouldn't own a gun my book. I have owned weapons since I was 13 years old and I have only drawn down twice in those 44 years. But I never have had to fire a round into a person yet, to quickly get their undivided attention.

Believe it not, I agree that gun ownership is not for everyone.

But it should not be based on what the GOVERNMENT WANTS. Since it is a GUARANTEE RIGHT in the US Constitutions Bill Of Rights. It cannot be modified by the federal Government, unless the Constitution is tossed out by an Oppressive Federal Government.

Allow the modification of 1 of the 10 US Constitutions Bill Of Rights and you open the door for the other 9. Unless of course you're one of the Very Very Few, that really trust a Government to treat you fairly without a power limiting constitution and a independent Court system, also Guaranteed under the constitution?

Gun Ownership should come with maturity, require only a background check for the absents of crimes of Physical Aggression and documented Mental competency problems that would pose a threat to the public.

But if a person is a dangerous nut job?
That person will not kept from obtaining a weapon by a law they won't obey. They should be in a prison or an insane asylum.

Until Federal Government is out of the Approval picture, the 2 sides may never agree.

Because, if my Federal Government has to approve my right to do something, do I really have a Guaranteed Right?

dichotomy
30351
Points
dichotomy 01/01/13 - 11:15 am
3
1
Look Doc....."We don’t let

Look Doc....."We don’t let NASCAR or Indy cars on the road,"

Bad analogy. We DO allow Ferraris and Mustangs, Chargers, Cameros, etc. on the road that go just as fast as NASCAR cars and nobody needs to go that fast....but we still allow them. Just like we allow military "style" weapons that DO NOT perform like the REAL military weapons. Why, because somebody thinks they need, or maybe they just want, a car that will do 200 mph.....just like some people think they need, or maybe just want, an AR or AK "style" military weapon that resembles a military weapon but IS NOT fully automatic like a REAL military weapon.

And the Constitution did not say we could have a weapon for hunting or self defense. It says "bear ARMS". And when they said "ARMS", that included cannon and other military grade weapons that were perfectly legal for any citizen to own at the time. Our founders had just thrown off one oppressive government and they intended the citizenry to have the tools needed to do it again if it became necessary. That is why the Constitution does NOT say "the right to bear a muzzle loading squirrel gun". The Constitution says "ARMS" and to me that includes whatever ARMS that are technologically available at any given time which an oppressive government might use against it's citizens.

I'll make one concession to you Doc. FIRST, you come up with a system to identify the mentally ill and get them off of the street if they are dangerous, and on meds and supervised if they are "possibly" dangerous. THEN you can use that database in conjuction with our already functioning, required, background check to deny crazy people the right to buy firearms. But that is as far as I am willing to go on my rights to buy a Ferrari and go 200 mph or a semi-automatic military "style" weapon that WILL NOT fire 1000 rounds a minute like the REAL military equivalent that the government, or terrorists, or an invader, or drug cartel, or gang would use against me if push came to shove. Oh....and NONE of them have to ask for a background check or permit to get one.

nofanofobama
6726
Points
nofanofobama 01/01/13 - 11:24 am
6
1
There are approx. 20000 plus

There are approx. 20000 plus gun laws in our country. The 2nd amendment is about a well armed militia not hunting. A militia is a citizens army. No more no less. To have a citizens army you must have guns. That was the intent of the 2nd amendment..it was for protection from foreign and domestic tyranny ..funny how for centuries we have had no need for protection from domestic tyranny..thank God for our forefather insight into the future.

usmcbuckner
42
Points
usmcbuckner 01/01/13 - 11:43 am
6
1
I would also like to add to this discussion

I would also like to add to this discussion by pointing out, for those liberals who are painfully unaware: First, it is completely legal, but for most, prohibitively expensive for a citizen to privately own fully-automatic firearms, explosives and anything else he or she desires. Second, for a properly trained professional, magazine capacity and semi- vs. full- automatic is a mute point. In the hands of those of us who are properly trained, a fully-automatic weapon is only used to "keep their heads down." A single, well placed bullet is much more effective in terms of resource consumption (ammunition is very heavy and it is difficult to carry very much of it), confirmation of kill (it is much easier to determine that you hit them when they weren't already taking cover because you were spraying bullets) and psychological effect (it is much scarier if they realize that you can hit anything you want with no warning). The arguements against full auto and high-capacity magazines is a stupid arguement by uneducated people. Third, people have been killing people since the time of Cane and Able. Firearms are a realatively new invention. If a person is bent on killing someone, no ammount of regulation is going to stop it. Remember: screwdrivers, hammers, wrenches, chainsaws, knives, guns...these are all merely tools. I AM THE WEAPON.

Young Fred
15723
Points
Young Fred 01/01/13 - 11:44 am
4
1
I want a civil war era cannon

I want a civil war era cannon loaded with grapeshot. It will fit well with my backyard décor.

Not sure how my neighbors will take it, they get ticked when my pug poops next to their yard.

Little Lamb
43803
Points
Little Lamb 01/01/13 - 12:01 pm
5
1
Opinion

usmcbuckner posted:

The arguments against full auto and high-capacity magazines are stupid arguments by uneducated people.

Yeah, it's just his opinion, but I happen to agree. Read his whole comment above for context. It's backed by experience and logic.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 01/01/13 - 12:16 pm
4
1
usmcbuckner - Agreeing on many points

Full Auto is covering fire for the advancement of troops, or to stop advancing troops in great numbers.

3 round bursts of a low recoil energy caliber (.22#) are about as
good as it gets for direct combat accuracy.

But if a person is checked out and trained in its use. What is the difference of whether a civilian owns one and is responsible for its security and use?

Note: just over 1 in 3 of all civilian Americas (25-65) has had military training at one time or another. That would include Full Auto training and Basic EOD.

David Parker
7919
Points
David Parker 01/01/13 - 12:23 pm
5
1
At this point, The People are

At this point, The People are being challenged by the USG and nothing short of it. Now would be the appropriate time the Constitution writers were anticipating (dreading), that a standing militia should be organized no? I totin a shottie but I'll stand for the Rights of others to legally own their weapon of choice. I think that is what being American is about and what our founding-fathers had in mind as well.

usmcbuckner
42
Points
usmcbuckner 01/01/13 - 12:30 pm
6
1
OpenCurtain - I am not sure

I am not sure that I completely understood the question: "But if a person is checked out and trained in its use. What is the difference of whether a civilian owns one and is responsible for its security and use?" I am also not sure if that question was directed at me or not. However, if I did not make it very clear before, please allow me to do so now. I fully support private ownership of any and all types of both offensive and defensive systems that are available to the military, given that the point of the 2nd ammendment is that we be able to defend against a tyranical govt. armed with the same. I do believe that proper and constant training is extremely important, however that is WAY outside of the government's mandate to track and/or regulate. That is the responsibility of the owner/operator. Also, security and safety should be paramount in all aspects of one's life, especially when dealing with dangerous tools.

CobaltGeorge
149696
Points
CobaltGeorge 01/01/13 - 12:43 pm
1
2
Back In The Early 90's

as president of Voices for Victims of Violent Crimes, (VVVC) a local 2500+ member organization, we submitted a Bill to our Representative to have it introduce in Congress. Was read, but was turned down.

It was based on the same reasoning as vehicle and fingerprint registration that is now used in the US.

It was recommending that all firearms that are in existence today be required to have a bullet rifling filed in a Federal Data base just like Vehicles and Finger prints. The purpose of this Data would be to allow our Judicial system to solve a lot of crimes easier and faster. Many other purposes were included. An all nation wide announcement of 6 months was given to accomplice this task.

This could be accomplished by county level action, the same as Vehicle and Fingerprint. A location in each county would have a water filled barrel where each bullet would be fingerprinted to a Make, Model, Serial Number, Caliber and Owner.

Sale of a gun to a new owner would be given 3 days to make the change in the date base. At the end of 6 months, any possession of a weapon that was not in a date base and use in a commission of a crime or found on an individual, was an automatic 20 years sentence added to crime committed.
On the day that it was past, all gun manufacturers would have to start submitting a bullet rifling to the federal date base, with the Make, Model, Serial Number and Caliber of the gun that fired it.

Keep in mind, this is a very condense info on that bill.
Yes, it would give the federal government control on all gun owners but not banned ownership by honest, law abiding citizens. I don't believe anybody should have reason to object to this requirement.
Just think, if your gun was stolen and was reported as such, if used in a criminal action then you would be pretty well cleared and the investigator would have a better chance of making an arrest.

Without stating statics, There are more vehicles registered in the US then there are guns. This may even cut down on the number of shootings and murders committed, knowing that there was a trail back to he or she. Acts the same way as the license plate on your vehicle or a fingerprint left at the crime scene.

This would prevent the banning of weapons.

I know I will get flack on this, but after sitting through over 200 murder case, I saw a need for it.

usmcbuckner
42
Points
usmcbuckner 01/01/13 - 12:59 pm
3
0
Cobalt

I don't see that you should receive flak for voicing your opinion, afterall isn't that what all of us are doing?

My only response is that the reason that many states do not register firearms is so that there is no list of owners for the government to use should it decide to take the guns. It is much more dangerous and scary for those attempting to confiscate guns if they do not know whether or not there will be guns in the house, or perhaps at a neighbors who takes it upon himself to protect you and yours.

I believe that something needs to be done, but I do not have a comprehensive solution. In a society as unique, diverse and dynamic as ours, there may not be a real solution. Although, if it were left to me to fix the problem, having seen the statistics from armed and unarmed societies, I would likely remove all firearms restrictions and arm everyone. Afterall, the criminals are going to be armed anyway; they may as well realize that there is a very good chance of the person they choose to victimize and many others around them will be armed, instead of knowing that they can pretty much do as they please because the laws make it difficult or impossible to be "legally" armed.

RMSHEFF
13735
Points
RMSHEFF 01/01/13 - 12:59 pm
4
1
Regulate firearms sanely? Sanity vs Insanity

The writer, Dr Hines condoms the NRA and claims the Wayne LaPierre just wants "more guns". This amounts to "intellectual dishonesty" on the part of Dr Hines. Mr LaPierre's suggestion that having armed and trained individuals in each school may have saved lives and should be considered. This idea is not perfect and would not stop all incidence of gun violence but it is the best idea with a chance of saving lives in the future. I wonder if Mr Hines would suggest that the secret service should not have guns to protect the president or other government officials after all they add more guns to the situation. How long would a president live if he were not protected by men with guns? Good people with guns are the only effective response to bad people with guns. He give examples of situations where armed policeman at Columbine ,Virginia Tech and Fort Hood were not able to change the outcome. I would argue that there were not enough armed "good people" in each example. Law enforcement is generally reactive and not proactive due to their limited numbers and resources. Any criticism of Mr LaPierre's suggestion should be based on the cost of having payed law enforcement at every school. This financial cost could be overcome by training and arming teacher.

Riverman1
79032
Points
Riverman1 01/01/13 - 01:06 pm
6
1
If our forefathers knew about

If our forefathers knew about the attempts of some in government to limit our right to bear arms, they would say, "Ahhhhh, we were right. Be careful, it's beginning."

Back to Top

Top headlines

Election Updates

ATLANTA -- David Perdue squeaked to the lead in the Republican Senate runoff Tuesday over Jack Kingston in one of the most closely watched contests in the country.
Loading...