With more than 10 million assault rifles — and many more handguns — owned by U.S. gun fanciers, meaningful gun control would be a bear to bring about.
But, that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and not try. First, though, let’s consider a few things.
Our circumstances often are compared, by those wanting to clamp down on guns, to Australia, where significant gun control came about after a horrific mass killing similar to those that have occurred here.
There are differences: the number of guns in private hands and the U.S. Constitution. Both present immense obstacles to gun control.
Well over 300 million guns are stashed away in homes and businesses and goodness knows where else in the United States; Australia, with a population of 25 million, had far fewer guns when controls came about.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures private ownership of firearms — “to keep and bear arms” — and if you think gun control per se is a tough nut to crack, try changing that, as some have proposed.
Another consideration is the preponderance of those who favor gun control live on either coast or in metropolitan areas. Each state is accorded two senators. With half or more of the senior body representing rural interests, the math tells us gun ownership is a foregone conclusion.
A good case may be made to require taking assault rifles out of the equation — AR-15s, and a gazillion knockoffs. Those already in private hands, however, would be next to impossible to recover; i.e. the “… pry my gun from my cold, dead hands” NRA slogan. And, if a ban seemed likely, a run on gun shops would add to the number; such as happened when Rep. Gabby Giffords and 18 others were shot in the parking lot of a Tucson grocery in 2011.
The vast majority of such weapons are owned by good honest folks who like sport shooting with the rapid-fire semi-automatics. Availability and popularity, however, don’t mitigate what can occur when some deranged person, such as the one in Las Vegas, decides to make a crowded venue a killing field.
WHAT CAN be done?
First, make weapons of obvious mass destruction more difficult to acquire. Ramp up background check requirements and if someone seems suspicious, throw up hurdles to delay purchase. Felons already are exempted from ownership of many weapons. Misdemeanor crimes of one nature or another should be added to the list as should those guilty of domestic violence.
If a buyer has nothing to hide then why should he or she complain about measures that make gun ownership safer for all?
The Las Vegas shooter gave no overt indication he was about to spin out of control, but the fact he acquired a large number of guns and ammunition in a short time period could have — should have — given those who check purchase applications pause.
With more stringent controls on purchase records, an analyst could have been prompted to ask questions. Of course, if that were to occur, an extensive data base would have to be in place, which apparently isn’t today.
Occasionally those dwelling on the far right mention a vehicle could be — and has been — used as a weapon. So, they say, the similarities would indicate vehicle owners and drivers should be treated with more restraint.
They are. If you own a vehicle, you have to register it by state regulations and you must purchase insurance to protect others, as well as yourself. To drive, you have to have a license, which is renewed every few years, with tests to show you’re capable of safely operating a vehicle.
Perhaps the same should be required of gun owners, particularly those who keep an arsenal of weapons designed specifically to kill people.
We aren’t losing any freedoms by making our country more safe.
— Bob Johnson
