Virginia Tech Carnage

I'm still sorting out all of my feelings on the Virginia Tech massacre. I haven't really addressed it here because everyone is covering it, and I have an almost compulsory tendency to buck the trend. However, after three full days of coverage and viewpoints from all sides on talk radio, I have a few points to make and several facts to share with you:

First up, where do I fit into this discussion. I'm not sure myself, but here's the bio - I'm a progressive Democrat, and a gun owner. My view is that gun ownership is NOT a constitutional right (Read the ENTIRE second amendment), but rather a privilege afforded to us, much like a driver's license. I believe you have the right to own handguns, hunting rifles, etc. if you pass a background check and have no obvious red flags that would preclude your safe ownership of a firearm. I further believe that a gun safety/training program should be mandated as a condition of being granted a permit to own and/or carry a firearm. I also believe that a "waiting period" or "cooling off period" is probably a good idea; it prevents "crimes of passion".

I feel that this should not be one of those "state's rights" issues that conservatives love to tout as the answer to all that is evil with government. Allowing the individual states to enact and administer their own gun laws has been, in my opinion, disastrous. Every state has a different mindset on gun laws, from extremely liberal (Like Virginia) to very strict (New York). Don't like the gun laws in your state? Were you deemed an unsafe person to own a handgun? Just drive to another state where there are few or no restrictions, and circumvent your state's laws. This obviously does not serve the public interest and safety.

Gun legislation should be uniform, common-sense, and uniform in every state. Therefore it should be a federally mandated issue, with all gun owners subject to the same standards and scrutiny whatever their state of residency. Law enforcement already shares a ton of information across state lines and agencies, why not share a common database for background check information, and administer it federally? We already have a department of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and a federal bureau of investigation. Put these people in charge of this and bring some standard oversight to who should or shouldn't be trusted with a gun.

Let's say that the above scenario is already in place, what sort of restrictions should be in place? I really don't have a problem with hunting rifles and shotguns. I am not a hunter; I would likely have trouble pulling the trigger if an innocent animal were centered in my sights. But I am also a carnivore, and as such, realize where my steak comes from. And my turkey, and chicken, and venison. And I couldn't care less if you like to hunt, as long as it's for sport and you eat the animal or use it's hide. If you're killing just to kill, I have a problem.

I also understand and agree with your right to carry a concealed handgun for personal protection, as long as you pass a background check, pass a safety course, and are found to be mentally sound enough to responsibly do so. If you wish to choose a semi-automatic pistol, that should be your choice. But I see absolutely no reason for extended clips for these guns, nor any good reason for full automatic weapons. These are military weapons that cannot be justified for personal use. Are you defending yourself from an attacking herd of deer?

Let's say that America has been invaded (unlikely), and foreign troops are in our streets. Are you going to go all "Rambo" and burst out of your house to eliminate them all at once? Right. . .they'll mow you down before you get half of them. But a nation of law-abiding citizens, a well-armed militia if you will, would follow the example set by our revolutionary forefathers - we'd hide in the shadows and pick them off one at a time with our sidearms and rifles as we silently text'd each other with our successes and plans. At least that's my view of the spirit of America. . .

That's my rant on the issue, and a clarification of my views. My hardware? I own two rifles, a Winchester .22 and a 120 year-old musket, both family heirlooms. And two pistols, a S&M.44 mag - long barrel, and a Walther PPK 9mm. I don't carry anymore; although I once did due to my work. I keep all but the Walther under lock and key, as I have small children. And I keep it and my clips separated, but close. I refuse to keep a loaded gun at the ready; I love my kids too much, and kids tend to find things which you think are hidden.

I'll finish up with a few facts that I have heard over the last few days that took me by surprise:

- There are roughly 30,000 deaths from firearms in the U.S. every year; 18,000 are from suicides. You're depressed, you have a gun, easy out. You're depressed. don't have a gun, you probably won't stab yourself to death.

- The chances that a handgun kept in the home will be used against it's owner by a perp, 9 out of 10. An invader will be on full sensory alert; will YOU when awakened by his presence, have time to react?

- A caller to a talk radio program that I listen to claimed that you have a three-second window to respond to an attacker if you are carrying. Do you think that fast in a critical situation? Does your "fight or flight" reaction allow such a rapid response?

Some of these points may cause me to rethink my former views on this subject. The best deterrents to invasion of your home seem to be lots of lights, a lack of obstructions (shrubs, etc) for a perp to hide behind, a dog (real or audio), and a good alarm system. I won't tell you which ones I currently use, but, good luck!