Got an AK-47, well you know it makes me feel all rightThe United States should change its name to The Nation of Itchy Trigger Fingers. I mean, Weird Al Yankovic nailed our national mindset on guns 20 years ago. And if anything, our national love fest with the pistol, the rifle, the shotgun, the [fill in the blank here], has only gotten more severe.
Got an Uzi by my pillow, helps me sleep a little better at night
There's no feeling any greater
Than to shoot first and ask questions later
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day
Seriously!
From 2001 to 2010, about 270,000 people were shot and killed in the U.S., the Los Angeles Times reported. These numbers include homicides, accidents and suicides. However, according to United Nations data, homicides alone put the U.S. in the same conversation with countries such as Mexico and Colombia.
According to The New York Daily News, The White House says President Barack Obama is "actively supportive" of efforts on Capitol Hill to reinstate an assault weapons ban. Obama has long backed the ban, but has failed to push for it throughout his first term. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has already said she plans to introduce legislation to reinstate the ban early next year.
Given the current post-Newtown mood, I believe there is a pretty strong likelihood Congress will reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, or some semblance thereof. And, of course, there will be a multitude of voices cheering the ban as a "milestone" in the fight against gun-related violence. (According to the same article, Obama would also support legislation to close the gun show "loophole," which allows people to buy guns from private dealers without background checks.)
I'm not a gun rights advocate, nor have I ever claimed to be. But as I see it, this would be a mirage, nothing more than a Band-Aid on a national problem. The AWB didn't work for the decade it was in place, and a 2013 reincarnation won't have any effect, either - at least, not the effect proponents of gun regulation and gun control will be selling.
To fully understand the AWB, we must first analyze the law itself and its implications. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the AWB was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law specifically named 19 different firearms as patently illegal, and specified three or more of the following features present on a single firearm constitutes an assault weapon:
- A folding or telescoping stock;
- A pistol grip;
- A bayonet mount;
- A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle);
- A muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher; and
- A magazine capacity over 10 rounds
Well you can't take my guns away, I got a Constitutional right
Yeah, I gotta be ready if the commies attack us tonight
I'll blow their brains out with my Smith and Wesson
That out to teach 'em all a darn good lesson
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day
Weapons manufactured, imported, or configured in such a manner prior to the passage of the 1994 AWB were "grandfathered" as having a "pre-ban" status. According to my close friend Jon Gold, a staunch supporter of gun rights and a gun safety advocate, "the ban only affected new merchandise created, so what it did was triple the worth of people's collections who already had those items and up the cost of the ones left on the market. No used weapons were affected." More specifically, there was a steady and almost immediate inflation in prices of pre-ban weapons and high capacity magazines, since their now limited availability caused an artificial stratification in price structure.
In addition, there was the introduction of various "post-ban" weapons designed to circumvent the particulars of the law, while providing a similar function or appearance to their pre-ban counterparts. The price of pre-ban weapons skyrocketed in the months prior to the ban and continued to increase slowly but steadily. Manufacturers jacked production of the to-be banned items in order to insure profitable amounts were on hand once the AWB was passed.
"The ban only included weapons that were affordable at the time," Gold said. "The AK47 now costs double what it cost 10 years ago. The MAC 10, weapons that poor people could afford, were banned; for instance, the Chinese AK was banned but not the Russian one. The Russian one cost $1,200. The Chinese version at the time was $499. All the ban did was assure that rich and connected people could have what they want, but the regular citizen was kept at a minimum.
"The ban was a joke because it was useless," Gold said.
Regardless of one's position on gun control, by the time its sunset provision kicked into gear in 2004, it was evident the AWB did nothing to curb violent crime. In fact, according to a U.S. Department of Justice study, there is no data to support the notion that reinstating an AWB will prevent further tragedies. Indeed, in many ways it was a solution to a non-existent problem. The ban did not help eliminate crime. It did not get weapons currently on the open market out of the hands of any criminals. Nor did it even target the types of firearms most commonly favored by miscreants and lowlifes. In a study done by the Florida Assault Weapons Commission, it was found that between 1986 and 1989 assault weapons were used in only 17 (or 0.23%) of the 7,500 gun crimes committed.
But the arguments are not quite as clear-cut as the position pushers would have you believe. According to an article in today's Israel Today, "There may be some exceptions in dangerous areas like the West Bank (where five percent of Israelis live), but in general, Israeli teachers are not walking around like it’s the Wild Wild West, strapped with a six shooter," writer Ron Cantor says. He points out in most cases it is an armed guard or a soldier that will accompany a class, not the teacher. Further, he adds, the soldiers or armed guards are not armed in the actual classroom. ("Is that really the image you want to imprint on the minds of six-year-olds?" he asks.)
And, Cantor adds, "Despite the stereotype of Israel being a violent nation, it is a million times (slight exaggeration) easier to get a weapon in the U.S. than in Israel. Gun control laws are very strict here. Two types of people have guns in Israel: soldiers and those with licenses. Mentally unstable people don’t have guns - and thus, don’t shoot people. And it is not as easy to steal a gun as it is in the U.S. When you are drafted, you go through mental tests to see if there are any red flags. If so, you will be discharged or placed in an area where you would never see a rifle."
So much for that analogy.
Maybe.
According to a May 2012 poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:
In addition, Newsweek/The Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky argues the right to bear arms can and should be regulated by the states - not by the federal government via the 2nd Amendment.
"Congress should tell states, in the wake of this surely worse epidemic of gun violence, that they must put some substance into the phrase 'well-regulated militia'," Tomasky says. "They must define 'well-regulated militia' to include not only the National Guard, but all legally registered gun-owners in the state. If they fail to do so, and in line with the precedent set by the drinking-age act, they risk losing 10 percent of their federal law-enforcement funding."There is some precedence to this, he argues. "In the early 1980s, America was up in arms about drunk driving. After much debate and hand wringing about what to do, the focus was narrowed down to younger motorists, who tended, sure enough, to be the more irresponsible drivers. So Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which told states where the legal drinking age varied: you must raise the drinking age in your state to 21 by such-and-such a date. And if you don’t, the federal government is going to dock you 10 percent of your highway money.
"Threatening financial penalties should make states get in line pretty fast," Tomasky says. "They’ll all comply, as they did in the 1980s. What governor is going to want to be responsible for losing 10 percent of his law-enforcement money? Of course they will comply to varying degrees. Alabama will make very few requirements of these new militia members, while northern states - surely Connecticut itself, among others - will issue more stringent requirements. And over time, we’ll see results."
It's an interesting concept.
In addition, there was the introduction of various "post-ban" weapons designed to circumvent the particulars of the law, while providing a similar function or appearance to their pre-ban counterparts. The price of pre-ban weapons skyrocketed in the months prior to the ban and continued to increase slowly but steadily. Manufacturers jacked production of the to-be banned items in order to insure profitable amounts were on hand once the AWB was passed.
"The ban only included weapons that were affordable at the time," Gold said. "The AK47 now costs double what it cost 10 years ago. The MAC 10, weapons that poor people could afford, were banned; for instance, the Chinese AK was banned but not the Russian one. The Russian one cost $1,200. The Chinese version at the time was $499. All the ban did was assure that rich and connected people could have what they want, but the regular citizen was kept at a minimum.
"The ban was a joke because it was useless," Gold said.
Regardless of one's position on gun control, by the time its sunset provision kicked into gear in 2004, it was evident the AWB did nothing to curb violent crime. In fact, according to a U.S. Department of Justice study, there is no data to support the notion that reinstating an AWB will prevent further tragedies. Indeed, in many ways it was a solution to a non-existent problem. The ban did not help eliminate crime. It did not get weapons currently on the open market out of the hands of any criminals. Nor did it even target the types of firearms most commonly favored by miscreants and lowlifes. In a study done by the Florida Assault Weapons Commission, it was found that between 1986 and 1989 assault weapons were used in only 17 (or 0.23%) of the 7,500 gun crimes committed.
Oh, I accidentally shot Daddy last night in the denThen there's the push by multiple lawmakers in various states to arm teachers in the classroom. If there was any proof needed that politicians have no clue how education works, this may be that moment - even though there has been plenty of other high-profile examples (just mention "standardized tests" and "merit pay" to an educator, you'll get an immediate response on the topic).
I mistook him in the dark for a drug-crazed Nazi again
Now why'd you have to get so mad
It's just a lousy flesh wound, Dad
You know I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day
The logic is pretty simple, according to Oregon State Rep. Dennis Richardson: "If I had been a teacher or the principal at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and if the school district did not preclude me from having access to a firearm, either by concealed carry or locked in my desk, most of the murdered children would still be alive, and the gunman would still be dead, and not by suicide." And Florida State Rep. Dennis Baxley added, "In our zealousness to protect people from harm we've created all these gun-free zones, and what we've inadvertently done is we've made them a target. A helpless target is exactly what a deranged person is looking for where they cannot be stopped."
Well, that sounds somewhat logical on paper. I guess. But the "real world" of education isn't quite that simple (not that anything in any other "real world" qualifies, either). First of all, educators are supposed to ... oh ... educate the students under their watch. Yes, we are supposed to protect them from various evils (breaking up fights, reporting child abuse, preventing sexual harassment, keeping an eye for drug or alcohol usage, etc.). But brandishing a firearm is ... disturbing. At Wellington High School, allowing teachers to have a weapon on campus would mean potentially 200 or more guns locked and loaded.
But arming a militia of teachers may only serve to give students and faculty a false sense of protection. Furthermore, it may actually be counterproductive toward instilling an atmosphere of learning, respect and safety, all of which are vital for education. I mean, on the hypothetical bright side, it may increase good behavior among students, though this good behavior would be more out of fear than respect for the rules. But rather than feeling safe and protected, the idea of armed teachers and staff has the potential to be, at the least, strongly disconcerting to the average student, and at worst downright terrifying.
Additionally, we should consider whether society really wants armed individuals teaching our students. What if an armed teacher becomes unhinged? (Teaching is a pretty stressful job already, ya know.) With the background checks for legally obtaining firearms being widely criticized for being too easy, it stands to reason that it is a bad idea to allow teachers to carry guns.
Well, that sounds somewhat logical on paper. I guess. But the "real world" of education isn't quite that simple (not that anything in any other "real world" qualifies, either). First of all, educators are supposed to ... oh ... educate the students under their watch. Yes, we are supposed to protect them from various evils (breaking up fights, reporting child abuse, preventing sexual harassment, keeping an eye for drug or alcohol usage, etc.). But brandishing a firearm is ... disturbing. At Wellington High School, allowing teachers to have a weapon on campus would mean potentially 200 or more guns locked and loaded.
But arming a militia of teachers may only serve to give students and faculty a false sense of protection. Furthermore, it may actually be counterproductive toward instilling an atmosphere of learning, respect and safety, all of which are vital for education. I mean, on the hypothetical bright side, it may increase good behavior among students, though this good behavior would be more out of fear than respect for the rules. But rather than feeling safe and protected, the idea of armed teachers and staff has the potential to be, at the least, strongly disconcerting to the average student, and at worst downright terrifying.
Additionally, we should consider whether society really wants armed individuals teaching our students. What if an armed teacher becomes unhinged? (Teaching is a pretty stressful job already, ya know.) With the background checks for legally obtaining firearms being widely criticized for being too easy, it stands to reason that it is a bad idea to allow teachers to carry guns.
Oh, I still haven't figured out the safety on my rifle yetSome have pointed at Israel as an example. "Hey, they are always facing danger! It's a small country surrounded by terrorists bent on wrongdoing! They need to have guns in the classroom!"
Little Fluffy took a round, better take him to the vet
I filled that kitty cat so full of lead
We'll have to use him for a pencil instead
Well, I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day
But the arguments are not quite as clear-cut as the position pushers would have you believe. According to an article in today's Israel Today, "There may be some exceptions in dangerous areas like the West Bank (where five percent of Israelis live), but in general, Israeli teachers are not walking around like it’s the Wild Wild West, strapped with a six shooter," writer Ron Cantor says. He points out in most cases it is an armed guard or a soldier that will accompany a class, not the teacher. Further, he adds, the soldiers or armed guards are not armed in the actual classroom. ("Is that really the image you want to imprint on the minds of six-year-olds?" he asks.)
And, Cantor adds, "Despite the stereotype of Israel being a violent nation, it is a million times (slight exaggeration) easier to get a weapon in the U.S. than in Israel. Gun control laws are very strict here. Two types of people have guns in Israel: soldiers and those with licenses. Mentally unstable people don’t have guns - and thus, don’t shoot people. And it is not as easy to steal a gun as it is in the U.S. When you are drafted, you go through mental tests to see if there are any red flags. If so, you will be discharged or placed in an area where you would never see a rifle."
So much for that analogy.
Come on and grab your ammoBut the recent, seemingly regular, massive shedding of blood has gun control advocates chomping at the bit. Is there something that can be done to effectively curtail the violence, the presence of a variety of firearms, in the U.S.?
What have you got to lose?
We'll all get liquored up
And shoot at anything that moves
Maybe.
According to a May 2012 poll conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as “gun control.” These include:
- Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees;
- Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns;
- Mandating gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen;
- Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older; and
- Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. (The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.)
In addition, Newsweek/The Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky argues the right to bear arms can and should be regulated by the states - not by the federal government via the 2nd Amendment.
"Congress should tell states, in the wake of this surely worse epidemic of gun violence, that they must put some substance into the phrase 'well-regulated militia'," Tomasky says. "They must define 'well-regulated militia' to include not only the National Guard, but all legally registered gun-owners in the state. If they fail to do so, and in line with the precedent set by the drinking-age act, they risk losing 10 percent of their federal law-enforcement funding."There is some precedence to this, he argues. "In the early 1980s, America was up in arms about drunk driving. After much debate and hand wringing about what to do, the focus was narrowed down to younger motorists, who tended, sure enough, to be the more irresponsible drivers. So Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which told states where the legal drinking age varied: you must raise the drinking age in your state to 21 by such-and-such a date. And if you don’t, the federal government is going to dock you 10 percent of your highway money.
"Threatening financial penalties should make states get in line pretty fast," Tomasky says. "They’ll all comply, as they did in the 1980s. What governor is going to want to be responsible for losing 10 percent of his law-enforcement money? Of course they will comply to varying degrees. Alabama will make very few requirements of these new militia members, while northern states - surely Connecticut itself, among others - will issue more stringent requirements. And over time, we’ll see results."
It's an interesting concept.
Got a brand new semi-automatic weapon with a laser sightCan there be change? Will there be change? More specifically, will there be meaningful change - the type that both appeases the gun rights advocates and those who want to prevent the seemingly random acts of violence that result in anywhere from one murder to a massacre? I think the answers are ... (1) definitely ... (2) yes. ... and (3) maybe. The key part is developing and accepting a philosophical adjustment that our national culture can both buy into and implement. Gun control is one of those "hot button" topics that eludes a ton of emotion, emotion that can (and often does) override logic. But recent events, culminating (well, hopefully culminating) with last Friday's mass killing, have called for an adjustment in the United States' citizenry's social contract. Time to see what the actual result of this ideological shift leads to ... for our individual and collective future.
Oh, I'm prayin' somebody tries to break in here tonight
I alwaays keep a Magnum in my trunk
You better ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?
Because I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day
Oh yeah, I'm trigger, trigger happy
Yes, I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh baby, I'm) trigger, trigger happy
Yes, I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh, I'm so) trigger, trigger happy
Yes, I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have
To blow you away
Came over from EdWeek. Interesting perspective, but I'm curious on a couple of points.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the ideas listed in the poll. The NRA shouldn't have any issue either. Not sure what background checks for the gun store owners do, but what the hell.
Are you making the same mistake that most do re: arming teachers? I don't think anyone wants open carry in class. I'm fairly certain that those of us who want it are perfectly fine with strict restrictions being put on who and how. I don't know if you read the article I posted, but I think it's a fairly good plan.
The gun show loophole is a media fallacy. Dealers at gun shows are still required to do a background check. Private parties carrying a gun around with a 'for sale' sign in the barrel are not. Sales between private parties are not subject to the background check, primarily because there is no access to instacheck for private individuals. You could make it mandatory, but how? Requiring dealers to do it for them? Then you open them up for legal responsibility.
I just believe that we should be given the ability to defend our students. We need to change the culture in this country, but that's going to take a long time. We still have broken people in this world who want to do these things.
As a teacher and a gun permit holder, I would be willing to do whatever training is necessary to concealed carry at school. My students are my children and my responsibility. If there is a choice between them getting hurt or hurting a bad guy, the bad guy better look out. Most teachers are extremely protective of their students. In a staff meeting, one teacher asked if using scissors to defend the students was acceptable. Really? Scissors against a gun? Not a great choice but better than nothing. As far as banning guns and tighter laws, since when did criminals follow laws?
ReplyDelete