Real "Common Sense" Gun Control that actually addresses Gun Violence

I am proud to be a responsible law abiding gun owner. I grew up on a farm in Central Missouri and have been around guns my entire life. It is safe to say that I own more than one firearm. Someone recently inquired, “Why do you need to have a gun collection?” My response is that in just about every hobby, I have never heard of someone having just “one”. Have you ever heard of a golfer playing 18 holes with just one club? Have you known a fisherman that only has one fishing pole? My serious musically talented friends don't have just one guitar or just one drum set.

For me, gun ownership is a personal choice. It is not for everyone. For me, a person has just as much of right to choose not to own a gun as I do to choose to own one. If you are a non-gun owner, that is fine. That is your choice and I will not judge you for making that choice. I expect the same consideration.

We do have a 2^nd Amendment Right in this country that simply states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The 2^nd Amendment is the 2^nd of the first 10 Amendments that are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. For the purposes of this blog post, I am not going to debate the break down of the text.

I saw today where a commentator on TV tried to argue that the 2^nd Amendment only applied to muskets and State-sponsored Militias. I can only shake my head at such an idiotic statement. To follow that logic, you would then have to make a similar argument that the 1^st Amendment only applied to speech written on manual printing presses and or speech written with a Feather Pen and Inkwell. Idiotic.

No Gun Owner cheers when there is a Breaking News Alert of a Mass Shooting or another occurrence of Gun Violence. When it happens, I immediately say a quick prayer for the victims and their families. Such incidences are heartbreaking. We do need to find ways to reduce Gun Violence. Both sides agree on that. However, that is also the juncture where we then disagree. In this post, I will identify my objections to the current “common sense gun control” talking points and offer my own suggestions on ways that we can really address Gun Violence.

Many say that we have a mental health issue. And for the 60+% of gun-related deaths annually that are suicides, I definitely agree with that. However for the remaining gun-related deaths, I believe that the bigger issue is that we also have a culture issue. Our inner cities have an out of control gang culture. People today do not respect the value of life. Guns have been glorified in our movies, TV, video games, etc. even more so than when I was growing up. When I grew up if you were getting into a fight with someone, there was this unwritten code that you didn't bring anything to a fight that you would want used on you. Therefore you didn't see a lot of fights with knives or guns being involved. Nowadays it feels like all you have to do is yell at someone, and you risk them whipping out a gun and shooting you. We could argue all day long about the merits of religion, but we do need to bring morality back into our society. When I was a kid the Golden Rule was ingrained into my head. “"Do to others what you want them to do to you.” But that can be a separate post another day.

I have already stated that I own guns. I love going to the range and shooting on a regular basis. I also like to go to my hunting land and shoot at targets there as well. My friends and I refer to it as “Hot Lead Therapy”. I have shot Thousands of rounds of ammunition. I can stand here today and honestly say that not a single of one of my guns has EVER been pointed at another human being. They never will be unless that person means me or my family harm. At that point, I have a god-given right to defend myself and my family. With that said, I pray that I am never faced with that situation. I pray that when my time is up on this Earth, that I will still be able to proudly say that I never had to point a gun at another human being.

Groups like Everytown, Moms Demand Action, and other Gun Control Advocacy Groups push for what they call Gun Control to address Gun Violence. President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton love to use the term, “Common Sense Gun Control”. They push for the banning of Sporting Rifles that resemble Military Assault Rifles and call them as such. Mr Bloomberg and his sponsored organizations want the general public to believe that because of the NRA, the average citizen can walk into Cabelas or the local Gun Store and buy a fully-automatic machine gun. This could not be further from the truth. This is an absolute fabrication and misrepresentation. The fact is that it has been illegal for the general public to purchase fully-automatic machine guns since 1934. Yes, you can apply for a license with the federal government. It is expensive and you have to go through an extensive background check. The ATF keeps a very watchful eye on the individuals that are granted this license. It is very cumbersome and very few people go through this process. Don't believe me? Walk into Cabelas or your local gun store and tell them that you would like to buy a fully-automatic machine gun. They will laugh at you.

So what is being pushed as “Common Sense Gun Control?”

1. Universal Background Checks on all private firearm sales. - The Anti-Gun groups promote this idea of a “Gun Show Loophole”. They want you to believe that criminals can walk into a gun show, buy a gun from a vendor and bypass the Background Check process. This too is false. I enjoy going to gun shows in Missouri/Kansas. If you have never been, I encourage you to go see for yourself. There is a laptop at every table with guns. You can't buy a gun at these tables without going through a background check. Now Private Sales between two private individuals can be conducted without a background check. But even doing that is subject to several conditions to be a legal transaction. #1 it HAS to be in person. No matter what the Anti-Gun folks say, you cannot legally sell a gun over the Internet and blindly ship it to the buyer. If you can't make the exchange in person, then you MUST go through a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) who will conduct a background check. #2, both individuals must reside in the same state. I live in Kansas City, Missouri. If I want to sell a gun to my best friend who lives in Kansas City, Kansas, the sale must go through a FFL. #3, The buyer must affirm that he is legally eligible to purchase a firearm. It is illegal to sell a gun to a minor or someone that you know is a felon or a drug addict.
2. Outlaw Internet Gun Sales – Again you can't legally buy a gun on the Internet and have it directly shipped to you. If I want to buy a gun from a store in Ohio, they will ship the gun to an FFL in my home state where I have to physically go to that FFL and go through a background check before I am allowed to take possession. Now, I (as a private seller) could post on Facebook that I have a gun for sale. But again the conditions above apply. If I don't follow those conditions then I have broken the law.
3. Ban “Assault Weapons” and “High Capacity Clips” - Again, you can't buy fully-automatic machine guns. Semi-Automatic guns still only shoot one bullet per trigger pull. The very popular AR-15 Sporting Rifle is a Semi-Automatic firearm. It only shoots one bullet per trigger pull. A Deer Hunting Rifle shoots a much higher power ammunition than an AR-15. Military Veterans joke that an AR-15 goes “pew pew pew” as opposed to “pow pow pow”.  Still don't believe me that an AR-15 is NOT the same as an M-16?  Go to a Military base and ask a soldier which one they would rather go into battle with. Nevertheless, here we go back to the 2^nd Amendment. We have a right to bear arms. Period. But in terms of gun violence. The FBI has repeatedly stated that AR-15's are rarely used in the commission of crime and gun violence. Like less than 2%.  In fact, according to the FBI, in 2011 more people were murdered by clubs, knives, and hammers than all rifles combined.  In reports the FBI has stated that a ban on AR-15's will have minimal affect on Gun Violence and crime.  Yet these "assault rifles" are the guns that the Gun Control folks target the most. Why?
4. Expansion of the NCIS Database used by the FBI for Background Checks – At first blush this sounds like an area that we should be able to agree upon. However, this does open a can of worms. The current administration wants the Social Security Administration to report Seniors who receive their benefits through a third party (this could even be a relative). Now I agree that if a Senior Citizen is of a mental capacity that they are forced to live in an assisted living facility or nursing home because they absolutely can't take care of themselves, then most likely they don't need to purchase a firearm. But do you honestly believe that people in that situation are climbing into a cab and going to Cabelas to purchase a gun? Seriously? How many murders occur annually by a nursing home resident? The current administration want the Veterans Administration to do a similar thing with Veterans. This is an organization who can't even manage the medical services that our Veterans need. As for mental illness, yes we all agree that those that are mentally ill should not have a gun. But who defines what classes as a mental illness and the severity? It was just a few years ago that homosexuality was defined as a mental illness/defect. But also what if a therapist or psychiatrist is an extreme anti-gun person and excessively reports all patients that come to see him? Will this not cause people to not seek the treatment that they need for even minor issues? That seems to go against everything we want as a society.
5. The addition of the Terror List to the NCIS Database – The current Administration also argues that if we have a terror list of individuals that we don't allow to fly on a plane, then we shouldn't let them buy guns. Again, seems logical. However during Senate hearings officials could not explain the criteria of how individuals are added to the Terror List. Furthermore, there is no clear process how an individual can appeal to get their name removed from this list. Ted Kennedy had problems because his name was on the Terror List. It took many months to get it resolved (I believe 18 months). A number of examples have been shared on the internet of people sharing similar names of individuals that are on the Terror list or have been erroneously added and have been unable to fly. There is no example where a citizen can lose one of their other rights without due process (aka their day in court). What safe guards are there that an overzealous administration couldn't secretly add a large segment of the population to this list? What if the government decided that all individuals that post pro-gun statements on Facebook are deemed as home-grown terrorists? Again that is extreme, but not impossible as we move more and more into the digital age?
6. End the “Charleston Loophole” - This relates to the time frame that the FBI has to conduct an NCIS background check. If the FBI does not deny the purchase within 3-business days, then the gun store is allowed to process the gun sale if they choose. Unfortunately, the Anti-Gun folks want the general public to believe that the background check process stops there. In reality, the FBI can continue to process the background check and if after the 3-business day period it is determined that the sale should be denied, then the FFL is contacted and the local law enforcement will go retrieve the firearm if it had been sold.  This 3-business day period was put in to force the FBI to process these background checks in a timely manner.  Without it, it would be very easy for the government to slow down background checks to a crawl, effectively making purchases impossible.

Don't believe anything that I am saying here? Review the information from the FBI here:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

No background check process is going to be flawless. Humans are involved and therefore there will be mistakes made. However there must be a process to appeal to have mistakes resolved. Earlier this year, the FBI reported that there was a backlog of appeals relating to gun purchases that were denied. They also reported that they were putting a moratorium on the processing of these appeals due to a lack of resources. This is effectively denying those citizens from their constitutional right.  I can provide the link to the news article if you don't believe me.

My issue with these “Common Sense Gun Control” proposals is that they do nothing to address criminals getting guns. All they do is restrict the ability of responsible law-abiding citizens from purchasing and owning guns. The University of Chicago did a study in Chicago of criminals that used guns in crimes. (https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/page/guns) The vast majority of criminals do not buy their guns in gun stores, or gun shows.  They avoid the entire background process. They don't buy AR-15's because they are difficult to conceal. Cities like Chicago have some of the strictest gun control laws and yet their murder rates are out of control. Criminals buy their guns on the streets illegally. They get their guns from friends or relatives.

When I talk to supporters of the above ideas, their arguments usually break down to the proverbial “well if we can just save one life it is well worth it!” I am on mailing lists where examples of law-abiding citizens were able to defend themselves from criminals every day.  Don't their lives matter too? If your new law saves one life but in turn causes the death of 5 other innocent people, did you really accomplish your goal? Or simply make one stat look better at the expense of another? To me the argument of “saving just one life” is ridiculous in this case.

So what kinds of actions can we as a society take that really does reduce gun violence? Here are a few suggestions:

1. No media attention to the shooter involved in a mass shooting – Just like how the media as a whole has agreed to not identify the victim of a sexual assault, molestation, or rape, the media should all agree to to not identify the shooter involved in a mass shooting. Several Psychiatrists have stated publicly that most mass shootings would not happen if the shooter did not receive any public notoriety from their actions. Just say “the shooter”... plain and simple. No more flashing their picture on the TV endlessly for days, no hours on end coverage of their background. Stop making their name a household name. Me personally, I would use the terms “Coward” or “Low life” but that may not be the most politically correct thing to do.
2. Enforce and Increase the punishment for Straw Purchases – A straw purchase is when an individual goes to a gun store and knowingly purchases a gun that they in turn plan to give or sell to someone that can not pass the NCIS background check. This is already illegal. (see https://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/strawPurchase.pdf) The Columbine shooters bought their guns with the help of a friend. The San Berdino shooters bought their guns through a friend. In Omaha, Nebraska a felon shot and killed a police officer with a gun that a girlfriend bought for him. There was a guy in Milwaukee who purchased 30+ guns and put them out on the street. In all of these cases (with the exception of the guy in San Berdino who is facing other charges), the straw purchaser got a slap on the wrist. If memory serves correctly they all got probation. This needs to stop!! What good is having a background check if you don't punish the people bypassing it. Increase the penalties. In fact I would suggest that Congress pass a law that says that if you make a straw purchase for someone and that person commits a crime with that gun, then you are subject to the same punishment as that person receives or would have received (in the case where the shooter was killed). If this was enacted and enforced... such purchases would greatly be reduced.
3. Increase the punishment for guns being used in a crime. - If a crime is committed with the use of a gun, then a mandatory extension of prison time is automatically enforced. Some states already do this but I say increase it. And if a criminal kills someone in the case of murder or in the commission of another crime... automatic death penalty. Period. I don't care if the criminal claims that the gun accidentally went off. They made the choice to bring a gun to the crime. If they had chosen differently... that victim would more than likely be alive. Also some criminals are now buying Air guns at places like Wal-Mart thinking that they can accomplish the same thing but avoid any firearm punishment increases. If you bring a gun (real or not) to a crime and your victim has reason to believe that it is real, then the increases are automatic.  I know that in some jurisdictions this is already the case, but I would make it nation-wide.
4. When not at home guns MUST be locked up. - This one will get some resistance but hear me out. There is a saying, “with great power. comes great responsibility”. When a gun owner is not at home, he can not effectively control the firearm. Therefore it should be required that a gun owner must make a reasonable attempt to secure that firearm. This can be with trigger locks, storage in a safe or lockable gun cabinet, or in a locked gun case. The argument against this will relate to home defense. This is why I say “when the gun owner is not at home.” If the gun owner is home, then this requirement is lifted because the gun owner is able to control the access and use of the firearm. As for the definition of the term “gun owner”... the gun owner is anyone over the age of 18 (for rifles) / 21 (for handguns). An immediate family member that has gone through a Hunter/Gun Safety course of any age over 10 is also qualified. Again this is to enable a person to defend their home. The bottom line is that guns should not be left unsecured when no one is home. This will cut down on the number of guns that are stolen during burglaries and reach criminals.
5. If you sell a gun without going through a FFL (ie background check), and that gun is used in a crime, then you are subject to a crime and punishment. - Basically, this doesn't stop private gun sales but it does cause one to evaluate their legal risk for selling a gun privately. If you go through an FFL and the buyer passes the background check then you have documented proof to end your liability for that firearm. However, if you decide to give/sell a gun to your buddy or cousin and he then uses it in a crime.. then you are subject to related criminal charges. The one exception here is the exchange of a gun among immediate family members. If you loan a firearm to a buddy and they then commit a crime then you are criminally liable for the crime committed. The argument “I didn't know he intended to kill that person or rob that bank.” is not a defense.  The goal here is to discourage private gun sales, but at the same time accommodate the transfer of firearms between generations in a family setting.
6. Keep guns from small children. - I hate hearing in the news of a child finding an armed gun and accidentally killing themselves or another child. When small children come to visit my home, my firearms are locked up and far away from where those children can get to them. If a child finds and handles your unsecured loaded weapon, then you should be charged aggressively with child endangerment. Period. The ONLY exception would be if that child has passed a State-endorsed Hunter/Gun Safety Course and is at least 12 years old. As for the “home defense” argument, keep the firearm on you or in your control.
7. Limit access for Mentally Ill. - Again this is a very slippery slope. It is already illegal for individuals that have been involuntary incarcerated in a mental institution from buying guns. States do need to do a better job of getting this information into the database and should be held accountable to make this happen. I would limit individuals that have been diagnosed with illnesses of schizophrenia and other violent illnesses. While depression seems like a common sense one, short of someone being suicidal, most psychiatrists agree there are various levels of depression and most levels are not violent natured. I do agree with the option that a family member can go to a judge and argue that a relative is not of sound mind and thus should be barred from access to firearms. This allows due process and gives the person an opportunity to defend himself against losing his ownership to firearms.

There are 7 examples of ways that directly address gun violence. These would have an immediate positive affect in reducing Gun Violence and gun-related crimes. And yet not a single one limits or denies a responsible law-abiding citizen for exercising his 2^nd amendment right.

I truly believe that while the Gun Control folks pay “lip service” and say “we just want to reduce gun violence and these are common sense measures that we can take. We respect the 2^nd Amendment.”, their true intent is to disarm the American people. When you get into a dialog with Gun Control folks it almost always reverts to “Well I don't understand why you need a gun.” Just this week a woman on the Democrat Party Platform committee publicly stated that she does not understand why anyone needs to own a gun. The current administration has signed a UN Small Arms Treaty that goes against our 2^nd Amendment. Both President Obama and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton have stated that we should look at similar gun bans as those in the UK and Australia.

If you really want to see the mindset of these Gun Control Supporters, just go on to Facebook and go to their pages.  Casually read through the comments of every post.  These people absolutely detest guns and think that gun owners are the lowest life form on the planet.  They aren't going to stop at implementing a few "commonsense steps"... these people want guns gone entirely.  This isn't the NRA saying this as some propaganda ad.  Go see for yourself.  Go onto Twitter and view the comments that these supporters make.  My favorite is when one of them says "Well I am a gun owner and I support these measures."  Then when you talk to them they can barely describe the difference between a revolver and a Glock.

If this was truly about reducing Gun Violence, then they would be promoting ideas that actually do something to reduce gun violence, much like the examples that I shared.  They would pursue actions that actually target criminals rather than punishing responsible law-abiding gun owners.  I suggest however that using the noble aim of reducing Gun Violence is simply a veiled attempt to take away guns from citizens.  That is the end goal.  While they don't openly state that they want to ban guns, it is very easy to see by their actions and their comments when arguing for those actions that their real intent is to stop at nothing until all guns are gone.  Period.