Today I hug my children and grandchild.   I interact with my siblings and parents.  My friends are available for me to say “hello” to.

I can do this today because none of these people have been murdered senselessly by a crazed individual or taken away by an equally crazed government system.

This weekend is one of sombre and deep reflection for me personally, and I suspect many as well.  For those future-types who may be reading this post, and wonder why this is so, it’s because of the actions a 20-year-old man took in a tiny town in Connecticut, USA against children, and on the same day, the actions of a 36-year-old man in Chengping, China, also against children.  Although these actions are physically remote and distant from me, the impact stuck me and continues to reverberate where ever I go, whatever I’m doing.

The media and police reports can provide more detail than shall I, so I implore the reader to look this up to get the details.  Look up “December 14, 2012, Newtown, school” and “December 14, 2012, Chengping, children”.

Each of us, by our action or inaction, by our encouragement of certain types of behaviour, has the power to impact those who would do harm to others.  Granted, I alone did not directly create the situations that caused this terror of which I write, but I do have direct influence on my children and friends.  My purchasing habits and entertainment options are also a factor in this.  If anything I have said or done – or have failed to say or do – has contributed to the deaths of innocent men, women and children then I apologise to the families involved and pray they and God forgive me.

To borrow a quote from one of my favourite an old cinema characters, “That’s all I’ve got to say about that.”

—————————-

I’ve a position on weapon control that may surprise my friends and readers.  Then again, it may not, depending on how well those who know me actually know me.

Before reading further, dear reader, please do me a favour.  When you read my words, and those of others who put forth ideas, facts, and opinions, do one thing for me.  You will be doing it for yourself, really, and eventually for your family and community.

Seriously consider your thoughts and emotions on the concept of weapon control and usage.  I encourage you to take in new information and change your opinions as new information comes in.  This is not a trivial thing for “someone else” to “take care of”.  It’s also not a “side” that one chooses once and never “switches over” in fear of betraying one’s “teammates”.

In your consideration, take into account two major questions:

Who will control actions or access to weapons?

What is to be controlled?

This is the basis for the remainder of this article.

—————————-

I’ve three underlying foundation posts to set up before delving deeper into the topic.  These are:

1. Actions of people who choose to abuse items at their disposal are at times seemingly random and unpredictable.  However, under closer scrutiny and forensic analysis it can be seen that many of these acts are indeed somewhat predictable, had anyone known to look.
2. It’s easy to say unequivocally, “No [insert weapon of choice] allowed for civilians (or anyone)”.  In practise – in my opinion – this isn’t practical or wise – depending upon which type of weapon it is to which one refers.
3. I’ll remove “hunting” from this post with regards to my consideration and ideas.  This is – and I will gladly stand corrected if needs be – because no one has ever performed mass-murder or injury as part of a proper hunting expedition, be it for sport or actual food gathering.

—————————-

In times of civil unrest, one needs to be able to protect one’s self, family, friends and property as needed.  City, state and federal agencies exist to assist with this, but they are not, in my opinion, the first line of defence.  If someone’s threatening my child or myself I’m certainly not going to simply shout for help or dial a phone number to get a civil servant to protect us.

I’m going to use the best means necessary to halt our danger.  If that means talking to the threat, pushing the threat away, grabbing a blunt instrument, pulling out a sharp instrument, using an explosive weapon, then that’s what I’ll do to avert the immediate issue.  Only then will I call in civil servants for assistance.

Does this mean I believe everyone should be armed to the teeth?  That everyone – including 10-year-old children – be sporting guns?  No.  In that way lies madness and a perpetuation of the cycle we’ve found ourselves in.

Does this mean I support the opposing viewpoint?  That all items deemed to be weapons be removed from civilians’ hands?  No.  In that way lies the foundation for horrible abuse of power from the gov’t agencies as well as lawbreakers.

Many of the mass-murders in recent time occurred in schools.  Does this mean we require private schools to hire armed and trained security guards at their cost, and use tax payer money to hire the same for public schools?  No.  In that way lies only a costly bandage to cover a mortal wound.  Do we require teachers or staff to train in the use of firearms and keep ‘stashes’ of weaponry in the school?  No.  This may stand contrary to a teacher or staff member’s personal beliefs.  Also, this does not address the murders that took place outside of schools but in other public places.  The concept of soldiers or staff stationed in public places with assault weaponry in public view all the time is not one I encourage.

What then is my position?  How can we as a community manage and protect ourselves from those who would harm others using items at their disposal?

I’m a weapon owner.  I’m for weapons control.  Surprise.

Actually, this ought not be a surprise.  After all, we drivers of automobiles and heavy equipment must pass a test to obtain (and in some cases, keep) a license to use the item.  Why would weapons be any different?

For gun owners who are not as much interested in the families of those hurt or killed by items under the influence of murderers, but more so in the right to bear arms, I present this argument, and it is at once correct and chilling:

If we don’t self-regulate, if we don’t come up with a reasonable and rational solution, one will be forced upon us.  And in the long run, this mandate will not benefit anyone.

And so I continue.  But my opinion comes with caveats.

First off, we can’t have a federal agency setting and enforcing policy for what individuals can and can’t do to protect themselves.  Many will say this is needed to allow uniformity and fairness, but in our world – and country specifically – we are so geographically different and our attitudes separate enough that a global policy isn’t manageable for all.

Secondly, we can’t say that weapon X, Y, Z is forbidden and that weapon A, B, C is permitted.  This seems illogical at first blush but hear me out and I’ll offer reasons for this statement.

—————————-

So what is my proposal?  What idea, exactly, will I be taking to my local representatives, my mayor, and my state senator, and why?

Before going into that let me state some more ideas that factor into my proposal.

Guns kill people.  They kill people as readily as so knives, poison, cars, rocks, pillows, anything really that is under the control of an individual.  The fact that they can do so more quickly than the others is certainly why these are under specific scrutiny, and with good reason.

People are crazy.  We all are.  It’s just a matter of how much crazy each of us is at a given moment in time.  I’d venture to say that most of us, gentle readers, have had a moment of intense stress or frustration – or even an extended period of time for that matter – where we’ve not “been ourselves” and have let bad judgement take the better of us.

Local city police are almost always the first civil servants on the scene during an altercation.  Emergency medical technicians may at times arrive first, but it’s the police who are equipped and trained to deal with a dangerous situation.

We’ve a national gov’t that’s itching to manage and control every aspect of our lives, from food to housing to school to medical care.  This level of gov’t also has the means to quickly transmit information across every city, county, region state at a moment’s notice.

Ok, again, so what’s the proposal?

1. Identify and classify all items that can be used as weapons, or parts of a weapon
   1. Chemicals that can be used to create explosives
   2. Guns and gun components (including bullets)
   3. Knives
   4. Gardening tools, Rocks, Pillows, etc. Silly examples but really, anything can be used as a weapon.  Making a point here.
   5. Everything.  And I mean everything.  We won’t want a lawsuit to throw out a criminal investigation because item X wasn’t classified as a weapon.  This is as much a legal battle as it is a physical access battle.
2. Assign registration ‘tags’ to those above a given classification
   1. Registration tags can be tiered – for instance a simple bow and arrow combination, single-shot shotgun or 6-shot revolver would have a different registration tag from a compound bow, an assault rifle or plastic explosives.
3. Allow individual states to determine what level of weapons are permitted in their borders
   1. That’s already in place for fireworks at the city and county level, so this wouldn’t be much different.
4. Allow only certified residents of the state to purchase, own and carry ‘tagged’ items in their physical boundaries
   1. One needs to prove competency in the use of a car before getting a driving license.  In some states one needs to show continued competency.  Driving licenses are separated into “Classes” – one can be authorised to drive a compact car but not authorised to drive an 18-wheeler truck.  It’s reasonable to take the same approach for a tiered weapons registration competency.
   2. The state would assess the physical and mental competency for the ownership and usage of a given registered weapon or component.  The level of testing would be determined by the county and local city officials, who would ‘own’ and manage the data relevant to the registration.
   3. Regular testing for re-certification would be required and enforced by the county and city officials.
   4. Those who are not certified to manage weapons of a given classification would be asked to surrender these, or not bring these into the state.  Here we would open up a huge discussion regarding border controls and etc. which is far outside of scope here.  But the idea being, if a resident is found to be unable to manage a weapon, that resident would have rights to the weapon removed, as well as the weapon itself.
   5. The number of weapons would be part of consideration as well.  Does an individual need 136 handguns, katanas, throwing stars, or poison blowdarts?  If one is a collector and the local authorities feel comfortable in his or her training competency, mental state and storage facility as part of the regular state certification, then this may be completely acceptable.  The local authorities would be the first responders in any public violent altercations, so it would stand to reason that they would be the ones who would make a determination in this case.
5. Allow the federal gov’t to manage a standardised communication infrastructure to allow counties and cities – and their local law enforcement agencies – to share information as needed.
   1. It’s entirely possible and reasonable to assume that someone from a given state – who has failed to pass certification tests – would flee (if asked to surrender a weapon) or go to a different state (to try to pass using different local criteria).  A standardised, national communication network would allow local officials to instantly communicate this information for reference purposes.
   2. It’s also entirely possible that someone who is registered in one state would simply go to a different one to commit a crime or simply enter the area with weapons that are not permitted.  This can’t be avoided, as at this point we’re dealing with not a law-abiding citizen but a lawbreaker.  For instance, I can’t enter certain buildings in my home town with a concealed weapon or I am in breach of local law.  Does that mean all concealed handguns ought to be banned?  No.  That simply means that if I choose to break that law, I should be treated for what I am – a criminal.  Having a national communication network would again allow for local law officials to communicate and compare notes when lawbreakers act out.
6. Remove gov’t-mandated “gun-free” zones.
   1. The only thing a gun-free zone provides is a few moments of safe haven where a criminal can perform as much damage as possible before police arrive.  Our issues in the recent past are not from law-abiding gun owners, but criminals and madmen who wouldn’t not heed this warning anyway.  A certified weapons owner with a weapon in his or her possession would have levelled the playing field in these cases.
7. Do NOT allow the federal gov’t to mandate what is permissible for a given region, or to ‘own’ the data each city has collected on the individuals.
   1. What’s good for one region is not good for all.  Our world, and our country, is too large geographically for a single massive government system to manage millions (or billions) of people all the time.
   2. Granting absolute power to a federal agency to manage individuals’ certification – and ability to protect one’s self, family, friends and property is an operational risk.  An enemy of the country can take control or infiltrate a national database or processes and each of us will be exposed to this risk.  Separate city-level controls would greatly limit this risk.
   3. Granting absolute power to a federal agency to manage individuals for any reason is a civil liberties risk and ought to be prevented.
   4. Without the onus of managing a national database and weapons control process, the federal gov’t can focus its efforts on maintaining the integrity of the communication infrastructure.

So that’s it.  That’s my proposal, one I plan to take to my local representatives, mayor and state representative.  If, gentle reader, you have alternate ideas please do share – but more importantly, share them not only as a “comment” or “reply” but with your local representatives.

We can’t address the symptoms of a serious illness by simply talking about how bad we feel about the pain.  Shouting at the illness and calling it names may help to vent frustration – and may be needed in times of stress – but that won’t address the cause.  Simply cutting off the injured parts won’t give the satisfaction we’re looking for either.  Ignoring or anaesthetising the issue will eventually lead to certain death if the illness is strong enough.

We need to understand the source of illness and apply an appropriate solution in the correct amounts.  This is what I propose.

—————————-

Image courtesy of Jeff S. PhotoArt.: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeff_sch/8021872271/

 

Comments

comments