First let me state for the record that I am all for the safety of those elected or appointed to federal office. Especially those who serve in the Congress are highly visible as a necessity of office and as such have a distinct vulnerability to threat and violence as was proven with the attempted assassination of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords. I would not be opposed to tax payer money providing a certain amount of protection for any federal official in a public forum for their safety.
That said the reaction to the Giffords shooting has reinvigorated the anti gun lobby and those especially on the left who seek to regulate guns from the public and eliminate our Second Amendment Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The latest folly in this comes from Representatives from New York and surprisingly one of them is a Republican whose views are widely known and many conservatives including myself have grown to respect for his stand on many issues.
New York Congressman Peter King is a co-sponsor of legislation which out laws any fire arm within 1000 feet of any federal official. This is over reaction to its fullest because if this were to pass enforcing it would be a nightmare and it would place every citizen who legally owns a gun in a position of looking over their shoulder so to speak everywhere they go for fear of being within 1000 feet of a federal official.
I consider myself politically savvy and this piece of legislation would pose a problem for me if for nothing else but the fact that I would not recognize most federal officials in just my state alone if they if they were standing right next to me. I can easily identify my House Representative and both of my Senators and two other House District Representatives because of their familiarity with the public, namely Joe Wilson and Jim Clyburn, but a federal Judge or any other federal official in my state is someone I would fail to recognize in public.
Imagine the implications this legislation has when we travel to other states and have a concealed weapons permit, decide to go to a nice restaurant and find ourselves in the vicinity of a Congressional Representative. Will we then be required by law to leave the establishment in order to remain outside of the 1000 foot enforcement area?
This law in not only completely unenforceable but is over reaching and an over reaction to a tragic situation which involved a member of Congress. Like most gun control legislation it would only be obeyed by those who are willing to obey the law. If this piece of legislation had already been law and enforced throughout the country, it would NOT have prevented Gabrielle Giffords from being shot nor the senseless murder of six others and the wounding of 14 more.
The lunatic gunman who pulled the trigger would not have reasoned that he was within 1000 feet of Giffords and decided to leave the Safeway parking lot because he would violate a law which required him to keep his firearm 1000 feet from Giffords. He would have followed the same maniacal plan he had in his crazed mind and Giffords would still be in the hospital recovering and little Christina Green and the others would still be dead.
Limiting our access to our Representatives is not an answer either as has been suggested by many. It is our access to them that keeps their feet to the fire and our Constitutional authority over them in place. It is not a difficult task when a Representative is holding a public forum whether in a building or an open area such as a store parking lot to assign local law enforcement as protection for the Representative.
Ridiculously restrictive gun control laws have not nor ever will prevent a crazed killer from either getting a gun or attempting to use it for the purpose in which his twisted mind intends to kill or maim a federal official or a private citizen. Law enforcement protection in the public arena for Representatives has a far better opportunity for successfully protecting then any additional legislation especially one as vague and unenforceable as this current proposal of not allowing a weapon within 1000 feet of any federal official.
Ken Taylor
This addresses this topic well, and with a few minor exceptions, states the situation very well. It is totally ridiculous to propose this as a means to protect anyone. The problem of the distance and recognition factors you describe should be obvious, yet the proposal is oblivious to these factors.
ReplyDeleteI also see this as an arrogant approach to protect a few so-called privileged people, yet avoid any thought or mention of the general public. If this kind of protection is to be proposed, and be considered serious, it shouldn't carve out special protection for a few and ignore all Americans.
However, I feel that, although there is the possibility that gun control (which we already have, to some extent) may not prevent everyone from getting a gun or related accessories (extended clips), that doesn't mean we should never place barriers for reducing their availability. If it would have been more difficult to buy the extended clips, it may have reduced the mayhem that Jared inflicted.
Common sense can help us devise reasonable measures to hopefully reduce the impact from gun-related attacks. It should never be just an all-or-nothing argument.
PASS
Before anyone proposes new gun laws they should show why Jared Loughner was able to buy a gun in the first place and also show why he never received ANY treatment for what is so obviously a severe mental illness.
ReplyDeleteAs a former homicide detective and SWAT team leader I have studied and trained for these types of "active shooter" incidents.
ReplyDeleteBanning high-capacity magazines will do noting to stop these types of incidents. Most active shooters will simply bring more than one gun.
There is a well know saying in the shooting world, "The fastest reload is another gun." The shooters at Columbine, the shooter at the CA McDonald's and at Virginia Tech, and a few other all had more than one gun.
Banning high capacity magazines will do NOTHING but prevent law abiding citizens who have concealed weapons permits from fighting on a level playing field.
People that know nothing about guns, crime, and life in the real world should not be passing laws that will get more innocent people killed.
This is not 1950s Mayberry USA anymore.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYour assertion of this always being an either-or of extended clips vs. more guns is simplistic. It assumes a shooter will always think rationally (as I guess you'd put it), and buy additional guns (which they will always have the money to pay for). And why is it that Jared didn't follow this best plan you describe? BTW, in addition to quoting a few multi-gun examples, they should be balanced by a few single-gun regular-clip examples to compare them fairly.
To make myself clear, I would never expect the lack of extended clips to "stop these types of incidents". However, I hope you would agree that for a one gun shooter, the lack of extended clips improves the chance that the damage and loss of life is reduced. I don't ascribe to the notion that you would need to improve every situation in order to change laws; just that making a difference is worthwhile.
Your concern for armed citizens would also be welcome if you found a way to think about the safety of the unarmed. If you think the discussion is about absolutes (Banning high capacity magazines will do NOTHING . . . ), then you appear unreasonable, living in your own unreal world. Reality is about trade-offs, where public concerns can be addressed to meet common needs.
I'm also amazed that concealed weapon carriers require as many rounds as you state. If these individuals can't protect themselves without 30+ rounds, they would seem to be not up to the task of carrying the weapon. I would fear for innocent bystanders as they fire away. Why don't they just bring a second gun, as you suggest?
Finally, you seem to appoint yourself as caretaker of the less-able public, who "know nothing about guns, crime, and life in the real world"! Well excuse us for not being up to your standards.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI doubt it is necessary, or even important, to understand one incident in its entirety, before finding changes to improve things. This is especially so when the discovery process will be lengthy, with the likelihood of there being gaps in the resulting details anyways.