Sandy Hook shooting and another gun debate

After the tragic shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 young children and 7 adults (6 teachers and killer’s mother), were killed by the gunman Adam Lanza, the gun control debate is taking over the mass media – yet again.

Sandy Hook is different.  The killer had some major mental issues recognized by his mother who, as reported recently, was trying to commit his to a mental institution.  Mother’s plans prompted Adam Lanza to kill his mother and the other 26 innocent people.

Unfortunately, the guns used in this horrific crime came from the mother’s firearm collection.  She was a legal and licensed gun owner in Connecticut.  However, the law, and apparently the common sense, couldn’t prevent this disturbed 20-year-old from using the guns to kill.

Could this tragedy be prevented?  Obviously, the mother knew about her son’s condition and totally ignored the fact that her son had access to firearms.  Could the law be changed to screen for households with mental patients?
If they had been register somewhere – yes.  Knowing the lack of true mental screening net in the United States, those laws are ineffective.

The other side of the coin is the subject of the taboo.  We can’t pretend that guns don’t exist.  Perhaps high school students should receive a hands on training in a ROTC or police-like class?  After seeing a deadly effect of the gun, safety training, and satisfied curiosity, most of the young people would just move on to another subject.

What can be done in the mean time?
On Roe & Roeper show, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy, brought up a very interesting idea used in New York City already.  Since most shooting are still committed with the illegal guns,  registering each gun sale, would put pressure on the legal gun owners to follow the background check laws.  Even with private sales.  In other words, guns would be treated like cars or motorcycles with title changing hands in the open.

Besides the stringent laws, banning all assault rifles is again on the table.  Can well regulated militia use shotguns instead?  I’m sure that would be fine.

We all know that one law will never change.  It’s the right to posses a firearm.  I have a feeling that in a very near future, a handgun will become the only firearm available for self defense.  It’s time to put that .50 cal sniper rifle away.

Straight shooter: gun control debate

The latest shooting craziness in Aurora, Colorado with 12 people dead and 58 wounded and in Oak Creek, Wisconsin with 6 dead (plus the shooter) and 3 wounded, puts the nation on the gun control bullet train.  Both sides bring heavy loaded arguments to the table to shoot down the opposite views on the gun control.

Photo by hisks at stock.xchng

Every American knows the wording of the most talked about Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed by the Congress:

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.

Arguing the clearly defined right to own guns is a waste of time.  If the will of the nation is there, the Congress has the power to pass another Amendment to remove the right to own personal weapons.  Who and how wold collect and account for all the weapons, remains a question of the day.  Maybe National Rifle Association could provide a list of it's members to make the job easier?  

Back on the Earth, the gun control debate is just heating up.  Dozens of different statistics used by two sides support both truths.  As with any knee-jerk discussion or law, are we looking at the issue through a narrow barrel of a gun?

The obvious questions:

Does anyone really need a 100-round ammunition drum for self defense?

Why are semi-to-auto kits legally sold?

Do we need military style AR-15 semi-automatic rifles in private hands?

Do background checks and gun licensing really work?

How to regulate Internet gun/ammunition sale?

A car can become a deadly tool, but the Congress doesn't ban automakers just become some crazy husband runs over his wife.  Fertilizers were not outlawed because of the Oklahoma City bombing.  The amount of firepower available to Americans, either legally or illegally, is overwhelming.  But behind every tool, there is a person who makes a decision to use it. 

What about the mental health of the killers?  The warning signs were there.  Those psychopaths should not be allowed to posses a firearm.  Obviously, the criminal background check is not sufficient anymore to weed out crazies.  Should states consider mandatory gun safety classes and psychological evaluations of the future gun owners?  It sounds prohibitive but it might prevent more tragedies.  

And here comes the punch line: more Chicago residents - 228 - have been killed so far this year in the city than the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan - 144 - over the same period.  That's just one major U.S city!

Any new laws and dozens of existing ones won't stop the gang murders.  Instead of looking at the end result of failed polices, lawmakers and police should find a way to eliminate the fundamental causes that gangs exist.  And those causes fit in the same box with run down neighborhoods, poor education system, lack of employment opportunities, and overwhelming signs of moral decline.  

Law abiding citizens are an easy target for a gun control debate.  But when you consider 4 insane killers in the most recent shootings out of about 115 million U.S. households with guns, the majority of gun owners are responsible people.  Families who lost their loved ones would disagree.  Regardless of the goal, the psychopath is capable of finding other means to hurt people.  Paying attention to behavior of others and to your surroundings are one of the best weapons in preventing tragedy.