| | Nation needs to talk gun ownershipDecember 18, 2012 - Jim SmithIs it time for a meaningful discussion of expanding gun control in the United States? While I am a gun advocate and own several firearms of various types and caliber, it seems logical to me there needs to be a national dialogue on the ownership and possession of firearms. It seems logical there should be stricter controls on background checks on all purchases of firearms, including at gun shows. It also seems logical those who have known mental issues and/or are being treated for known mental issues should be barred from owning or possessing firearms, just as those who have a felony record are banned from such ownership. The National Rifle Association won't support it, but it also seems logical that certain types of ammunition and assault-type weapons have no place in the civilian populace. Such weapons and types of ammunition are intended for military use, not deer, rabbit, squirrel, turkey, etc. hunting. In fact, such weapons were banned until Congress allowed the law banning them to expire. Unfortunately, the aforementioned curtailments of gun ownership, with the exception of ownership of AR-15s, would not have stopped the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The NRA argument will be banning any weapons begins the slippery slope of banning all weapons and possession of such weapons is needed for personal protection and to keep government at bay. I don't agree. A double-barrel or pump-action shotgun probably is better for home protection for most people and doesn't require the same training or skill level as an assault rifle on handgun. The NRA and pro-gun groups will argue when some firearms are banned, only crooks will have firearms. That may be true, but I don't need a 30-round AR-15 under my coat to defend myself and my family. Whatever the argument for or against expanded gun control, there needs to be a reasonable discussion of the issues, which unfortunately seems unlikely considering the emotions surrounding gun ownership, the general temperament of society and the rancor of politics.
Article Comments(2)republicanJan-09-13 6:18 PM We had the assault weapons ban for 10 years and it did nothing to stop gun violence. It is a waste of time and effort. Our forefathers made the "right to keep and bear arms" to prevent corrupt governments from hurting there own people. If that day comes you will need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself. I have no assault weapons, but think it is silly to ban them and say "job complete." HilleyeJan-03-13 1:11 AM Let’s clear up a couple of things. 1. Assault Weapon by definition is a weapon with a select fire switch. That means you can fire it semi-auto or fully auto. Fully auto weapons have strict control and can only be obtained at great expense and by approval of your local chief law enforcement person. 2.“Gun show loophole” does not exist. Private sales of firearms do not require the person to go through a back ground check. If your purchase a weapon, from a dealer, at a gun show, you must fill out a form 4473 and be approved. 3.High capacity magazines – If your magazine holds 30 or 10 rounds, you must still pull the trigger one time for each shot. It takes less than a second to eject the empty magazine and insert a full one. The only reason people want to ban certain rifles is because the rifles are the same color as real assault rifles. No other reason. Let’s not blame the tool, let’s blame the person holding the tool. Post a Comment | in: News, Blogs & Events Web  |
