Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Gun Control laws...

Its been a little while since a post.
Been busy.

I wont however be posting anything on the Virginia Tech Massacre.
I believe it has gotten enough coverage from the News Media and from other bloggers. There really is little to add to to it.
All I can do is say May all those that were killed by this bastard Rest in Peace and my prayers go out the families and friends of this tragedy.

What it will bring and I will probably comment on as well as the other posters is on the new wave of calls for tighter gun control laws from this Massacre.

There was already within hours of the Tragedy people already covering how simple it was for him to get a gun. I will point in another direction.

I will call for MORE gun control.

Yes you read that correct. MORE GUN CONTROL.
HOWEVER, this Gun Control needs to be reasonable.
Not just the natural knee jerk reaction that is seen when things of this nature happen. Sensible gun control will be my outline.

1. Have a national registry that not only has criminal records but ALSO mental and medical records. The Real ID ACT MIGHT be the solution here. Picture every database accessible from one location. It DOES NOT necessarily for a gun purchase have to show the details of the persons health records OR criminal records but just simply say. DENIED in red so its not missed.

BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- When a judge deemed Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho a danger to himself due to mental illness in 2005, that ruling should have disqualified him from buying a handgun under federal law.

It didn't.

And his slaughter of 32 people last week has raised questions about the efficacy of instant background checks for firearms purchases by the mentally ill.

Under federal law, anyone who has been judged to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, as Cho was, should be prohibited from buying a gun. (Watch campus shooting rekindle debate on gun control Video)

His status should have been noted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database of people disqualified from gun purchases.

But, in Cho's case, his mental status never went in the system.

There is supposedly already a system in place but making a database include all like in the REAL ID ACT may be a simpler method then someone entering the same information 5 times.

2. Close the loophole of being able to buy guns at Gun shows outside of the scope of background checks. This is a must. I am sorry if you are a collector of weapons or a person interested in protection for a weapon then you should have NO PROBLEM with having a waiting period to get your gun.

Yes there will be rare cases were say a single mom has a restraining order on an ex lover and he has threatened to kill her. But again these are rare cases. And laws aren't written based on rare occurrences.

3. Only US citizens should be able to purchase guns. Yeap I went there too. Yes he was a legal US resident, but US citizens should be the only ones allowed to purchase weapons. That is my opinion.

4. There should be a 3 day wait period before you walk out with a gun. Just like they have here in Florida. Nothing wrong with that from what I can tell.

5. Institute similar "right to retreat laws" like we have here in Florida. It makes perfect sense.

Case in point:

Catarino Piedra, 41, kept a gun underneath the counter at the Coliseum Pizza and Taqueria that he owned in East Oakland because his drivers had been robbed many times while making deliveries.

Allen Joseph Hicks III, 22, was an accused batterer on probation for a drug conviction and an aspiring rap artist whom everybody in his neighborhood knew as "Boonie."

The lives of the two men intersected tragically at about 9:30 p.m. Thursday when Hicks, armed with a pistol and joined by two other men, tried to rob Piedra inside the popular pizzeria at 89th Avenue and International Boulevard. Fearful that the assailants might hurt him, his wife and three children -- all of whom were inside the restaurant -- Piedra pulled out his 9mm semiautomatic pistol and opened fire, killing Hicks, police said.

This man was protecting himself and his family.
The Cops however saw this differently.

Piedra said he was afraid that the assailants would shoot him or hurt his family, a contention supported by Oakland police who nevertheless cautioned against citizens taking direct action against criminals.

"There is definitely a balance," said Officer Roland Holmgren, department spokesman. "This thing had potential -- who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did."

Holmgren said, "We're not saying that we want citizens to go out there and arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects."

How good of a witness would this man have been if the robber would have pulled the trigger first? Not much help at that point huh? And then if he would have turned to shoot the family as well.

I will concede that putting MORE restrictions on guns fails to get the guns OUT of the hands of criminals or WOULD BE criminals. LA, NY, DC, Philly and others are all examples of that. HOWEVER, is it too much to ask for these simple regulations added into existing laws.

Something SENSIBLE needs to be done here. Something that DOES NOT violate our Constitution but makes us at least a LITTLE safer. Banning ALL GUNS is not the solution. Just ask Australia. But a LITTLE bit of control can go a long way.

No comments: