By Ed Gross
In an op-ed in the New York Times, Craig Whitney suggests that there’s a stalemate on gun control that can be solved only if “gun-control advocates and gun-rights supporters stop screaming at each other and look for common ground on how to deal with gun violence.” This is one of those I’m-a-pundit-so-I’m-above-partisanship approaches I hate that are now so common in our newspapers. They sound right at first blush, but unfortunately, they’re often used to suggest that people who have the facts on their side need find a middle ground where they can agree with people who are reacting instinctively and emotionally in ways that often run counter to the facts.
Even if you stipulate, as I don’t, that the second amendment is meant to protect private gun ownership, the NRA’s leadership, and much of its membership, has gone so far overboard in that direction that they can’t even admit that it’s worth considering how to keep assault rifles with hundred-bullet clips out of the hands of people who have no possible use for them other than to commit mass murders.
Let’s see. How do we compromise with that?
Mr. Whitney goes on to say that, “Liberals should accept that the only realistic way to control gun violence is not by keeping guns out of the hands of as many Americans as possible, but by keeping guns out of the hands of people we all agree should not have them.” Again, sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, we often don’t know ahead of time who are those people we would all agree on. (Maybe we can get them to wear signs.)There are, however, some things we do know: like which kinds of guns and bullets are the most dangerous, like it’s dangerous for kids to have access to guns and like the fact that law enforcement needs guns used in crimes be quickly and easily connected to
their owners.
Here’s what drives me crazy. Guns are not subjected to the same kinds of laws and restrictions that we use to keep us safe on the roads. As a society, we have long recognized how lethal cars can be. That’s why we keep them out of the hands of kids. We mandate driving lessons and licensing based on testing as well as registration. We also make it illegal to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We penalize drivers for dangerous driving even if it doesn’t cause an accident and we suspend licenses for repeated violations.
Let’s start with an approach like that for guns. Then come talk to me about compromising.
Of course, I’m not holding my breath. I still can’t get over the fact that the NRA actually has opposed keeping guns out of the hands of the suspected terrorists on our no-fly list. That’s right. If your name’s on the list you can’t buy an airline ticket, but you can buy as many AK-47’s as you like.
If you get an email asking you to sign a petition for any kind of gun control at all, please sign it. I realize very well that as of now “we can’t keep guns out of as many hands as possible.” But there’s an awful lot we can do to prevent them from being used in suicides, killings and mass murders.
Mr. Gross,
What is an “assault rifle”? Answer: there is no material difference in operation between such a gun and a semi-automatic hunting rifle.
What is a legitimate purpose of a larger capacity magazine? Answer: to defend oneself against criminals without having to reload. Reloading is very, very dangerous, since one is defenceless for that period of time. Imagine a home invaders entering at night. Would you prefer to re-load after five shots, when you might not even have hit him yet, or would you prefer to be at the ready for a longer period of time? Now what if two home invaders come in (invaders often come in pairs)? And what if three come?
Why is it dangerous for kids to have access to guns? Answer: it’s not dangerous, so long as the kids are properly trained by the parents. A 15-year-old recently defended his 12-year-old sister and himself against two home invaders when his parents were away – by using his father’s AR-15 rifle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XMg0FQS6Fqo Would you prefer that he had been helpless against these violent criminals?
These are just a few points one might make in response to your article. I recommend learning more about how guns work and what it takes to defend oneself and one’s family against criminals.
“If your name’s on the list you can’t buy an airline ticket, but you can buy as many AK-47’s as you like”
Your support of limiting the rights of citizens on the governments watch list is deeply troubling..
-what is the criteria for being included?
-Is EVERYONE on this list a terrorist?
How does one go about addressing the charge of bring labeled a terrorist?
-should all Muslims be included automatically, and have to prove their innocence?
Or maybe the DOHC should pick up the people on your beloved masters list and put us all in camps!
Sound familiar?
You dishonesty disgusts me.
Please stop posting lies and spreading fear to manipulate people into supporting your agenda.
Nobody on NJ can LEGALLY buy an Ak-47 rifle.
A civilian version that LOOKS like an Ak-47, but does NOT function as one, is possible, but heavily regulated under Nj’s already strict guns laws.
The same laws in place that do NOTHING to curtail the constant bloodshed in Camden, Newark, Paterson, Trenton..Yet your only answer is “MORE GUN LAWS” as you feed your flock of ignorant, bleating sheep more LIES to make them feel safe.
They are not.
Nor will the millions of LAW ABIDING NJ gun owners if you have your way and strip us of our rights.
Well said josh,
99.9% of crimes committed are by unqualified gun owners, parolee’s and convicted criminals out on early release.
our judicial systems keep letting them out to commit crimes over and over again and the law abiding citizen keeps paying for their actions.
The newton shooter was not eligible to purchase so what did he do he killed his mother and stole her guns to commit that horrendous crime, knowing he was mentally ill the mother should not have had guns this is where the system is broke.
how about the shooter that shot four firemen, released from prison after killing his grandmother by beating her to death with a Hammer and this man was released from prison why ?
And you want to disarm me once again why ? to render me defenseless against criminal element would be my only guess!!
You made the statement that you do not believe that the Second Amendment was made to protect private ownership of firearms. Have you even read the Constitution? The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Second? Have you ever had to defend yourself in a life and death situation, while waiting for the police to get there? Driving is a “privilege” Right to bear arms, is a Right. Just like Freedoms of Religion, Speech and the Press. Just like your rights against unlawful searches and seizure, trial by jury, abolishion of Slavery ect…
Read up on the Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers and the abundance of corrospondence between the framers of our republic and you will easily see the meaning and reason behind that Amendment especially.
And please, don’t comment on things you have no knowledge of. It makes you seem ignorant.
If one wants to find the roots of violence on society look further than failed progressive policies:
The public school system, welfare, social security
Excessive burdensome regulation , taxation, central economic planning , the war on drugs , the war on terror
State violence and state coercion is at the root of poverty and violence . Firearm ownership is a basic civil right. The combination of progressivism and slow erosion o private property rights , growth of the welfare state and so called gun control; all in the name of promoting a more civil society by lying power hungry politician leads inexorably Down the road to serfdom to totalitarianism
I am liberal who voted for the President and I have never owned a gun. Yet I can’t see how the “people” in the second amendment is not referencing a private right as the “people” clearly references a private right in the other amendments – and I don’t see how the prefatory clause limits the right. If the founders intended this to be a state right, it would’ve been written to give power to the states. Instead, it was a right given to the “people” and I doubt Mr. Gross believes that the “people” in the first amendment does not create a private right. So, as much as Mr. Gross would like to complain about the NRA, his fight is also with liberals like myself, Craig Whitney and the President. I’ve heard Mr. Gross and Mr. Chuman speak. They both show disdain for those like myself (Mr. Chuman calls my views “dubious”) who believe that the Constitution does create an individual right, but that gun control that does not infringe on that right is possible. Given the fact that Mr. Gross is a leader in the local gun control movement, you’d think he might want to read Craig Whitney’s thoughtful and well researched book. Then again, if Mr. Gross did read this book, then he could no longer complain that second amendment advocates don’t offer thoughtful solutions and that some of us are guided by principle in our disagreement and not by corruption or cowardice.