After reading this
editorial, please express your own thoughts. At
the bottom, please click on the word "Comments" below the copyright and
type your remarks in the
box. When finished, please
click on the word "Publish." Please
also share a link to this
column with others in your e-mail directory and on social media.
When will Republicans wake up? When will the GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives...plus the National Rifle Association...realize that we - in the United States of America - must have a tougher and stricter gun control law.
How many more people need to die? How many more people...have to die?
The U.S. Congress - both chambers - must agree on a bi-partisan gun control law so that no more Americans are slaughtered by barbaric domestic terrorists... deranged madmen...and mentally ill individuals who require psychiatric treatment. If such a law cannot be passed in the next eleven days...while President Obama's pen can ink his signature on it...then after January 20th...Donald Trump better not veto a bill that Republicans and Democrats decide is best for our country and best for the safety of all Americans.
The lack of a strong gun control law is like the lack of a cure for cancer. As a two-time cancer survivor...I can say that. Death by guns is a public health problem. It is an epidemic. A plague. And it must be stopped. The loss of a son or daughter...a husband or wife...a mom or dad...a brother or sister...or anyone you care deeply about...is emotionally painful under any circumstances. But for your loved one to be shot to death...is devastating beyond imagination.
The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Broward County, Florida was a tragic scene of death on Friday, January 6th, 2017. The victims were innocent travelers...killed by a U.S. military veteran...who had served in Iraq, but who was institutionalized in late 2016...after he voluntarily entered an FBI office in Anchorage, Alaska...and - with an "erratic behavior" (as reported by The Washington Post) - expressed "incoherent thoughts." FBI agents stated that the 26-year old former Alaska National Guardsman told them that the CIA was forcing him to watch ISIS videos in order to control his mind.
CNN says when Esteban Santiago arrived at the Anchorage FBI office in November 2016...agents found a gun in his car...along with his newborn child. The pistol was confiscated by agents that day...but it was returned to Santiago in December when the mental evaluation did not find him to be a danger to himself or to others. It was that weapon - according to a CNN source - that Santiago allegedly used in Fort Lauderdale.
Why was such a man...who genuinely suffers serious mental health issues...not kept in a hospital for a longer period of time? Why was his name not included on a no-fly list? And why was he allowed to somehow purchase a gun and multiple rounds of ammunition?
CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director Tom Fuentes says..."(Santiago) hadn't been adjudicated a felon...and he hadn't been adjudicated mentally ill. So we have this situation where he slipped through the cracks."
We must be vigilant of signals...that are given off by emotionally unstable individuals...so that when those warning signs are revealed...the person should be hospitalized before they pull the trigger of a gun.
Now 5 people are dead and 8 others are being cared for after being wounded by bullets that Santiago allegedly loaded into a pistol that was packed in a handgun case. A law enforcement official at the airport in Anchorage told CNN on Saturday, January 7th that the case was Santiago's only luggage...and it was checked on the Delta Airlines flights that he took from Anchorage to Minneapolis, Minnesota to Fort Lauderdale.
The Transportation Security Administration says law abiding citizens, off-duty police officers and others who have legal permits to own and/or carry a firearm... have the right to properly transport their weapon...unloaded...in a hard-sided, locked case...if the passenger notifies the airline prior to the flight...and as long as it is checked baggage.
We cannot use the "honor system" when lives may be put at risk. What happens when a passenger doesn't adhere to the law and his or her weapon - in a checked bag - is not discovered by TSA? There is always the possibility that government agents overlook a gun in a checked baggage...and that mistake could potentially cost many lives should a gun owner turn out to be a murderer. That being said... even when a gun has been in a checked bag - as evident by the Fort Lauderdale deadly shooting...people were killed. And Santiago - who reportedly did not appear agitated or suspicious to the TSA or any airline or airport representatives - had advised the airline of his packed firearm. The TSA also says - that in 2015...the last year such a record is available - nearly three-thousand guns were seized from carry-on bags at airport checkpoints. But how many do we not know of...that got by TSA guards?
The question now is...how do we prevent someone from taking a gun out of luggage while still in an airport? Santiago allegedly retrieved his case off the baggage claim carousel...went in to a bathroom stall...removed the pistol from the case...loaded the weapon...and returned to the terminal area where others on his flight were awaiting to pick up their baggage. With no provocation...the bloodbath and carnage began, as Santiago allegedly blasted bullets into the bodies of innocent people. Please note...I have twice used the word "innocent" in this column to describe victims...and I will use it again and again elsewhere in this commentary.
Authorities on Saturday, January 7th informed CNN that Santiago had allegedly been planning his attack for quite awhile...and that he traveled to Fort Lauderdale specifically to commit the crime. As this column is being published...officials are saying that a definitive motive for the shooting is not yet known. Santiago has been federally charged with numerous counts of capital felonies. If convicted...he faces the death penalty.
Some readers may ask...suppose Santiago had not been flying, but simply walked in off the street...guns blazing? Do we now need to put TSA guards at the door of every entrance...in every terminal...in every airport...in every city in America? The answer is...if that's what it will take to save innocent lives...then yes.
I'm fully aware that such an undertaking would cost lots of money...taxpayers money. Airports and airlines would need to absorb some of the expense too. And that would translate in to higher fares for travelers. But if it means that no person has the opportunity to enter a crowded airport with the intent of shooting as many people as he or she can, then no price would be too high. Oh I'm sure there are millions of people in our country who will disagree with me. But what if the person or persons being killed...are your loved ones?
After the June 12th, 2016 massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida - when a heavily armed gunman stole the lives of 49 innocent people - assignment editors at CBS News sent one of their producers to a gun shop in Virginia to purchase an AR-15. It was the same type of assault weapon that was used in the Orlando shooting. It took the CBS News producer 38 minutes to buy the gun. All the producer needed to do was present three pieces of identification - to prove American citizenship...answer a handful of simple questions...and pass a very quick background check. In less time than it would take to eat lunch...the producer walked out of the Virginia store with a powerful assault weapon and enough ammunition to murder hundreds of people.
For the aforementioned CBS News experiment - which was purely a test of the system - such a gun...if purchased for an unlawful reason - could have been used in a mass shooting...or to kill a relative, next-door neighbor or any single person - any one person. Therefore...some State gun control laws are too loose...must be tightened...and federally regulated and controlled.
Republicans seem to always accuse Democrats of wanting to take away the guns from all U.S. citizens. That is absolutely untrue.
In my opinion - and I speak only for myself - if this was a perfect world...there would be no guns. None at all. Nowhere on the planet. But naive, I'm not. And I certainly acknowledge the fact that we don't live in a perfect world. Furthermore...I respect the United States Constitution. And I understand, without question...the verbiage in our Second Amendment...and what it provides. However...it is imperative that Congress pass a law to include a ban on all assault weapons...and to require a long, federal waiting period for handguns...rifles...and other firearms. If it was up to me - as I have written in previous columns since The Controversy was launched in 2012 - there would be a 90-day waiting period to purchase a gun. That would give most people - intent on performing a homicide - to hopefully change his or her mind. But I clearly recognize that three months is probably unrealistic...and that two months would likely be challenged too. Therefore...the waiting period cannot be less than 30 days. Also...background checks must be so detailed...with investigations that are thorough...through and through. Plus...there needs to be one computer system - federally controlled - but that can be accessed by every police department and other law enforcement agency in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. That way red flags are raised when there is any doubt of approving a gun permit. And no gun whatsoever should be sold on the Internet. In addition...anyone with a blemish on their record...showing the slightest bit of violence...or someone who authorities believe might, at some future time, become violent...should be prohibited from owning a gun. We cannot take any chances when giving a person the tool that can end another person's life.
Will there be flaws in any new gun control law? Will there be those individuals who will - to use Tom Fuentes phrase - "slip through the cracks?" No plan will be one-hundred percent foolproof. But using my criteria...as explained above...the odds of granting a permit to someone...whose only objective is to harm others...would be monumentally reduced.
In the meantime...we cannot live in fear. But we must be on our guard...and totally alert. We must never take for granted that wherever we are...and wherever we go...that it's completely safe.
It's truly a shame that in the 21st century...Americans need eyes in both the front...and the back...of our heads. Obviously, that is impossible. So the two that we have...must always be focused on our surroundings until a commonsense gun control law is passed. And then...even after.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy is a publication of
GBD Productions. Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B.
Duglin.
Now, please express your personal
opinions by following the instructions above. I also ask that you become a
FOLLOWER by clicking on the little blue box with the word "Follow" on the top
right side of this column. And thank you for reading The
Controversy.
Copyright 2017 Gary B. Duglin and
TheControversy.net. All Rights
Reserved.
What is the bipartisan gun control law that you want? I see a lot of misguided thoughts in this post but I don't see you recommending any solution. This is a classic case of how no law would have prevented it. There are already laws for what you want. This person was evaluated and nothing was found to be wrong. Sounds like if anything it was a failure of the health professionals, not the laws.
ReplyDeleteThe airlines aren't in the business of enforcing laws. They have to abide by rules. The FAA rule is that guns have to be in checked baggage. That was done by the book here. If you want the airlines to be in the business of enforcing laws then they will have to inspect every bag for illegal prescription drugs, pirated movies, etc. etc. A gun in a checked bag is not a threat to the airplane and so it is allowed.
You mentioned the scenario of the person just walking in off the street. This is a perfect example of why there's no sense in trying to try and restrict law-abiding gun owners from transporting their guns on planes. It won't help anything. The person could just walk in the door by baggage claim and do the same thing.
It sounds like you want to add some kind of "guards" to all public places. I'm not sure what fantasy world you're living in but we all know that will never happen. I'd like to bring a few things to your attention as well:
1. Security guards can just as easily go crazy and start shooting people too. You want more people with guns standing around? The guy in this case was a security guard.
2. Most security guards don't even have guns and would end up just additional victims in a case like this. The TSA checkpoints don't even have armed guards and there are documented instances of the TSA people running away with everybody else when somebody starts attacking.
3. Anytime you create a choke point you create an easy target. If you create a checkpoint at the entrance to the airport guess what happens? A long line of people there for somebody to attack. Any time you have to wait in line at the regular TSA checkpoint you are at risk already because you have a large density of people in a small area, plus it's an area where the attacker knows nobody is armed.
I'm sure I was very clear as to the bi-partisan gun control law that I believe is necessary for the United States. You must not have read my column carefully as there are no "misguided thoughts" and I certainly recommend a "solution."
DeleteYou say that no law would have prevented the shooting in Fort Lauderdale. Laws to keep mentally unstable people hospitalized until doctors and other medical professionals have evaluated the person to the nth degree - in order to be absolutely sure that he was not going to perform the act that he did - is a law that should be on the books. A law to keep someone such as this particular person off airplanes and to prevent him from ever purchasing a gun, that too is a definite must.
Guns should not be allowed on airlplanes...not at all. Not even in checked baggage. Yes, there was no law broken in this case, but that law needs to be changed. I explained my thoughts in my column. If we had a gun control law, based on the criteria that I noted in my commentary, then...and only then...should guns then be allowed. But I will add that even then, baggage with guns would be retrieved by passengers after they get outside the airport terminals...in an area designated for claiming such baggage.
Your comment that "a gun in a checked bag is not a threat to the airplane and so it is allowed" makes no sense. Sure...there was no threat to anyone on the airplane itself, but that gun...in a checked bag...became a threat...a fatal threat...to the people who came off that plane. And if you really want to compare "prescription drugs" and "pirated movies" to guns...then it's silly to even try to have a conversation with you.
Again, if you read my column carefully, you would understand what needs to be done so that nobody off the street can walk in to an airport terminal and start murdering people. I never thought we would be at a point where people would need to go through metal detectors and have their purses, briefcases and other belongings checked as they enter airports, but that's where we're at...and it may be necessary to do the same at shopping malls and other venues and locations where there are great gatherings of people.
I do not believe I live in any sort of "fantasy world," but armed guards - who have been vetted thoroughly - need to be hired and positioned at the entrances of all airports...and perhaps at other venues too. All TSA officers should be armed. They must be people who go through similar training as a police officer. Now I'm not referring to the person who stands and tells you to take off your shoes and belt or who pats you down. But there needs to be a squad of several armed TSA officers at each checkpoint...just in case.
Your comment that the shooter in Fort Lauderdale was a "security guard" is the most ludicrous statement you could make. The man is mentally ill. Mental illness does not discriminate. That is why I stated above that there should be TSA officers who are vetted and trained just as any police officer would be.
I'm always amazed by Republicans who have a way to put a spin on something just so it fits your beliefs even though it's not at all truthful. Creating a checkpoint does not create an easy target, as you seem to think. Given the proper security and given all of the points I note in my column, there will be a monumental reduction in shootings in our country. I'm guessing you are a gun owner. And since I didn't write that all guns should be tossed in to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans...you had to come up with other ways to oppose me. What a shame! GBD
As usual you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the issue and your unwillingness to accept facts.
DeleteIf you have a checkpoint at the entrance of the airport then the same person who would shoot people at the baggage claim will simply walk up and start shooting people at the checkpoint. This is actually a better strategy for the shooter as the checkpoint contains a higher density of people. When you have people bundled together in a line the shooter can basically just shoot randomly into the crowd and kill people at a higher rate than if they are scattered about like in the baggage claim area. There's no denying this fact. I'm not saying it to "spin" something you are saying... it's basic strategy. The more hold points you create the more targets you create. Right now somebody can easily just walk into an airport with a bomb and kill lots of people at the existing TSA checkpoint. This is a known weakness in security checkpoints. There's no reason for the criminal to try and get past the checkpoint when they can simply kill more people at the checkpoint itself before they are screened.
I still have not heard what your glorious idea is to fix the problem. Please explain it. You say there should be a law to prevent people like this from doing things. There already are laws that do this. The problem is that this particular person didn't get identified as meeting any criteria that would apply to the restrictions. It's a problem with the people who saw him, not a problem with the law. The other problem is that the vast majority of people like this do not have any prior criminal records or other things to indicate that they have this problem. For instance, I will assume that you are not a criminal, you could go right now and buy whatever you want and then carry out this same crime. Nobody is going to question you ahead of time because up until you commit the crime nobody has a reason to.
It sounds like you want armed guards at all public places. You must know that this is the "fantasy world" that I spoke of. Let's say you put armed guards at airports and it somehow works to deter people (despite my previous comment about how it creates an easy target). Now the attacker will just move on to some other public place that doesn't have a checkpoint, maybe a grocery store or a mall. You want checkpoints at every grocery store? At every mall? Besides being ridiculous to begin with you must also realize that the right to carry a gun is a constitutional right and that MANY MANY states also now allow concealed carry. There are also many stores that will not prohibit weapons and install checkpoints because they don't want to anger their customers. So the end result in this scenario (which would never happen anyways), is that you would have a few stores with checkpoints and many stores without them. The stores with checkpoints will have to charge more for what they sell, and at the same time will become easy targets because people are congregated at the checkpoint as I said before, and also because criminals will know that nobody at that store is armed (similar to how "gun free" zones today attract criminals). Meanwhile the store that allows guns and doesn't have checkpoints will have lower prices and will be less attractive to criminals because the criminals won't know just how many people in the store may be ready to shoot back.
As far as the comment about the current guy being a security guard... you say that it was a ludicrous statement. Why is that? It has been heavily reported that he WAS a security guard. That was his job. I'm sure he was vetted by his company. So what are you trying to say? You don't believe that he was a security guard?
Unfortunately the bottom line is, as it has been for years, there is no solution. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. There are millions and millions of guns in the United States. No matter what security you put in place somebody can always just walk up and start shooting people.
My response to the reader above will be in two parts.
DeletePART ONE OF TWO
Again...you and Republicans think you can spin an issue to your liking even when you are totally off base. It doesn't work that way. It is YOU that cannot seem to accept facts.
If what you are saying was true - (God-forbid a million times) - then shooters would be killing people on every long line everywhere in the country. You have no clue as to what you are saying. Therefore the comment you made above is totally ludicrous. So don't say, "There's no denying this fact." Your remark is not at all factual. What you are basically saying is that we would have people in shopping malls, concert halls, arenas, auditoriums, theatres, stadiums and everywhere else there are crowds of people who would be shot to death. Therefore, we may becoming to the point that I noted in my column that security issues - similar to airports - may be needed everywhere. That is not "fantasy world" but perhaps what is soon to be the REAL WORLD. Again, you want to put your own spin on all of this and no matter what you say, I can prove you wrong.
I am not suggesting that we violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What I am saying is that a complete vetting process...an intense background check...and a 30 to 90-day waiting period...should hopefully arrive at the fact of only people who are not violent...who have no history of violence...and who should not become violent...to be allowed to purchase a gun. No law is going to be perfect. There are possible flaws in all laws. But at least we reduce the possibilities of the wrong people having access to guns. I have explained my "glorious idea" to fix the problem in this response and throughout my column. Did you not read my column?
GBD
END OF PART ONE OF TWO
PART TWO OF TWO
DeleteYour suggestion that I - or anybody - could go out and purchase a gun and do what the Fort Lauderdale shooter did...is the exact reason why we need - as I stated in my column - a 90-day waiting period - in the hope that someone who - at the spur of the moment - wanted to commit such a crime - would change his or her mind within 3 months. But, as I stated, I'm sure a 90-day waiting period is unrealistic, given people like you who seem to be in such a hurry to buy a gun, even though I assume you are not someone who is going to use it unlawfully. If you are purchasing a firearm for sport...or for protection...a thorough background check and a minimum of a 30-day waiting period are essential in anyone being granted a permit for a gun. I wrote all of this in my column. Did you not read it?
You say..."Nobody is going to question you ahead of time because up until you commit the crime nobody has a reason to." That's where you're wrong. EVERYBODY needs to be questioned who wants to buy a gun. And questioned...and questioned...and questioned. A complete vetting process and overall background check. READ MY COLUMN.
Not all companies have background checks...and those that do are not necessarily background checks that are as intense as I am suggesting. So the fact that the Fort Lauderdale shooter was a security guard is irrelevant. We don't know what kind of check was done.
The fact that there are millions of guns in the United States already can be solved to a certain degree. But you...as an obviously Republican ultra-conservative...won't want America to spend the money to do it. All decent, law-abiding citizens should not oppose my suggestion. All individuals who currently have gun permits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would have to submit to a new background check process. Most - if they are in fact - law-abiding citizens with no history of violent behavior...will pass the new check and would be able to keep their guns. Those that don't...have them taken away. The idea is to get the guns out of the hands of people who MIGHT...at some point...have even the slightest tendency to use their gun unlawfully. There is always going to be the chance that some people will be overlooked...but my suggestion does monumentally reduce shooting deaths in our country. Therefore, you CAN "put the genie back in to the bottle."
I think we are done here. You are never going to see my points, as you refuse to accept the fact that we need tougher gun control laws of any kind. Too bad. As I said in my column..."How many more people need to die? How many more people...have to die?
GBD
"then shooters would be killing people on every long line everywhere in the country"
ReplyDelete"What you are basically saying is that we would have people in shopping malls, concert halls, arenas, auditoriums, theatres, stadiums and everywhere else there are crowds of people who would be shot to death."
Correct. That's what has been happening. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the shootings in department stores, schools, universities, nightclubs, movie theaters, and airports that have taken place in the last few years. Anyplace where you have a large amount of people congregating creates an instant soft target. Again, this is basic strategy. If you are naive and don't want to listen then that's fine but it doesn't make it any less true. Google "soft target checkpoint" and you'll find lots of articles from sources that apparently you will believe more than me.
"an intense background check...and a 30 to 90-day waiting period...should hopefully arrive at the fact of only people who are not violent...who have no history of violence...and who should not become violent...to be allowed to purchase a gun"
This is laughable. Now you have a magic test that will determine if somebody might become violent in the future. If the person has never been violent and are planning an attack they will just wait the 30 or 90 days. A planned attack will not be prevented by waiting a little longer for it to happen.
I read your column which is why I say you are living in a fantasy world. There is no magic background test that would prevent people from lying and/or buying guns now to use later. Somebody could buy a gun right now and go through a whole super background test like you want and then ten years from now use it to carry out an attack.
"All individuals who currently have gun permits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would have to submit to a new background check process."
Again, your complete ignorance and lack of knowledge on subjects you claim to know about shines through. You don't need a "gun permit" to own or use a gun. Owning a gun is a constitutional right. There is no permit or license required to buy or own one. There is no national registry of who owns guns. Your suggestion is flawed to it's core because you don't even understand the issue you try so hard to talk about.
We are done here because you continuously write these ridiculous posts that do nothing but demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the subjects you try so hard to be against. You should go educate yourself about things before writing misleading information.
My response to the reader above will be in two parts.
DeletePART ONE OF TWO
"then shooters would be killing people on every long line everywhere in the country"
"What you are basically saying is that we would have people in shopping malls, concert halls, arenas, auditoriums, theatres, stadiums and everywhere else there are crowds of people who would be shot to death."
Correct. That's what has been happening. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the shootings in department stores, schools, universities, nightclubs, movie theaters, and airports that have taken place in the last few years. Anyplace where you have a large amount of people congregating creates an instant soft target. Again, this is basic strategy. If you are naive and don't want to listen then that's fine but it doesn't make it any less true. Google "soft target checkpoint" and you'll find lots of articles from sources that apparently you will believe more than me.
GBD's response to the above: That is exactly why we need a tougher federal gun control law. Period. End of discussion.
"an intense background check...and a 30 to 90-day waiting period...should hopefully arrive at the fact of only people who are not violent...who have no history of violence...and who should not become violent...to be allowed to purchase a gun"
This is laughable. Now you have a magic test that will determine if somebody might become violent in the future. If the person has never been violent and are planning an attack they will just wait the 30 or 90 days. A planned attack will not be prevented by waiting a little longer for it to happen.
I read your column which is why I say you are living in a fantasy world. There is no magic background test that would prevent people from lying and/or buying guns now to use later. Somebody could buy a gun right now and go through a whole super background test like you want and then ten years from now use it to carry out an attack.
GBD's response to the above: No...what I stated is NOT laughable because there is documented proof by psychology experts throughout our nation and throughout the world who have stated - through extensive research - that most homicides and suicides are spur of the moment because they have the opportunity to quickly purchase a gun. The percentages are documented that if a person was unable to buy a firearm easily then by the time they went through intense background checks and a long waiting period, most people would no longer consider moving forward with the crime. That is why 90 days would be the best way to go. This is not a matter of predicting the future or - as you say - having "a magic test." Facts are facts. Human nature is human nature. And those facts have been proven by medical and psychiatric experts that the longer someone needs to wait, the odds decrease substantially. Thus, the kind of gun control law I am suggesting would...WILL...save lives.
GBD
END OF PART ONE OF TWO
PART 2 "All individuals who currently have gun permits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would have to submit to a new background check process." Again, your complete ignorance and lack of knowledge on subjects you claim to know about shines through. You don't need a "gun permit" to own or use a gun. Owning a gun is a constitutional right. There is no permit or license required to buy or own one. There is no national registry of who owns guns. Your suggestion is flawed to it's core because you don't even understand the issue you try so hard to talk about. We are done here because you continuously write these ridiculous posts that do nothing but demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the subjects you try so hard to be against. You should go educate yourself about things before writing misleading information.
DeleteGBD's response to the above: It is you who has the "complete ignorance and lack of knowledge." You, I'm sorry to say are a moron. Straight out...bluntly stated. 13 states and the District of Columbia require a permit to purchase a gun...in other words...to own a gun. 6 of those 13 states only require permits to buy a handgun, but in the case of the Fort Lauderdale shooter, that is what we are talking about. If you need documentation, absolute proof of the facts that I quoted, click on the Wikipedia link at the bottom. You will see that California, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts & New Jersey require a permit to purchase ANY firearm. Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina & Rhode Island do not require permits to purchase "a long gun" but do require permits to buy any handguns. Therefore 14 of 51 states (for this purpose, call DC a state) require permits to purchase, at the very least, a handgun. So don't tell me that my "complete ignorance and lack of knowledge on subjects (I) claim to know about shines through." I know what I am talking about when I write a column or respond to my readers. But, in any event, you still don't get the point. The fact of the matter is that ALL STATES SHOULD REQUIRE permits to purchase a gun. You can say all day long that owning a gun is a Constitutional right, but there still needs to be a gun control law that prevents people who should not have guns to not be able to own guns. In other words, people who are going to buy a gun (or guns) just to harm themselves or others. There should be a "national registry" just as there is such a registry to drive a car or anything else that requires a permit or license. My suggestions are NOT "flawed to its core" and I do understand this issue. A 6-year old would understand this issue. The issue is that nobody should be given a way to buy a gun if they are going to use it to kill others or themself. Yes we are indeed done here. It truly pains me to have to tell another human being that they are a moron, but it's obvious that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. You obviously are a gun owner and you will say anything to be able to buy guns or allow others to purchase them. My columns are well documented with facts. They are not "ridiculous" and I do understand the subject matters that I write about. It is YOU who need to educate yourself because it is YOU who spreads around "misleading information." If you are someone who reads my commentaries and responds with your drivel all the time...why the hell do you bother to read me. I certainly don't mind losing you as one of my readers since all you seem to do is complain about what I write and obviously try to put your own spin on issues based on your opinions. which have no basis for facts. I always welcome intelligent opposing views. That is the nature of The Controversy. That is why my forum is titled The Controversy. But you are someone who simply wants to spew venom. I don't need that kind of reader. Now go away. GBD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
You just don't get it. It's people like you who aren't willing to accept facts that ensure that the country will never come together. You don't know everything yet you won't admit it and continue to talk about things you don't know about as if you are some kind of authority on the subject.
ReplyDeleteYour entire plan was to have everybody in the country who owned a gun have to go through a background check again. Then I pointed out that there is no registry of everybody in the country and that permits aren't required. You responded by saying that permits are required in 14 of 51 states. You said it yourself. There are 37 states where your plan is impossible. So you can rerun background checks in those 14 states and now you have all the gun owners in the other 37 states still out there. What's your plan now?
You also said that if my thinking was correct that we would have people getting shot in lines and other places all over the country. When I pointed out that we already have that you just replied and said that's why we need tougher laws. So once again you have been proven wrong and you yourself try to spin it rather than admitting that you aren't correct about everything.
You still haven't provided a way that a tougher gun control law will prevent anything. 90 days will not stop things. The airport shooter owned his gun for more than 90 days. Almost every mass shooting that has occurred was committed with guns either owned more than 90 days or stolen/acquired from somebody else.
It's sad that you really do support a cause but are unwilling to accept facts and work towards an actual solution. What is your solution to this problem? You keep saying to read your post but your post contains nothing but false information and ideas that are impossible to implement. You should stop trying to be a know-it-all once in awhile and think about an actual viable solution. Instead you want to continue to live in the fantasy world where you wish there were no guns at all. This world doesn't exist and never will but you continue to live in it spinning your wheels.
My response to the reader above will be in two parts.
DeletePART ONE OF TWO
We cannot keep going 'round and 'round with this, so this will absolutely be the final words on the subject.
It is YOU who doesn't "get it." You want to accuse me of not being an authority on a particular subject. The remarks I make are documented by experts and they are an "authority."
The reason you won't acknowledge - or do not understand - what I am stating is because you do not want anybody having to be forced in to something that isn't done now. I proved you wrong - which you won't even admit - and you used insulting language - which you haven't apologized for - when you accused me of "ignorance and (a) lack of knowledge" about needing a "gun permit" to own a gun. You wrote..."You don't need a gun permit to own or use a gun. Owning a gun is a constitutional right. There is no permit or license required to buy or own one." Obviously you are wrong in 13 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia. But now you try to put another one of your spins on the matter by saying that I said "37 states where your plan is impossible." I did not say that it was impossible. There are 37 states that don't have such a requirement. My point is...that there SHOULD be a FEDERAL LAW...A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT...for every single gun owner and every single person who now wants to purchase a gun...that each and every person - no matter what state they live in - they MUST have a gun permit. And in order to do that...every single person who wants such a permit...MUST go through an intense and thorough background check. Those people in 37 states who currently do not have a gun permit would then have to apply for such a permit...and if they don't...they would be breaking the law. So stop putting your own spin on what I am stating. I am very, very clear on what I propose.
Tougher gun laws will indeed "monumentally reduce" - I've used that phrase all along - "monumentally reduce" shootings in our country. I recognize there will always be flaws in any law...but with a law, as I suggest, it will be better than what we have now. So again...you have not proven me wrong, as you seem to think, as I am repeating what experts in the field have recommended for a gun control law...BUT...it is how I believe.
GBD
END OF PART ONE OF TWO
PART TWO OF TWO
DeleteI believe I have provided a way that a tougher gun control law will prevent MOST shootings. You say that the Fort Lauderdale "shooter owned his gun for more than 90 days." But...if he needed 90 days to buy that gun...perhaps - at the time he began his planning - he may not have actually gone through with the crime. Plus...that particular shooter suffers from mental illness...where others who plan such crimes - whether mass murders or the shooting of a specific individual - do not necessarily fall in to that category. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people shoot off their guns instead of shooting off their mouths. We have seen people who have killed family members, neighbors, employers, store clerks and others...just because they were angry about something. Those types of crimes are - in many cases - spur of the moment. It is sad that certain individuals feel a need to kill someone out of anger instead of trying to talk to that person...or...without any other choice...simply walking away. Again...a reason for a 90-day waiting period. But as I have said...I doubt Congress will ever agree on a 3-month requirement. But 30 days may...and I do say may...help the situation.
I want a tough, commonsense gun control law and I believe my plan does "work towards an actual solution." My column contains ALL factual - NOT "false information." And my ideas can work. Again you want to use insulting language by stating that I "should stop trying to be a know-it-all." I never claim to "know-it-all." But the information I include in my columns are based on documented facts from people who do indeed "know-it-all" - at least on this subject. So it is YOU...who thinks he (or she...I don't know if you're a man or woman) knows everything. You don't. But since you refuse to give your name - as you remain anonymous - and since I don't know your profession...I can only assume that you are simply a right-wing hater of anything liberal. That being said...you could tell me that you were a Constitutional lawyer and I would still debate you on these issues, which I have based my writings on others who are Constitutional scholars and legal experts. I do not live in a "fantasy world." Yes...I do "wish there were no guns at all." But as I wrote in my column - "naive, I'm not. And I certainly acknowledge the fact that we don't live in a perfect world." Therefore, I do not believe I am "spinning (my) wheels" because there are ways to limit gun deaths. I had thought after 20 6-year old children were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, 2012...that at some point in the last four-plus years...Americans would have demanded a new, federal gun control law. How do you think the mothers and fathers of those little boys and girls feel? How do you think any loved one feels who has had any adult or child in their family murdered by another person with a gun? I don't want such a tragedy to hit anybody else in this country...or anybody else in this world. I do not wish this on you. But how would YOU feel...if your child...or your spouse...or your parent...or anybody who YOU love...was shot to death? Think about it on those terms...and maybe you'll have a more compassionate thought about a gun control law that works.
GBD
END OF PART TWO OF TWO
To the reader who wrote a comment and included a link to a gun Website, your remarks cannot be published with the link. If you resubmit your comment without the link to the gun site, your response to the above column will be reconsidered for publication. However, your remarks cannot, in any way, describe or explain how to build a gun or any specifics on how to purchase one. Thank you. GBD
ReplyDeleteI guess you don’t want comments from new reader, this is the fourth and last time I will submitted this! If not posted I will not write again and I will not read this blog again. Please post, third time sent: First let me say I am a gun owner for many years, I hold a CCP (concealed carry permit) and believe in the Second Amendment. I also believe in background checks and I don’t have a problem with purchaser’s permits being required for hand guns, in my state that takes between 60 and 120 days get to approved. I do have a problem with the “left” wanting to take away guns or my Constitutional Rights, you can say what you want but the “left” in my opinion wants to take away law abiding Americans RIGHT to own and bear arms. As for you saying a law should be passed, what law doing what? From what has been said Esteban Santiago legally bought his gun a long time ago. So a 30 day or 90 day wait would not have changed anything. Much of what needs to be changed is the HIPAA laws that prevent doctors from reporting patients, unless they feel that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others. They cannot by law report to the police that this person should not own a gun or be allowed to purchase a gun unless there is that imminent danger. Doctors are afraid of losing their license to practice and of being sued. And the courts have said if the doctors don’t find anything wrong and he is not guilty of a felony you must give the gun back. We need to change those laws, you go after the GOP about guns but the Democrats don’t want to do anything about the mental health laws that may have prevented what happened in Ft. Lauderdale and in other places. You said “We must be vigilant of signals...that are given off by emotionally unstable individuals...so that when those warning signs are revealed...the person should be hospitalized before they pull the trigger of a gun”. The laws in America prevent people from being hospitalized against their will if they are not deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others. One of the questions is how should a person who legally own a gun be able to transport it when travelling by air? Right now you notify your airline and have it unloaded in a separate locked case inside of your checked luggage; I don’t know what more you can do. You insinuate that guns are sold on the internet and shipped to someone’s home that is not how it works. If you go online and purchase a gun, if the gun seller (dealer) is out of state the weapon is shipped to a local licensed gun seller after the purchaser passes a background check then you must pass whatever your state requires. NO handgun can be shipped to an individual for the purpose of sale! In some states private sales (non-dealer) can be done without background checks but they still cannot be shipped by mail, hand guns should be restricted from those private sales without a background check. People have used the same term that you have “commonsense gun control law” the problem in many cases is what you and the left call commonsense is restrictive and unconstitutional in my thinking. Your national registry comparison to a having a register your car is wrong, first there is no “national registry” to drive a car, there are state drivers licenses and state car registration, second driving a car or owning a car is NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT having a gun is. Just to let you know there are more guns in the USA then there are cars and trucks, 253 million vs 300 million guns. According to the US government close to 40% of all households in the USA have a firearm in them. The left needs to accept that America is, has always been and in my opinion will always be gun country, for protection, for hunting, for sport , for fun or just because it is your right to have one!
ReplyDelete