.

America Needs the "Newtown Anti-Gun Bill"

The federal government should ban the purchase or possession of all military-type weapons including, but not limited to, automatic rifles and automatic handguns.

The gun massacre that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut was peculiarly an American catastrophe, happening in an almost ideal American town, to 20 children (and six adults). There have been seven such incidents since the beginning of the year. Our national sorrow and outrage is quite justified. At the same time, although our hearts are still in Newtown, our heads must be on what we can do to prevent another mass murder in the United States.

It is a fact that the number of guns we Americans own per capita is the greatest in the world and almost twice that of our nearest competitor (Serbia). These numbers are as of 2007, but it is certain that our per capita rate has grown since then. Indeed, I have seen one estimate that suggests that our present rate is 16 times that of the country with the second highest rate. I have seen another that suggests that we now have almost one privately owned gun for every American, although it is obvious that guns are not evenly distributed in our population. At the same time, our death rate from firearms (murder, suicide, accidental discharge, etc.) is the eleventh highest in the world. None of the major countries in the world precede us.

The United States has been blessed (?) with the Second Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is historically clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment, adopted in 1789, was to prevent the disarming of state militias and replacement of them with a federal standing army. Within a few years, Americans had come to understand that a standing army was required in order to protect the country and that state militias could never be used to overthrow the national government. Only votes could do that. It is crazy to assert that people are armed to defend themselves against the federal government.

It is true that guns don’t kill, people do. But people without guns are unlikely to kill people except by accident. Yes, autos can be fatal, but cars are functionally useful in our society. Guns are not. Yes, banning all guns would interfere with people who enjoy target practice or hunting, but that seems a small price to pay for stopping this wave of mayhem. Let hunters hunt with arrows. I very much doubt that there would be mass killings by deranged people armed with them.

One of the falsehoods perpetrated by the gun lobby is that guns are good because they can be used for defense. But, of course, the defense they are talking about is defense against other people using guns. Another is that there are already laws on the books that would handle the problem if they were properly enforced. Nonsense. That statement is true only to the minor extent that it might help somewhat, but there is no chance that enforcement of existing laws would solve the problem. If you can buy an AK-47 legally, end of story.

There is no comparison to the “war on drugs,” which has failed and wasted billions of dollars and millions of live. That is the equivalent of Prohibition, not gun control. That problem might be solved by legalizing drugs and making them so cheap that pushers will be driven out of business. Then campaigns could be run urging people not to use dangerous drugs, much the way campaigns were run against smoking.

The solution to the gun problem is relatively simple. The federal government should ban the purchase or possession of all military-type weapons including, but not limited to, automatic rifles and automatic handguns. Deferring to our hunting heritage, single shot, small-gauge rifles should be permitted as should single shot pistols that could be used, but not carried, at home as protection. Federal and state officers should be permitted--indeed, encouraged--to enforce this ban. There should be a brief waiting period to allow law-abiding people to surrender weapons, and perhaps be reimbursed in part for their cost.

None of this would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the majority decision, written by arch-conservative Justice Scalia, specifically recognized that military weaponry in civil hands are not protected by the amendment.

In homage to Newtown, the bill might be named The Newtown Anti-Gun Bill.

Wayne A. December 21, 2012 at 12:40 PM
The author is taking advantage of legal pot Only explanation for the article.
Hugh Gallagher December 21, 2012 at 01:39 PM
It appears that his dreams are very long and detailed. I wonder if they are in color. But I would ask him this. If there were trained and armed staff at that school, could they have prevented some of the killing? These disturbed people are choosing soft targets (malls, schools). Can you change a sick person easier that you can change the target itself?
LogieT December 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Mr. Katz your continuous attacks on the second amendment are getting old and a better use of this space would have been to make some common sense recommendations that could quickly be put in place and realistically secure our schools then banning guns which time and time again hasn't done anything to curb criminals from committing crimes. After 9/11 we did two things in particular that went a long way to ensure we did not have to sit back and watch another jet get hijacked. First we armored our cockpit doors. We made it a hardened target that terrorist could not get thru. Schools that are open campuses are always the targets and we see attackers time after time enter the campus after school is in session and commit their evil acts. Locking doors and providing 1 point entry would fulfill this. He shot the window in the door out you say. Well I as well as many would be more than willing to allow our schools to spend the extra money to put hardened glass in making it a tougher target. This one time expenditure is worth it`s weight in gold! The second thing we did was allow pilots to carry weapons in the cockpit.Schools being declared "GUN FREE ZONES" is the most laughable of concepts. It's like the Military putting signs around our bases that say "TERRORIST ATTACKS PROHIBITED". Allowing individuals to posses a firearm places a large sense of doubt in an attackers mind.
LogieT December 21, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Criminals thrive on soft targets. Going after an area where you know you will have ZERO resistance is at the top of the list. Allowing staff members of a school to be in possession of firearms will add that additional layer of doubt to any would be attacker. The fact is gun control does nothing to curb any violence. In china were private ownership of weapons is prohibited we saw a man walk into a school and stab and slash 22 children the same day of the Sandy Hook tragedy. By continuously placing more and more restrictions you are making more scenes out of movies come true where people are cowering awaiting their fate with absolutely no recourse to do anything about it.
Hugh Gallagher December 21, 2012 at 04:20 PM
If law enforcement had been able to identify either the shooter or the target ahead of time, they could have prevented that tragedy (without attempting to disarm the eniter country. On the other hand, if I had to surrender my registered gun as Joel suggested, it would have had NO EFFECT on those killings. NADA. Not one iota. Take it a step further. If his suggestion was followed, do you think a convicted felon who posesses a stolen gun is going to give it up? Those felons are pulling for you Joel. They think it's a great idea.
Micky December 21, 2012 at 08:22 PM
I've tried arguing on the subject of gun control with his guy before: save your breath and don't waste your time folks. He isn't worth the effort, and you're just giving him the attention he craves.
Daren Polliosk January 05, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Oh wow! Vehicles and medical malpractice kill over 200,000 people in America every year, guns just over 10,000, so ban guns? We don't need guns to defend ourselves from our own government? Really? Because Germany 1940 just can't ever happen again? You call all of the shootings that have happened in the last 10 years mayhem but less than 400 people in those shootings have been killed over that 10 years? Our federal government has gotten over 5,000 soldiers killed in Iraq and tens of thousands horribly wounded but disarm the citizens? You sir and anyone that agrees with you is either evil or has an IQ lower than 100!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something