Common sense is the first casualty of 'gun control' debate

The current "gun control" debate is maddening for its logical fallacies, both circular and "Straw Man" in nature.

I fully understand the angst over the deaths of the innocents in the Sandyhook school shootings and others in the past years.

In all cases, though, these have been mentally ill perpetrators, and in almost all cases, they were using stolen firearms . . . that is, illegally obtained weapons.

Still, some folks are using the shootings as an excuse to "control" legal gun purchases. Some argue for repeal of the Second Amendment, claiming we no longer need it.

Pesky Constitution. Maybe the First Amendment (free speech and expression) should be the next to go? Speak out for the Second, it seems, and you certainly will be slandered and shouted down.

Some insist that "assault weapons" should be banned, when what they really mean is anything that looks scary -- i.e. "military" -- should be banned. The whole term "assault weapons," which applied to civilian models of firearms like AR-15s and AK-47s, etc., is misleading, even dishonest.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle (one trigger pull, one shot). An M-16, which it resembles, is capable of three-shot burst and fully automatic firing, i.e. a "machine gun." The former is legal, the latter is not for civilian but military use.

I own a .22-cal rifle that holds 20-some shots in a tube inside the stock, a very common weapon for the past 50 years. It is semi-automatic, like most rifles -- except "bolt action" models -- are these days.

Why would that .22 not be an "assault rifle?" Because it doesn't look scary, i.e. it does not have a pistol grip.

So, much of that argument is specious, and simply semantics. Take a pistol grip off the AR-15 and, I guess, it's not an assault rifle any more? Well, it never was.

Then there's the capacity of rifle clips. Some want to limit it to 10 rounds instead of 20 or 30, etc. Really? In Vietnam, my generation's soldiers simply taped one clip to the other, upside down, and it took about a second to flip, lock and load.

Again, a capacity based solution is really an ignorant solution.

But the biggest point the gun control crowd seems to miss is that you can restrict, control, ban, etc. firearms -- but criminals will still have them. That's what a criminal does, after all, break the law. Regardless how many restrictions are passed, all they would do, ultimately, is leave the law-abiding less able to defend themselves.

That is Insane.

But what is also insane is not enforcing background checks for those seeking to buy firearms. Felons, minors, the mentally ill, those with violent records should not be buying firearms. Period.

How anyone could argue with that, I don't know.

Are you listening to that, NRA?

Put the blame where it belongs: within the human heart

Lots of finger-pointing, and not a little hatred being directed these days at the National Rifle Association in particularly, and pretty much anyone who has decided to take defense of their homes and loved ones into their own hands -- rather than depending on overworked and stretched thin law enforcement . . . i.e., gun owners.
I am a gun owner. I have a concealed weapons permit. I took the safety training, and I am proficient, regularly going to a safe, regulated firing range. But I do not, as I've mentioned before, see why anyone needs to full-on military style assault rifle to "defend" his or her person, loved ones or home.
Honestly, assault weapons seem to be a big leap from self defense to an offensive ability more in line with militia movements, which often have political agendas of their own.
But I digress.
There is a lot of debate, and not a little angry name-calling going on, and by folks who, in my opinion, do not have bona fides to speak to any level I feel the need to respect. But I would argue this man, Darrell Scott, has earned the right to be heard.
Not perhaps to be agreed with on every point; but his loss and grief carry a lot more weight we me than some idiot thinking the solution is to strip all law-abiding gun owners of the means to defend themselves -- while, by definition, leaving criminals the undermanned police departments the only ones with weapons. Neither do I think some Bubba with a collection of AR-15s, AK-47s and a bagful of extended capacity clips has the right to speak with authority on the issue, either.
So, whatever side of this debate you find yourself, or if you are in the middle somewhere, I think Darrell Scott has earned a moment of your time.
To read a transcript of what he had to say to Congress in the aftermath of the Columbine massacre, click on this link.
His points, I believe, at least deserve recognition in the wake of recent incidents where madmen have acted to slay the innocent, and perhaps more to the point, the defenseless.