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?

Call for common sense: Self-defense firearms, yes; assault rifles, no

OK . . . People need the right to defend themselves against the lawless, who could care less if gun laws are stricter. Police departments are being cut, not expanded, so the need is greater than ever. 

But come on -- assault rifles? Extended clips? No background checks on both criminal and mental health status? There can be a logical, safer middle ground here.

That said, gun control legislation appears powerless to stop madness. In Connecticut, with some of the nation's toughest gun control laws, the Newtown mass murderer still was able to arm himself -- despite being turned down after a background check when he tried to buy a rifle a few days before the school shootings.

He did this by killing his mother and stealing the arsenal he used.

About the same time he murdered 20 children, six adults and then killed himself, a man in China slashed 22 children with a knife.

So, mandatory background checks ruling out both criminals and the mentally ill from gun ownership. But sane, at risk citizens still need the right to be armed in self-defense against those who would rape, rob and kill.

They do not, however, need a military assault rifle to do this. 

If someone breaks into your home, you have a few seconds to react. That's one, two or maybe three shots from a revolver, normal semi-automatic pistol, or a shotgun.

Military grade assault rifles are more the firearm of terrorists or militia types with dreams of revolution or anarchy.