.

Let CT's Gun Control Debate Begin: Part II

Last week’s Patch Back on gun control made fodder for several well-reasoned online debates throughout Fairfield County. What do you think will help stem the tide of gun violence?

 

Will a high-capacity magazine and assault weapons ban make us safer? Are gun owners more or less likely to become the victim of a crime? How can we best protect our schools and homes? What's the easiest way to control guns without trampling the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens?  

Last week's Patch Back readers had plenty to share (thanks, readers!).

The conversations made two things abundantly clear. The first is gun owners really needn’t fear the government confiscating their weapons, as that isn't on anyone's agenda. The second is gun control supporters have ample reason to hope that a high capacity magazine ban will become reality in Connecticut, if not the entire U.S.

Yet as I monitored the conversations, I began thinking about varying types of gun violence and how advocates on both sides often twist statistics to support their own views. It also occurred to me that although mass shootings garner the lion’s share of media attention, the reality of gun violence that occurs in Chicago, Washington, New Haven, New York, Los Angeles and beyond claims many more lives still. 

This type of violence occurs mostly from handguns, not assault rifles. Two contradictory points here are also abundantly clear: although those who own guns are more likely to be the victim of gun violence it is also true that those who carry guns are less likely to become the victim of someone with criminal intent.

Makes no sense, right?

Yet according to JustFacts.com, a nonpartisan independent research organization, it’s true. For example, JustFacts found that the much-quoted statistic about those who own guns being three times more likely to become a homicide victim is not credible. Yet many pro-gun advocates who claim that existing controls are already strict enough fail to mention the ease with which someone with a fake ID can secure a gun. 

In fact, the Government Accountability Office had a 100 percent success rate buying firearms in five states using false identification that also met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system, according to JustFacts.

Clearly, change is in order.

So where does this leave us? First, one can certainly make an argument that the motivations behind a mass shooter and a common street thug are vastly different; one is likely mentally ill while the other is likely committing a crime for socioeconomic reasons.

Limiting magazine capacity and banning assault rifles at the state level may make it more difficult to commit a mass shooting, but it isn't foolproof and it won’t help with the everyday problem of handgun violence. A shooter using a handgun or two and holding extra ammunition can inflict just as much damage as one with an assault rifle, unfortunately. Isn't there a way to prevent mass shootings while also stemming the tide of handgun violence, which is, overall, a much greater threat to the safety of society?

Plus, although it pains this writer to think about asking Congress to take on anything of this magnitude, shouldn’t any change in our gun laws hold true for all of our citizens? After all, the Second Amendment is a federally guaranteed right. Isn’t buying a weapon at a gun show in a gun-friendly state and then hopping on the interstate pretty easy for a would-be criminal?

Local handgun bans, assault weapons bans and other technology-focused legislation seems to produce one step forward, two steps back results. Some sensible suggestions, many of which were provided by readers, include:

  1. On the federal level, requiring universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole and monitoring sales of weapons and ammunition, even when sold privately. 
  2. Incorporating mental health screening as part of the background check and requiring repeated applications, as we do for driver licenses (“You could write a whole new column about driving requirements,” my husband grumbled after one long commute home). This should include those living in the home with the weapon in question.
  3. Developing safe storage laws and enforcing penalties for those who do not follow them, especially if the un-stored gun is stolen and used in a crime.
  4. Making standard trigger mechanisms that unlock via fingerprint.
  5. Training teachers and administrators in self-defense. One reader suggested tasers or tear gas.  
  6. Requiring gun owners to train family members in the appropriate use and safe storage of weaponry.
  7. Offering a federal gun amnesty program to get as many guns off the streets as possible.

Adding armed guards to schools, as the NRA suggested, may make sense for President Obama’s children, but the idealist inside me is saddened that our kids may have to learn under armed protection. Can we not limit access to weaponry without infringing upon the rights of those who own guns safely and responsibly?

People who purchase guns want them for protection, hobby or sport. Those who don’t want guns will probably never understand the motivations of those that do. But reaching a compromise will require each side to cross the impasse of their own making.  

Joseph Sheapdawg January 24, 2013 at 01:40 PM
These are all valid questions and suggestions, but at the root of all of them is do laws work against people that choose to disobey them. It is true that many deaths can be attributed to handguns. The sad part is that the majority of gun deaths are suicide. Unfortunately if someone is in such a state they are going to take their own life gun laws will not stop them from carrying out the act.(a Mental health issue) A large percentage of the remaining 40 percent can be attributed to gang killings and homicides perpetrated by criminals with a previous record that would make it illegal to possess the gun in the first place. Perhaps we need to look at enforcing the laws that we have. I think that a standardized process( federal) for becoming a legal permit owner may help with the back ground check process. Perhaps we need to create and enforce laws that say if you are found in possession of a firearm and it is not legal for you to have one you are committing a crime and must go to jail. Unfortunately our jails are over crowded and criminals are being release in some cases to reduce over crowding.
Alex January 24, 2013 at 02:45 PM
Jospeh, they do go to jail. The problem is that when the state law C.G.S. 53a-217, Criminal Possession of a Firearm, was written, it had a 5 year mandatory sentence that could not even be reduced by a judge. This law specifically applies to CONVICTED FELONS. Now, the law allows a judge to suspend all but two years of this sentence. And with the new good behavior guidelines put in place by Gov. Malloy (ask any state proescutor, they'll tell you), they can be out in just over a year. Ask your elected officials why they changed this law. A convicted felon who carries a gun does so for a reason....and trust me, it's not a good one. It's pretty frustrating to put a guy away for this crime and then see him out on the street a brief time later. The only saving grace is that usually they are too dumb to keep themselves out of jail.....it's just sometimes, they kill or severely injure someone else before they go away again.
Craig Southard January 24, 2013 at 03:40 PM
While passing new gun control laws sounds good I regretfully do not believe they will do anything to prevent further gun violence. As you have both said the criminals, gangs and severely mentally ill do not care any any laws and when they are caught violating existing laws the consequences are not appropriately enforced. I agree with the additional background checks as a good idea but beyond that everything I have seen so far regarding additional gun control laws in CT really only affects who choose to follow the laws in the first place. Regretfully some of the proposals appear to be specifically intended to alienate and identify legal and responsible gun owners and just inflame and harden positions on both sides of the issue. I really hope Connecticut seriously considers removing itself from the list of only six states that do not authorize involuntary treatment of severe mental illness. Without clear progress in this area all the other things serve only as smoke & mirrors presenting the appearance of enhanced safety only.
Alex January 24, 2013 at 07:28 PM
I agree with you Craig on the mental health issue. Everyone seems to fall back on current HIPAA laws regarding medical records. But there needs to be a change in the HIPAA law for those wishing to possess firearms. There should be a database established for those who are or were ever mentally ill, and that database can be automatically cross referenced to the State Police pistol permit and gun registry. If a match is found at the same address, then they get a letter from the State Police telling them any resident of that address are required to turn in their weapons or legally transfer them to another eligible person. Not much different than they currently do when someone is arrested for domestic violence or a felony, only it would apply to all home residents.

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