The Only Gun Control That May Work
The
gun control debate rages again. The Newtown massacre has the pro-gun control in
an orgiastic spasm of rhetoric . . . again. The NRA is advocating the placement
of armed police officers in every school in the United States. The gun-control
people are again advocating for an assault weapons ban in the country . . .
despite the fact that no assault weapon was used in the Newtown incident.
Let’s
all be honest here. Guns have been a fixture of American life from before the
American Revolution. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is as
much to permit the public to defend themselves from a government gone rogue as it
is to permit hunting, home defense, and the protection of life from the
criminal element.
The
gun-control advocates want fewer guns in the country, ignoring the fact that
criminals by definition are unlikely to surrender their weapons, leaving the
populace at large at their mercy. The law enforcement community is not legally
required to protect the citizenry at large. There have been several court decisions
reinforcing this concept.
The
only solution, as I see the problem, is draconian, no disputing that. Unarmed
venues are perceived as ‘soft’ targets for the criminal element. This is evidenced
by the preference shown toward schools and college campuses repeatedly being
the places these horrific events unfold. I fear the only solution that may work to diminish gun crime in this country
is this: Pass laws in every state and Federal jurisdiction, imposing a
mandatory death sentence for any felony committed in possession of a firearm or
lethal projectile weapon, or claiming to possess one at the time the crime is
committed.
Use a gun to commit a crime; you die. That’s
it. Even on a first offense. Use a gun to hold up a store, and you’re done.
When convicted, the criminal will be put to death. Try to hold up a store, and
get shot by the clerk, the clerk gets off on self-defense. The defendant can appeal the conviction, but the sentence is not
reversible, unless the appeal succeeds.
By
continuing to coddle these gun-toting criminals, with short sentences and
probationary releases, society contributes to the problem by enabling the
behavior. We learn as children that stealing and killing is wrong. Why do we
not punish such behavior as it arguably deserves?
The
advantages of this proposed solution are apparent. If the criminal decides to
commit crimes, he has to decide if the potential gains are worth his life to
bring a gun to the robbery. The behavior itself will be discouraged, as the
solution will prevent every future crime such a criminal may commit. Petty
thefts where no weapon is present will not have this penalty imposed. If a
juvenile is the criminal, they are tried as adults. A gun negates any
differential based on age, once the child has passed the ‘age of reason’. The
argument of a criminal taking a weapon to steal from armed individuals as an
attempt to impose fairness in the exchange is ludicrous. There is no
entitlement granting anyone the right to steal money or property from another,
with the possible exception of the Internal Revenue Service.
For
those who argue the penalty is too severe, there are a few things to offer in
exchange. First, the present situation is as much the fault of the criminals
that choose to employ firearms in the pursuit of their ill-gotten gains, as the
society that has enabled their behavior. Second, their behavior up until now
does not argue in favor of their abandoning firearms anytime soon. Thirdly, as
long as society offers up ‘soft’ targets in the form of ‘Firearms Prohibited’
zones, gunmen will be drawn inexorably to those ‘soft’ targets, secure in the
knowledge that no one there will be shooting back, and that they will pursue
their goals successfully.
Three
hundred million gun owners are not shooting schoolchildren, robbing
banks and stores, conducting home invasions and all the other gun-related
violence in the country. One gun owner in a Sacramento, California neighborhood
defended his home, his children and their friends sleeping over from three
armed home invaders. The homeowner survived, wounded, after shooting all three invaders, killing one. No
children were injured in the incident. Here’s the link: http://bcove.me/uhup45tp Stack this
incident with Newtown. They appear to cancel one another in political terms.
