Disclaimer: This is the second of three posts that I wrote in the spring of 2018 regarding violence involving firearms, then-current arguments regarding possible solutions, and the information that, given the research I had been able to do up to that point, might actually lead to the most effective solution possible, for both short and long term. In this post, I cover one potential framework for gun control reform that I believe would result in a safer nation for everyone involved, at least in the long run. I'd like to point out that any reform takes time, and I mean years, to be fully implemented, even after it's passed. That would be even more true of this kind of reform, as it would require a lot of changes that are not easy to make.
I wish I could say I have a theoretical solution that would provide increased safety in the short term. I can list out a bunch of possibilities, and I will in a moment, but I don't see them really doing all that much, even if they were to somehow get implemented. The obvious solution is to increase security at schools. Security Guards armed with lethal weapons is not a popular idea, so perhaps a variety of non-lethal weapons could be made available. Or perhaps those same non-lethal weapons could be made available to teachers, as well as paid training to use them. Not every teacher is going to have the constitution to defend their students in that manner. It does take a very special mindset to do it, one that I've most often found in my fellow veterans. As Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (a character in Robert Heinlein's novel "Starship Troopers") said, "The most noble fate a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and the war's desolation."
There are a few promising non-lethal weapons that I feel would be useful in schools, specifically, but also pretty useful for home defense and other situations calling for some heavier duty self defense than a martial arts class can offer. The first is the s1 Pepper Spray Gun made by the Salt Supply Co (linked below). It's not terribly expensive as weapons go, only about $350 each, but it fires small paintball-like rounds, filled with a pepper spray mixture rather than paint, that is very effective in temporarily blinding and/or disabling an assailant. Tasers are generally very effective, though they have limited range, and have been known to cause permanent damage. There is a longer ranged version of the taser, The Taser X12 shotgun (no gunpowder, just a specially designed taser round), but the rounds alone are $160, so although it's promises, it's not yet practical. Unfortunately, that's about all I can think of that would be provide for more safety in the short-term, and as you can probably guess, I don't think they're great solutions.
As far as the Long Term goes, I've been putting a *lot* of thought into it, for literally years. Thanks to finally getting all of the pieces together, I can at least lay out the framework for it.
The big problem I see in implementing any reform is that we don't have access to the data that would be most helpful to everyone. Thanks to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986, the Dickey Amendment of 1996, and a few other laws that have been heavily supported by the NRA, the government can't really do much to find out what risk factors are actually correlated with violent crimes involving guns. We can note what factors are present in the crimes, but we can't really compare them to gun owners as a whole, nor really take a good, deep look at the data.
First, we'd need to repeal the Dickey Amendment. This is a little thing tacked on to the CDC's budget that bans them from doing research that might be used to advocate for gun control. The CDC really does need to have the freedom to gather and assess data freely, especially when it comes to gun violence, so I think it has to go. Thankfully, there's hope that it will, if Republicans lose their control on Congress in the upcoming elections.
Second, we would need to replace the Firearm Owners' Protection Act. I'm not asking for an outright repeal, because there are good and bad parts to the law. It was originally written because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) was abusing its power to enforce firearms control laws. It also imposed some restrictions on firearms, including a ban on all new automatic firearms, so we'll need to keep part of it. The part I really want removed is the restrictions against the ATF having a search-able database of gun owners.
Now we start with the hard work (as if those two legal changes aren't nearly impossible to begin with). We need laws to allow law enforcement to actually enforce firearm laws. Thankfully, we have a system already in place that could be modified to really give teeth to law enforcement, and also to protect legal firearms owners from abuses of the new power. Basically, I want to copy the Department of Transportation's system, and refine it for firearms.
Primarily we'd need to simply create a requirement for a license to operate/carry a firearm in public. Just like cars, if you keep it on your property and don't hurt anyone with it, really no reason to restrict it outside of existing bans. However, we can drastically reduce the likelihood of things like accidental deaths by requiring a written and practical exam for that license. As a person trained on how to use firearms, I find myself nervous when I see someone else carrying, because I have no guarantee that they know how to safely handle that weapon. We need to provide that guarantee to the citizens of the US. Such a test would need to ensure they know how to safely operate and store firearms. You don't store a firearm loaded, it's both unsafe and damages the weapon. You don't carry a weapon in such a way that its muzzle points towards someone else. You don't walk around with a loaded weapon unless you are expecting to have to have it out and fired in under four seconds (loading a magazine into a handgun can be done very fast, including chambering the first round). This licensing database would have to be search-able, and tied to an existing ID, so that police can simply scan it like they do your driver's license to see if you're licensed to carry.
Restrictions on what kinds of firearms can be carried in certain areas would probably be reasonable as well. A couple years ago, a big news story came out in which men were carrying semi-automatic rifles through a Target store. They were carrying them loaded, improperly slinged, and not even properly controlled (two hands on at all times, genius). Speaking as someone who thinks tactically far too often, if I was expecting to need to shoot in a department store, or pretty much any building short of warehouses or hangers, I wouldn't need a carbine of that size. A pistol is *much* more effective in those situations, or at most a modified sub-machine gun (modified for single shot only, as the law requires). I think publicly carrying a rifle over 30 inches in urban areas without a very good reason should be considered a red flag anywhere, if for no other reason than the person doing it probably has no idea how to use it properly.
Licensing would have to be done with firearms carried in public as well, just like cars. They would need to be registered to a primary user, and that registration must correspond to the serial number hard-etched into the metal of the firearm. Any firearm found without license or without serial number should be allowed to be confiscated, similar to impounding a car. Any firearm carried by an unlicensed individual should be treated the same way. If you're found to be carrying in public, a police officer should be allowed to see your license, just like when you're driving (some restrictions would have to apply, obviously, to avoid "stop and frisk" style profiling). If during an otherwise necessary/legal search of a vehicle a firearm is found, then the same laws that apply to an actively carried firearm should apply to it: one person in the vehicle should have a license to carry it, and it should be registered.
Now, all of this sounds like a gross violation of the 2nd amendment. I'm a huge proponent for that particular amendment, because I don't trust my government any more than your average veteran, which means not much at all. That's why I specifically allowed for privately owned firearms to stay on private property, or locked securely in a case for transport. You really wouldn't even need to have a license to own them, you just need one to carry them publicly. If the fecal matter hits the rotating air current generator to the point that we have to assault government offices, you'll have access to the weapons without the federal government having them specifically on file. However, if there's reasonable cause, like a charge of a violent crime, such firearms should be allowed to be impounded, at least temporarily, for the duration of an investigation, for everyone's safety.
The plus side to all of this is that we will have access to the data to show that the overwhelming majority of firearms owners are not only responsible with their firearms, but good citizens. Firearms owners are being crucified in the media regularly because the only firearms owners we have a lot of data about are those that are either perpetrators or victims of crimes. There are other sources of information, like surveys and the like, but they're not really viewed as reputable.
This entire system can be tweaked in a number of ways: licensing could be required for purchasing of certain kinds of ammunition, or at least a background check. There could be specific licensing/tests for different kinds of firearms (rifle vs handgun vs shotgun). It would even make background checks both faster and more accurate. You'd even get to see if someone's been buying a lot of firearms in a short period of time, which is probably a red flag.
The ATF would be able to finally digitize all of the records of firearms sales that they have stored. If nothing else, this would create a lot of low-skill labor positions (data entry) for a good, long while so they can update the system with older records.
Finally, this would have to take time to implement. Just as a quick estimate, I think it would be good to have a 3 year window for state DOTs to work with the ATF to implement the license system, with an additional grace period of 5 years for existing gun owners to earn their licenses and register any weapons they intend to carry outside the house. It's not a quick fix, but I think it's possible. However, my assessment can always be wrong, so please, take this as one possible framework, not a perfect detailed plan.
As far as bans go, I've been asked to consider the possibility of temporary bans that would help. There's only one kind of ban that *might* help short term: ammunition. Restricting who can buy specific kinds of ammunition, especially 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds, might reduce the risk. Banning specific firearms doesn't really help, but ammunition is a low harder to 3D print. You can make your own, but it's not hard to track sales for the components if necessary, and to make reliable ammo, you need specialized equipment. If a bill were to come out that proposed restrictions on the purchase of ammunition and/or quality gunpowder, that also had an end-date *in the bill*, I'd support it. Long term, this kind of ban is not sustainable, and I don't believe it would be effective outside of a fairly narrow window, especially since its implementation would cause a panic among a significant segment of the population.
I feel I should remind people of one piece of history in regards to weapons bans: complete and/or significant firearms bans have been used by oppressive governments as the first step towards totalitarianism. Remember that we don't trust our government right now, we know it's corrupt, so giving that government such a massive advantage over citizens, historically speaking, is a dangerous idea. I think there's got to be other solutions, and we have to remember to protect the whole of the nation, including from the government, not just from violent criminals. At least, that's how a lot of Americans see it, and we're not simply paranoid about "losing our guns," we want to help, we just don't want to end up in a Pied Piper story. In making your decisions on what kind of reform you'd like to support, all I ask is that you keep this in mind.
Once again, Thanks for reading. God bless if you'll allow Him, and in any case, I hope you have a good day.
- Draknus.
PS: Salt s1 Pepper Spray Gun: https://www.saltsupply.com/products/s1-pepper-spray-gun-starter-kit
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/10/taser-xrep-up-close-and-pricing/
No comments:
Post a Comment