In line of fire

Recently, one of my favourite website had an article about mass killers and stopping them. Now the writer did point out that he only want to understand. However, he also admitted that he owned 3 firearms which I think made his opinion of banning guns biased to say the least. This article is solely on the gun control measures which I have an issue with.

1. "an assault weapons ban, but he never fired his" 
2. "background checks for gun buyers" 
3. "could have just used his mother's guns, or had her buy on his behalf."
4. "No guns for people on the terror watch list"
5. "short of banning all guns"
6. "magically making the existing 300 million of them (including tens of millions of assault rifles) vanish"
7. "talking about with an assault weapons ban is a limit on how many bullets they hold at a time before you have to reload"
8. "got his gun illegally."

"short of banning all guns"

I am also always sceptical when this claim is raised. Yes, there are people in America who like this law to be implemented. There are also people like the author of the article which own guns. So as a civilised democracy, is it impossible to have people to sit down and discuss an amicable solution? I am perfectly willing that muzzle loaded muskets be sold since one can only fire 2 or 3 shots a minute. To paraphrase Obama, what is stopping people to have a "conversation about guns". I do not think that Obama or Hillary has a monopoly on solutions for gun control but are the political leaders able or willing to have a more mature debate on the issue? Most countries do allow gun ownership but they have strict laws about it (Eg. Gun clubs must store the weapon. Only certain type of firearms are allowed. Limit on number of firearms.).      

"an assault weapons ban, but he never fired his"

We should be glad that a murderer did not discharge all his firearms and expend all his ammunition. Would an assault weapon ban stop the murderer? No, but most people would be happier if he had one less assault weapon. The fact that the gunman had six guns was one to many. Most people will also prefer that he tried to use a musket to kill the people which is a slower to reload. 

It would have made life easier for police if he did not have an assault weapon. It is hard to do fire and movement with a pistol. The standard patrolman would also not be outgunned. But blue lives do not matter when the second amendment is at stake? 

"could have just used his mother's guns, or had her buy on his behalf."

Not everybody has a mother that owns firearm. Not many mothers would be willing to purchase firearms for their children. It is a good idea for consideration as a criteria for gun ownership. I can start imagining all the conversations that will take place. ("But you have so many!", "Is the previous one still working?", "Sure, when you pay me back for the loan, etc".) 

The point is like background checks, at least one interested and matured person is looking into the gun purchase. If not a mother, can it be a certified religious leader or the neighbourhood police?  

"background checks for gun buyers" 

There will be people who will slip through the cracks. There is a possible risk that a member of the military or the law enforcement misuse their weapon. As a matured society, we understand that nothing is perfect. The solution is to make it difficult for criminals to own a gun. Or at least have a cool down period so that the new gun owner does not immediately take his or her toy to fix the problem in the heat of the moment. 

What about making background check more stringent like if you have been investigated by the FBI, you can only buy a musket?

"No guns for people on the terror watch list"

When terrorist leaders are making training videos about creating chaos in US of A with firearms, I think it is a good idea to consider this. It may not stop the existing mass murderers but it can stop future ones. I agree that the terror watch list is faulty but fixing it is a separate issue. We cannot stop everyone but can we try to raise the bar for gun ownership so that less risky people can have a firearm. Or at least get to purchase a musket. 

"magically making the existing 300 million of them (including tens of millions of assault rifles) vanish"

If the Americans want to ban all guns, this is possible. Assuming that it is too draconian, a good idea would be just to limit gun ownership. At least , the crazy young person who has not stockpiled a cache of weapons will have to jump through more hoops to get his or her gun. It certainly would not make a dent on the mass murders by gun in the next few years but it could change things in the next few decades. Few people will be willing to handle a twenty or thirty year old weapon. After all, there isn't a huge demand for ancient muskets. Moreover, like driving stick shift or a manual car, the younger generation are less able to pick up ancient skills.

If they borrow their mother's guns, at least one other matured person is aware of it.

"talking about with an assault weapons ban is a limit on how many bullets they hold at a time before you have to reload"

For the sake of argument, let us consider this point. R Lee Ermey (Ex-marine staff sergeant and active shooter) has proven, a rifle with a greater magazine capacity can fired more quickly. (Watch the video at point of 29:30) Claiming that the Marine who was working as a data network specialist could be proficient in a quick magazine change is iffy. We also have to remember that this person was also discharged six years prior to the shooting. It is possible that his quick reloading skills would deteriorate without constant practise.

Secondly, there is a possibility that the rifle that the murderer used was a Tavor (Israeli weapon) which is not the same as the rifle that he was trained with in the Marine. I know for a fact that most people need to relearn changing magazine from an AR-15 rifle to a bullpup design rifle. Besides the fact that it is fun to shoot things up, I cannot think of a use of the bullpup assault rifle with reflex sight or scope. If you need a Tavor for hunting, the animals are US of A are simply too dangerous for you. I also think that a musket is too dangerous for you. Perhaps you should stick to video games.   

If you have asked most police officers about this incident, they would tell you that against an ex-marine, they would prefer him to be firing a pistol at them instead of an assault rifle. They would also prefer him to fire a weapon that he is unfamiliar with. 

The reason why people were talking about the limit on how many bullets the assault rifle can hold was that they could not get the assault weapons ban enacted.   

"got his gun illegally."

There is a reason why Germany does not have that many mass murderer that used guns compared to US of A. The gunman has to jump through more hoops to get a firearm. No country to my knowledge has successfully prevented illegal firearms. (North Korea may have this success but not many people want to live there.) The idea is to make it difficult for mass murderers to get their hands on weapons to increase their efficiency. No government believe they can stop all crime but all sane and competent government do their best to reduce it. 

We have not stop people from dying from smoking related causes. But we have made it such that people have to smoke in selected places. We also have health promotions or campaign discouraging people from smoking. This in turn has reduced death caused by smoking. Not one single measure solve the problem. Not all measures achieve instant success or even work. Governments experiment and alter their policies all the time. It is about time the gun lovers do the same. And the first step would to be cut the NRA and gun manufacturers BS and start asking tough questions. (One good question would be asking mommy's permission when taking the semi-auto firearm out. I am willing to concede exemptions on muskets.) 

The main point is that there is no silver bullets or perfection in life. Solutions are seldom painless and require sacrifices or trade offs.  

"Life is about choices. Some we regret, some we're proud of. We are what we chose to be." Graham Brown