He was, however, foremost a victim of an unstable grandfather unable to control his temper. The right to own a gun is a contributing factor, along with our cultural love of violence in general and firearms in particular.
As the owner of a few guns, I don’t take exception to the right of Americans to own guns to defend themselves. Rarely, that is necessary, however. For every time that happens successfully, there are 100 times some innocent person is killed in a homicide or an accident, often, like Michael, in a fit of uncontrolled rage.
The left and right can (and will) debate tirelessly over whether Michael would have been killed had gun control laws been more strict. It’s a fruitless argument. Our right to buy guns insures that those who have a legitimate need for firearms can get them, but it also guarantees that guns will wind up in the hands of many who, for reasons of legality or mental instability, should not have them. What test could be applied to legally prevent people with anger management problems from buying firearms?
That logic can be applied to automobiles. Whereas firearm deaths in the U.S. average a little more than 30,000 per year, deaths in auto wrecks are closer to 50,000. A gun is designed to kill when used properly, while an automobile kills when used improperly. Reckless, improper use of vehicles is rampant.
Americans are in a sort of arms race. The more the public hears of criminals using firearms, the more guns the rest of the public wants — which makes it easier for the bad guys to acquire weaponry. Firearms are second only to cash as the favored take of burglars.
I see in police reports every week where people threaten to kill each other. Every week. A pistol close by can be all the difference between a threat and a tragic reality. Sadly, the victims are often the loved ones of the shooters.
Internationally, we decry the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the likes of Iran and North Korea. We know that the more countries that possess nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood one will be used, but how can we, who have nuclear weapons, say some other country is not fit to own them for its self-defense? A Second Amendment right to own firearms must be applied without prejudice, but we can’t prevent the North Koreas and Irans among our citizens from also buying guns.
In hindsight, Michael’s grandfather should not have had a gun, but he had every legal right under the Second Amendment to own one.
Mark Beardsley is editor of The Commerce News. He lives in Commerce.
So many times in this country, we confuse our God given rights with earned privileges. When our forefathers drafted the constitution, it was impossible for them to foresee the world as it is today.
In my opinion a right is something guaranteed to everyone. You have the right to a fair trial, to worship, etc. You can never lose a right.
A privilege on the other hand, should be something earned and lost if you don’t meet the criteria or live up to the standards. All too often, the bar is set too low for earning privileges. You earn the privilege to vote by reaching the age of 18 and not committing a felony – fair enough. However, when it comes to owning a gun, the bar needs to be raised as the consequences of misuse are deadly.
To earn the privilege of owning a gun, you should, of course, have a clean record. You should have a psychological screening prior to receiving you gun owner’s license along with periodic re-screening. You should pass a safety test, and you should be required to register your gun each year. All of the expenses should be paid for by the potential gun owner.
We shouldn’t have the right to bear arms; we should have the ability to earn the privilege.
Your argument that our fore fathers could not have anticipated what our world looks like today is also foolish. Our right to keep and bear arms gives us the ability to protect ourselves and sadly with the low regard for human life that is sweeping our society we need to have the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones now more than ever. The Second Amendment was also written to protect our country from an abusive and unresponsive government. An armed population is a free population; disarmed we are merely slaves.
To move on to your most absurd points, psychological screening to own a gun is ridiculous. Once you open that can of worms where does it end? Screening to purchase a car? A knife? A baseball bat? Screening to see if you can get a job at Wendy’s making hamburgers? Our world is already too intrusive and you want to make it worse? How about lie detectors and routine use of them to determine if anyone is taking home office supplies? How about full body searches? Where do you draw the line?
Next, your absurd idea about having to pass a safety test. Who sets the standards? How much is the test going to cost? Who will administer the tests? This could very easily be manipulated to totally eliminate the private ownership of firearms by the common man. Once any such mechanism is in place, it becomes very easy for the politicians to make minor tweaks to it. They would start by increasing the test cost until only a few people could afford to own a firearm. Or, they could restrict who can do the testing, where the testing is performed, etc. A dozen ways to take this seemingly innocent idea of yours and totally perverting it to the point where even you might agree they went too far. Same problems with your suggestion about registering your gun each year. How much is it going to cost to register each gun? Do you believe that once the government starts generating revenue that way they will leave the rates alone? Of course not, they will increase the rates and soon it would be too expensive for the common man to register his/her firearms. In New York for those who are lucky enough (or politically connected enough) to own a firearm the cost is around $100 per year right now. For me that would be $800 a year to register my firearms. I can’t afford to pay $800 a year just so you can feel better or safer. And finally, time after time it has been brought to pass that registration leads to confiscation. Just ask England and Australia about that. Then ask them about the results. Violent crime rose at an astonishing rate. So, Navy Guy, and I certainly hope that is a reference to the color you like to wear and not an indication that you are one of our soldiers, soldiers who are supposed to defend and protect our freedoms (all of them, not just the ones you agree with) your ideas are not good, not new, and will not change things for the better on little bit.
One of my points was probably misunderstood. All too often in this country we confuse rights with privileges. A nut case should not have a right to a weapon. I believe this individual had several run ins with the law and known anger issues. Do you really believe he had a right to a weapon? Do you believe if he did not have a gun, he would have grab a kitchen knife or got into his car and chased him down?
You really believe our forefathers could have seen the world as it is today? As they dipped the feather into the ink and signed their names, I am sure someone said "one day, we'll be able to scan a copy of this and email a copy to 100 million people in a matter of seconds".
2B1ASK1
Hitler did it and we all know how well that turned out. Millions dead who could not defend themselves when the govt walked in. It is no one's business what guns I have or how many.
To Tim;
An assault rifle is fully automatic and you must jump through a lot of hoops to obtain one.
You don't know crap so just shut up. You just spew the Marxist left's crap like fool who wrote this article.
My husband and I have firearms in our home for defense purposes. The guns never come out of our lockbox unless we are going to the firing range or if we have reason to suspect someone is trying to harm our home. In the 3 years we've had our firearms, only once have I actually taken it out to use it and fortunately, the two men that were trying to force their way into my home had a change of heart once the saw me coming back towards the door with a 12 gauge.
No one will ever understand exactly why he was in such a fit of rage that he shot his 6 year old grandson, completely undeserving, because of a watermelon.
Then we would be left with only criminals and unstable people armed.
Of course the police would still have them, but they can't be everywhere all the time.
What would be the point?
People would still die.
I believe IF you are arrested for any offense and you own a gun, you should (at that time) relinquish any firearms you may have. And you should never be able to own a firearm again.
Also, ALL guns sold in this country should require a background check. Selling of guns from gunshows or private citizens should be stopped.
And we really need to rethink what we do with children in abusive home, foster care is NOT working. I would rather see us invest our time and tax dollars into really good children's homes where this children could be safe and well educated. They deserve better than an aged grandparent or foster care families that are only in it for the monthly check.
In response to Navy guy. Rights are just that. Rights. You have the "right" to free speech... yet yelling "fire" in a crowded theather is against the law. So are you saying that the 2nd amendment isn't a "right" but a privledge that must be earned? Then it is logical that one's first amendment "right" would also be a privledge and must be earned. If that was the case Im sure neither of us could make these comments.
The fact is we have LAWS. These laws are made to be followed. Those that don't follow laws are "law breakers". We have the right to own guns in the US. Our forefathers thought so much of this they put it #2 on the bill of rights. You lose that right by doing acts that are deemed worthy of the loss of some or all of those rights (e.g. Felons can't vote, own guns, etc).
Now to Mr Beardsley's comments. The Iranian's dont have 2nd amendment rights.
You never will know how many lives are SAVED by guns. Those stories aren't measured and kept because it normally results in the "headline grabbing" action never happening. See the city of Kennesaw, GA's crime numbers from 1970 to current. After they enacted their law where some people are required to own a firearm, their violent crime fell and continues to be lower today than before the law was enacted 30+ years earlier.
Mr Beardsley points out that far more people are killed by cars than guns. Driving a car isn't right that you have. It is a privledge that must be earned. Guns are a guarenteed right and you have to do something to lose that right. The fact is that the majority of firearms deaths are from the ILLEGAL use of firearms. As with DUI drivers... some people will get a car (or gun) weather they are supposed to have it or not. As my Grandmother used to say.... crazy is just crazy.
I was shocked and sadden to hear of this little ones death. The details behind it are tragic. The fact is... with someone as unstable as to kill someone due to something so small... would have killed regardless. The fact is... if it wasn't a gun... it could have been a kithchen knife, a baseball ball, a concrete block, anything. Crazy people were killing each other way before the advent of the first gun (remember Kane and Able?).
My heart goes out to the families and community affected by this terrible act. To lay this at the feet of anything other than the person who did it is senseless. A gun did not kill this little boy (it was simply the tool used). The availablity of a gun did not kill this little boy. A man made a decision to kill this little boy. We should never forget that.
Guns DO NOT KILL PEOPLE
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!
this was a tragedy of someones heart not being right it has nothing to do with gun control
what is wrong with you? who are you?
this man who did this was evil if not a gun a knife should would make knives illegal if not a knife a baseball bat should we make them illegal too if not gun than etc etc etc.
do you see how stupid you are...
a gun did not kill this child a man full of hate and rage killed this man
what he needed was a heart change
it is sad that you choose to use this tragedy to try and railroad your own agenda sad sad man you are maybe you should seek professional help
If every law abiding citizen had and knew how to properly use a firearm who could the criminals victimize?? Think about that for a moment. Who would be left OTHER CRIMINALS!!!!
No matter how bad those nearsighted of us wish to control every aspect of each others life, for America to be America it can never happen. As Margret Thatcher has said "America is the last hope for Freedom.". We cannot afford to relinquish any more for if we do then we will be know as "the last Nation that WAS Free".
going up and down the road staring to notice the front
porch.
Also, "tlm", you canot buy an assault rifle in a parking lot with no ID. To buy an assault rifle you have to pay the governemt $200 for a transfer tax stamp, pass a background check, get finder printed, etc. You guys need to get a few facts before spouting off your mouths.
I totally respect your opinion in the desire to have guns outlawed due to your belief that this action would end unnecessary murders; however, I do disagree with your views that this outcome can be achieved. I think that more law-abiding citizens such as my family would just be classified as outlaws due to our refusal to give up our guns. I want to leave one thought for you though.... are you thankful that dangerous illegal drugs are not allowed in our country so that we no longer have this problem?
I totally respect your view and your belief that this action would solve all of our gun problems, but I have a difference of opinion. Some of us law-abiding citizens would lose our right to call ourselves this if guns were out-lawed due to our refusal to hand over our guns. Would this action work similar to the way out-lawing dangerous illegal drugs in this country has worked so that we no longer have this problem?
I see where this Country is going