REAL TALK ON GUNS

Find common ground on gun control
By Kelvin Wade
January 26, 2011 5:27PM

We've had 11 police officers shot in the U.S. this week in a 24-hour period. Fourteen officers killed this month, the same as January 2010, and the month isn't over. Locally, just last week, a convicted felon was arrested for attempted murder and being in possession of a loaded firearm. Another ex-con allegedly held his wife at gunpoint. Last Saturday, Fairfield police engaged in a foot chase with a suspect who was seen with a gun.

How do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals? If gun owners can accept reasonable restrictions and gun control advocates understand the limits of new laws, we can make some progress.

Unfortunately, even in light of the Tucson, Ariz., shootings, not much serious debate is going on about this issue. Gun enthusiasts' debate-killing arguments go something like this: 'If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.' 'Guns don't kill people. People kill people.' 'Enforce the laws on the books.' 'Gun control is a slippery slope.'

And there is a subset of gun owners who have a knee-jerk opposition to more gun laws, fearing that the government wants to seize their weapons. This group usually owns guns as a defense against tyranny, feeling an armed populace keeps the government honest. But this isn't 1776. A government that has M1 tanks, B2 bombers, satellite guided bombs and special operations forces isn't exactly intimidated by your Glock and 12-gauge shotgun.

But we don't have to be paranoid. In 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees Americans the right to own weapons, and an overwhelming majority of Americans in a new study agrees with that. With Heller and last year's McDonald v. City of Chicago Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun rights, Big Sis isn't coming to take our guns.

So there's no reason for gun owners to fear our weapons will be confiscated.

What can we do? We can improve the national database for background checks. Congress has never appropriated the funds to make it work like it's supposed to. And currently there are 28 states that have either contributed no records to the database or added far too few. So, many drug abusers, mentally unstable people and others who shouldn't have access to weapons, don't show up in the database.

It took 9/11 for us to develop a no-fly list of potentially dangerous people. We've had horrific shooting after shooting and still, we don't have an effective 'can't-buy' list.

According to a recent poll released by the bipartisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support efforts to close gaps in government records and a similar majority support requiring background checks when purchasing firearms anywhere.

Closing the so-called 'gun show loophole,' where 33 states allow unregulated private party sales, and reauthorizing the assault weapons ban including prohibiting 30-round extended magazines are reasonable moves that most should be able to agree on.

While we gun owners shouldn't be paranoid that we're going to lose our guns, gun control advocates have to understand that controlling the legal purchase of firearms can only make a dent in criminals' access to guns. They can still purchase them on the street and/or steal them from law-abiding citizens. We cannot simply legislate guns out of criminals' hands. Peace.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ADDITIONAL NOTES: Gun control is a difficult thing because what we're really talking about is handgun control. The assault weapons ban did see those weapons' use in crime drop by two-thirds. BUT before we get too happy, they were only used in 3% of gun crimes before the ban.

There are things we can do to make lesson the chance a convicted felon, drug abuser, domestic abusers and the mentally ill purchases guns.

But bad guys get their guns off the street. Or they steal them. Or they get them from their victims. This is the reality that we face. That's why I don't discount the gun buybacks that the Matt Garcia Foundation conducts every so often. Gun buybacks are derided as just getting rid of old junk guns. BUT at least if that gun up in the closet that no one is using is turned in at a gun buyback program, it won't be there for a burglar to steal. it won't be there for a kid to find and accidentally kill himself or someone else. It won't be there for the owner to use to kill him/herself. Because there are more suicides than murders in this country every year.

Used to know a guy named Lou Sturmer. He was a conservative columnist and self-described racist and someone I considered a friend. He believed that everyone should be armed and allowed to carry. He acknowledged that there would be an initial bloodbath but that things would level out and be safer. I disagree. I know some believe shootings like we saw in Tucson wouldn't happen if everyone were armed. Just because someone is armed doesn't mean they're trained. And the only thing worse than a madman shooting people is five people shooting in all directions while innocent bystanders try to avoid being hit in the crossfire. Everyone being armed sounds like a good idea on the surface but you have to think about what are people prone to road rage going to do? Drunks? Drug users? The guy who finds his wife cheating on him? The person who loses a court case? The history of human behavior tells us a lot.

Anyway, there are reasonable restrictions we can implement. We should do that. But let's not get carried away thinking we can pass laws that will remove all guns from criminals' hands. We already give people more time for gun crimes. We could make those laws harsher but the truth is we don't have the prison space. There aren't easy answers here.