Doc Nonverbal
Member
Dear _______,
I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the recent news that the President is pushing an agenda to ban "assault" weapons, eliminate high capacity magazines, and "close the loophole" for gun shows. I do not believe any of these initiatives will have a beneficial impact upon crime and in contrast, believe that if these laws are passed that they will have a detrimental effect upon the law-abiding citizenry. I am writing to seek your support in stopping these initiatives.
The reasoning behind these initiatives appears to be that if the weapons and high-capacity magazines were not accessible to the criminal, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would have been prevented. I believe this reasoning to be illogical for the following reasons:
In reviewing the information presented on this crime, we are told that the perpetrator took his mother's firearms, used them to murder her, and then used them to commit his heinous crime upon the innocent children and teachers of the elementary school. It is important to note that the perpetrator committed his first crime when he took his mother's firearms without her permission. As a 20 year old, he could not legally own a handgun. His second crime was obviously committing the murder of his mother.
If a person is willing to commit murder to obtain firearms, the argument that these weapons were "accessible" is irrelevant. He could just as easily have killed a neighbor or a stranger and obtained the same items.
Criminals, by definition, are individuals who do not abide by the laws of our society. Given this, it is illogical to presume that a gun/magazine limitation/ban or even confiscation would have any impact upon the criminal element of our population. If passed, the only people who are going to comply with these laws are the law-abiding citizenry. In effect, the passage of these restrictions will put the law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage relative to criminals.
In the interest of reducing the likelihood of future mass shootings, I offer the following ideas for potential bills:
1. Impose a very severe penalty for any crimes committed with an "assault" weapon, or any firearm for that matter. If desired, include crimes committed with high capacity magazines. The penalty could include a minimum number of decades in prison without the chance for parole, automatic life imprisonment, or perhaps the death penalty. Such a law would target criminals, not law-abiding citizens.
2. Make the media financially liable for copycat crimes. We've seen this numerous times: The media provides such extensive coverage of the perpetrator that others seek out similar notoriety through imitation. By making the media financially liable for copycat crimes, they would be forced to change their style of reporting. Hopefully this will reduce the "glamour" the criminal receives and discourage others from emulating their behavior.
3. Eliminate "Gun Free Zones". This is obviously an emotional issue, but if we consider that the three worst recent shooting sprees all occurred in "Gun Free" areas, the logic of the situation become clearer: Perpetrators are viewing "Gun Free" areas as target-rich environments in which there is little to no fear of anyone being able to stop them. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the most extreme example, as the victims were primarily young children. My interpretation of the criminal's behavior is that he targeted children because he knew that they would have no chance to overpower him during reloading periods or jams. To eliminate "Gun Free" zones, we could do any of the following:
a. Train and arm teachers who pass background checks and required firearms training. If firearms aren't desired, then providing tasers, tear gas/mace, and/or less-than-lethal shotgun ammunition could be a potential, albeit less desirable, solution.
b. Hire retired Law Enforcement Officers or ex-Military (ideally with police experience) to work at the schools. These individuals could have dual roles, when appropriate, such as recess, lunchroom, and hallway monitors, counselors (with appropriate training, of course), etc.
c. Work out some kind of arrangement with stateside US Military Police to provide teams that could rotate through each school on a random basis. This could potentially be a low-to-no-cost option for the schools.
I believe we can all agree that we should attempt to prevent future atrocities of this nature. In any crisis, however, turning to emotion-driven solutions instead of well-reasoned logic can yield unintended long-term consequences. My concern is that once we start down the misguided path of attempting to reduce criminal behavior by placing limitations on the law-abiding citizenry, recovering our lost freedoms will be difficult.
Placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens is akin to a shepherd who reasons that if wolves didn't have teeth that they couldn't eat his sheep. As he cannot convince the wolves to comply with this request, he reasons that dogs are also members of the canine family, so he pulls the teeth of his sheepdog. The sheepdog no longer poses a threat to the wolf, so the predation of the wolf increases.
In conclusion, until the President and his designees can demonstrate the efficacy of their proposed restrictions, I would appreciate it if you would actively resist these proposals. I would also like to see "gun free" zones eliminated, as common sense dictates that criminals are going to be more likely to target the defenseless than those who are armed and are capable of ending the criminal's life. There is abundant evidence that law-abiding firearm owners provide a deterrent effect as well as a means to immediately stop or limit the ability of criminals to carry out such heinous crimes as we have witnessed recently.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
I am writing to you because I am very concerned about the recent news that the President is pushing an agenda to ban "assault" weapons, eliminate high capacity magazines, and "close the loophole" for gun shows. I do not believe any of these initiatives will have a beneficial impact upon crime and in contrast, believe that if these laws are passed that they will have a detrimental effect upon the law-abiding citizenry. I am writing to seek your support in stopping these initiatives.
The reasoning behind these initiatives appears to be that if the weapons and high-capacity magazines were not accessible to the criminal, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would have been prevented. I believe this reasoning to be illogical for the following reasons:
In reviewing the information presented on this crime, we are told that the perpetrator took his mother's firearms, used them to murder her, and then used them to commit his heinous crime upon the innocent children and teachers of the elementary school. It is important to note that the perpetrator committed his first crime when he took his mother's firearms without her permission. As a 20 year old, he could not legally own a handgun. His second crime was obviously committing the murder of his mother.
If a person is willing to commit murder to obtain firearms, the argument that these weapons were "accessible" is irrelevant. He could just as easily have killed a neighbor or a stranger and obtained the same items.
Criminals, by definition, are individuals who do not abide by the laws of our society. Given this, it is illogical to presume that a gun/magazine limitation/ban or even confiscation would have any impact upon the criminal element of our population. If passed, the only people who are going to comply with these laws are the law-abiding citizenry. In effect, the passage of these restrictions will put the law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage relative to criminals.
In the interest of reducing the likelihood of future mass shootings, I offer the following ideas for potential bills:
1. Impose a very severe penalty for any crimes committed with an "assault" weapon, or any firearm for that matter. If desired, include crimes committed with high capacity magazines. The penalty could include a minimum number of decades in prison without the chance for parole, automatic life imprisonment, or perhaps the death penalty. Such a law would target criminals, not law-abiding citizens.
2. Make the media financially liable for copycat crimes. We've seen this numerous times: The media provides such extensive coverage of the perpetrator that others seek out similar notoriety through imitation. By making the media financially liable for copycat crimes, they would be forced to change their style of reporting. Hopefully this will reduce the "glamour" the criminal receives and discourage others from emulating their behavior.
3. Eliminate "Gun Free Zones". This is obviously an emotional issue, but if we consider that the three worst recent shooting sprees all occurred in "Gun Free" areas, the logic of the situation become clearer: Perpetrators are viewing "Gun Free" areas as target-rich environments in which there is little to no fear of anyone being able to stop them. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the most extreme example, as the victims were primarily young children. My interpretation of the criminal's behavior is that he targeted children because he knew that they would have no chance to overpower him during reloading periods or jams. To eliminate "Gun Free" zones, we could do any of the following:
a. Train and arm teachers who pass background checks and required firearms training. If firearms aren't desired, then providing tasers, tear gas/mace, and/or less-than-lethal shotgun ammunition could be a potential, albeit less desirable, solution.
b. Hire retired Law Enforcement Officers or ex-Military (ideally with police experience) to work at the schools. These individuals could have dual roles, when appropriate, such as recess, lunchroom, and hallway monitors, counselors (with appropriate training, of course), etc.
c. Work out some kind of arrangement with stateside US Military Police to provide teams that could rotate through each school on a random basis. This could potentially be a low-to-no-cost option for the schools.
I believe we can all agree that we should attempt to prevent future atrocities of this nature. In any crisis, however, turning to emotion-driven solutions instead of well-reasoned logic can yield unintended long-term consequences. My concern is that once we start down the misguided path of attempting to reduce criminal behavior by placing limitations on the law-abiding citizenry, recovering our lost freedoms will be difficult.
Placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens is akin to a shepherd who reasons that if wolves didn't have teeth that they couldn't eat his sheep. As he cannot convince the wolves to comply with this request, he reasons that dogs are also members of the canine family, so he pulls the teeth of his sheepdog. The sheepdog no longer poses a threat to the wolf, so the predation of the wolf increases.
In conclusion, until the President and his designees can demonstrate the efficacy of their proposed restrictions, I would appreciate it if you would actively resist these proposals. I would also like to see "gun free" zones eliminated, as common sense dictates that criminals are going to be more likely to target the defenseless than those who are armed and are capable of ending the criminal's life. There is abundant evidence that law-abiding firearm owners provide a deterrent effect as well as a means to immediately stop or limit the ability of criminals to carry out such heinous crimes as we have witnessed recently.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
