Why it Won't Work

In my last post, I did something that I get upset with other people for doing. I made a statement of opinion as though it were an accepted fact, and without telling why I hold this opinion. I was talking about the recent knee-jerk reactionary gun-control proposals that followed in the wake of the latest domestic terrorist attack. The statement that I refer to was:

"I cannot help but observe that the problem with their proposals is that they, in fact, will not work. There are many reasons that this is true. I don't really want to go into this at the present time as there are many others who are expressing this point at present."

So let me do what I should have done, and explain why I do not think that the current proposals will work. The current proposed restrictions on law-abiding people, as I understand them, are as follows:

• Banning "assault weapons"

• "Expanded background checks"

• Banning sale of firearms to persons on "Terror watchlists"

The "assault weapons" ban will not work because there really is no such thing as an assault weapon! What we term as such, are the product of an image in contemporary movies and TV action dramas in which the action heroes are involved in gunfights with true military assault weapons, that is, fully automatic rifles that we used to refer to as "machine guns". These full-automatic weapons, widely used by the military are already highly restricted by federal law in the US, and are not readily available to anyone outside the military and law-enforcement. They require a special (and very expensive) permit to obtain and possess. I will not go so far as to say that they would be impossible for a terrorist to obtain one of these true assault weapons, but none of the domestic terrorists in any incidents in the US have actually had one of these.

The "assault weapons" that the gun-haters want to ban are actually semi-automatic, that is, you must pull the trigger for each round you wish to fire. They are no different from normal semi-automatic hunting weapons, except for their appearance, and their capacity. The military style appearance of these weapons is very popular nowadays, and is very functionally  practical as well. The expanded magazine capacity is often questioned by gun-haters and others who fear an armed citizenry. The need for higher capacity magazines is open to debate, but I, for one, do not see this as a significant issue. Certainly it is not an issue that would have any real impact on protecting us from domestic terrorists.

The expanded background checks is a very good-sounding idea, but it is difficult to see how these could be further expanded. What would we be looking for that we are not already looking for in current background checks?  What sources would be checked that are not already being checked?  What sources would be checked that would assist us in differentiating the would-be terrorist from you or I?

This brings us to the third item. The only thing that I see that can assist beyond what we are already doing in our background checks are use of the heretofore secret "terror watchlist(s)". Beyond the Department of Homeland Security, I am unaware of just who might be keeping such lists. I am able to see some merit to such an idea as this, however, in the course of discussion it has emerged as to how subjective these lists can be. The idea of an appeals process attached to this proposal is an idea that has merit, but I can see this as turning into just one more hoop for the honest, normal gun owner to jump through. I see the possibility that if this is enacted that the terror watchlists themselves could be expanded to include any person or group that its compilers wish to include.   

The real problem that I see in these proposals is; what happens next when these things fail to have the desired effect on the violence? The fact that these gun control measures will not work , will lead us to even tighter controls, which also will not work (precisely because they are not aimed at the true source of the problem), eventually leading to complete gun confiscation, Australian style, which in the end also will not work, except in the fact that they will result in an unarmed citizenry, totally reversing the intent of the Second Amendment. I am increasingly concerned as this debate goes on, that the true intent of the current gun-control agenda is not primarily a safer society, but a disarmed citizenry.

Once again, the only solution that seems workable is to determine what makes the problem shooters and other terrorists different from the rest of us and focus on a solution based on those differences.

It is very easy in this election year to abandon my usual commentary on spiritual matters for that on political matters. I apologize for this. In truth however, this is a spiritual matter as the results of all this will have a profound effect on how we will lead our spiritual lives after the election is behind us.

I don't want to close without quoting a scripture. It is one that I quoted in a recent post that increasingly seems to be relevant to our current political situation, including the gun-control debate:

" . . . behold, I am going  to raise up a shepherd in the land who will not care for the perishing, seek the scattered, heal the broken, . . . but will devour the flesh of the fat sheep, and tear off their hoofs." Zechariah 11:16 (NASB)

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.