Drum roll please..............................
CONNECTICUT HAS PASSED A NEW GUN CONTROL BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, there's the headline. Now let's examine the reality.
Once Governor Malloy signs the latest bill, there will be more weapons banned as "assault" weapons than was the case prior to the Newtown shootings. Magazines that hold more than 10 bullets will be sort-of banned. No new ones could be sold, and the old ones will need to be registered while the owners sign a document in which they agree on how the magazines must be used. Oh, and those weapons already in the state which have now become assault rifles can still be kept; they just cannot be sold. The bill goes on, but this is the gist.
I wonder how many folks in Connecticut will hear this news and think that the Legislature has moved forward in stopping gun violence. The media certainly will portray it that way if today's stories are any indication. But what really has the Legislature accomplished? The Newtown shooter would still have access to the same weapons; they came from his home where they were legally acquired. He would still be able to use high capacity magazines although either he or his mother would have had to sign an agreement not to load more than ten rounds into them. Does anyone think that a man who would shoot little children in cold blood would be stopped by a signature on an old form agreement? Even if the shooter had to use magazines that held only ten bullets, would that have made a difference? It takes about two seconds to switch magazines; he could have come with ten or more magazines that were each filled with ten bullets. No one was shooting back; he had all the time he needed.
The truth is that one part of the problem was that no one had reported the shooter as a threat. Mental health professionals in Connecticut ought to be required to report those that they treat who are likely threats. Some see this as an invasion of privacy, but it is not. Mental health professionals already are required to report abuse situations. If they suspect spousal or child abuse, they must report it; it is not a choice but an obligation. Is it worse somehow to strike a child than to shoot one? So why is there no such requirement in this bill? Even if the Newtown shooter had been reported as a threat, there is no way to know if he would have been stopped. We do know, however, that such a report would have allowed the police to focus on the shooter. Instead of restricting the entire state as a way to possibly affect someone like the Newtown shooter, we could be just restricting those who are likely candidates to commit such acts.
I know that the gun control debate always focuses on either removing or protecting guns. It should not. Just for once, the Legislature should focus on actually stopping criminal acts. It would be a breath of fresh air, and it actually might save lives in the future.
CONNECTICUT HAS PASSED A NEW GUN CONTROL BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, there's the headline. Now let's examine the reality.
Once Governor Malloy signs the latest bill, there will be more weapons banned as "assault" weapons than was the case prior to the Newtown shootings. Magazines that hold more than 10 bullets will be sort-of banned. No new ones could be sold, and the old ones will need to be registered while the owners sign a document in which they agree on how the magazines must be used. Oh, and those weapons already in the state which have now become assault rifles can still be kept; they just cannot be sold. The bill goes on, but this is the gist.
I wonder how many folks in Connecticut will hear this news and think that the Legislature has moved forward in stopping gun violence. The media certainly will portray it that way if today's stories are any indication. But what really has the Legislature accomplished? The Newtown shooter would still have access to the same weapons; they came from his home where they were legally acquired. He would still be able to use high capacity magazines although either he or his mother would have had to sign an agreement not to load more than ten rounds into them. Does anyone think that a man who would shoot little children in cold blood would be stopped by a signature on an old form agreement? Even if the shooter had to use magazines that held only ten bullets, would that have made a difference? It takes about two seconds to switch magazines; he could have come with ten or more magazines that were each filled with ten bullets. No one was shooting back; he had all the time he needed.
The truth is that one part of the problem was that no one had reported the shooter as a threat. Mental health professionals in Connecticut ought to be required to report those that they treat who are likely threats. Some see this as an invasion of privacy, but it is not. Mental health professionals already are required to report abuse situations. If they suspect spousal or child abuse, they must report it; it is not a choice but an obligation. Is it worse somehow to strike a child than to shoot one? So why is there no such requirement in this bill? Even if the Newtown shooter had been reported as a threat, there is no way to know if he would have been stopped. We do know, however, that such a report would have allowed the police to focus on the shooter. Instead of restricting the entire state as a way to possibly affect someone like the Newtown shooter, we could be just restricting those who are likely candidates to commit such acts.
I know that the gun control debate always focuses on either removing or protecting guns. It should not. Just for once, the Legislature should focus on actually stopping criminal acts. It would be a breath of fresh air, and it actually might save lives in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment