Due to recent tragedies the topic of gun control is once again at the head of every conversation, usurping the top spot from such equally-deserving articles as the war on terrorism, defending our borders, politics, and the “fiscal cliff.” What makes the issue of gun control so volatile and passionate is the fact that many mass murders, most involving children as the prime victims, seem to be gaining prevalence, increasing with commonplace regularity. Though, for the most part, the loss of any human life is tragic, when crimes and atrocities involving children are made known to us, they cut deeper as children, we sentimentally believe, are innocents, thus not deserving of the cruel fate sometimes visited upon them. Be it Kony, blood diamonds, sweat shops, or a homeless child who has not eaten in several days, our hearts and minds are always reaching out to those too weak to fight for and save themselves.
Gun control: two words that, at the moment, spark billions of words of debate. Gun control: two words that divide Americans as much as religion and politics. Gun control: is there a simple answer to this, or will some 15,000-page bill filled with 14,950 pages of pork get passed in some vain attempt to appease both side of the argument? If we leave things to the politicians without voicing our own concerns, then that may very well be what happens. On the other side of that coin, however, is the emotional aspect of the debate. I have always said—and will always continue to say—that one must be passionate about the things for which he or she stands while completely removing him/herself emotionally from the situation, and that is what must happen here and now: we must cast aside the rose-colored glasses that offer a promised glimpse of Utopia and see things for how they truly are.
Will guns ever be outlawed? Surely not, but I believe regulation can and must be implemented to reign in more control. “If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will own guns.” This stupid sentiment has been expressed before, and not just with guns, but with motorcycles, drugs, and alcohol. I call this a stupid sentiment because it is so blatantly obvious, is it not? I mean, if we outlaw Kool-ade, then only outlaws will own Kool-ade. Get the point? If we outlaw anything, then only outlaws will own these things. Getting back to guns, what if they were outlawed? What if only outlaws owned guns? For those of you who own a weapon, do you relish the idea of someone breaking into your home, brandishing a weapon, and forcing you to empty your safe, or have sex, or anything else without at least a means by which to fight back? I personally do not own a gun of any kind, but I will not take away that right from one who does. The outlaw does not care, and the police are not always there to serve and protect, which is why I believe the adage about “If you outlaw guns…” is absurd. Regulation of some kind needs to be implemented, and I have a few ideas as to just how said regulation should be imposed.
I will admit I am ignorant of current regulations. I generally like to research a topic before committing to an article, but in this case I am just flying by the seat of my pants, hoping that I can add a little common sense to the argument. Okay, here is my proposal: First, I think whenever a weapon is manufactured the serial number should be sent to the NSA. Each weapon should be fired once and all forensic and ballistic information accompany the serial numbers. A list of where each weapon is being shipped—retailers foreign and domestic—should accompany this information. Whenever a weapon is purchased, the buyer should supply name, address, and phone number, along with SSN or other identifying standard—this is obtained through the background check—along with his or her fingerprints, to distinguish him or her as the purchaser/ owner of the weapon. If the weapon is purchased as a gift, then both the purchaser and recipient shall provide their information and fingerprints. The NSA will house this information in the NCIC so all law enforcement agencies will have access to it.
Second, any person who purchases a weapon must advise the NSA when the weapon has been sold, stolen, lost, or is no longer functional. If sold, the buyer and seller will report to local authorities to have the weapon lawfully transferred using the methods described in the previous paragraph. Local authorities, in turn, will submit paperwork to the NSA to show transference of property. If stolen or lost, the owner will report this immediately to local authorities who, again, will inform the NSA. If no longer functional, this too must be reported, and the weapon turned over—the owner will receive a stipend unless the weapon in question is antique, carrying intrinsic value, at which point he or she would receive monies comparable to market value. In all four cases, the responsibility of the owner to inform the NSA remains even though local authorities shall do the same: it is a double security measure that will prevent losing the information as the class or ownership of the weapon is redefined.
Third, no weapon may be modified from its original state of manufacture: plain, simple, and to the point. Furthermore, weapons companies will no longer manufacture weapons that can be modified, interchangeable, etc.
If any gun owner does not adhere to these rules, regardless of circumstance, then he or she will lose the privilege to own or fire a weapon for the duration of his or her life.
It may seem that I am picking on the gun owners here, but the reality of this is that I am trying to protect them. By imposing these rules, it truly would mean that not following them would make one an outlaw, and that outlaw has no business owning a weapon.
Will these measures, in and of themselves, completely eradicate senseless violence? Of course not, and we would be fools to think so, but it is a start. Sadly, these measures cannot tell us who is harboring homicidal tendencies, and if you couple that with the surfeit availability of unregistered weapons illegally entering our country and ending up on our streets, things still seem to be in favor of he or she who would commit these malicious acts of terrorism, but by imposing regulations we are, at the very least, still allowing those forthright in their belief in the America of our forefathers, the right to bear arms.
