Let's Talk Guns

As a retired newspaper reporter, my tendency is to investigate things before actually making up my mind.

Many indicators have convinced me that we need stricter gun control (not a ban, but stricter laws). Mental illness of shooters may be a problem, but other nations have mental illness and they don't have these dramatic shooting incidents in schools, theaters, and concerts. Besides, statistically, black women in the United States have less access to mental health services than any other group, while white males have more access to mental health services than any other group, and I've yet to see a black woman turn up as the shooter at one of these events. So there is that.

Other nations do not have guns and they do not have shootings like we have. Guns may not kill people but the availability of guns make it easy for people to kill others with guns. I have to go through more hoops to obtain certain prescriptions than I do to buy a gun. I have to go through more paperwork to keep and maintain my driver's license. I have to send my county money every year in order to continue to work as a freelance writer and editor. I have to have insurance on everything.

So I don't really get why guns are so sacred here - they have become like a worshipped object (as has money) and that flies in the face of not only my own moral code but also the Christian one that folks like to work themselves up over. This falls under Exodus 20:23, in case you're wondering. It only mentions gods made of silver and gold but I think anything metal, wood, etc., counts. So money and guns should not be our gods, but they do appear to be items that many worship.

I'm also not interested in turning this nation into a police state, with officers everywhere. Children should be in learning institutions, not prisons, and I'm not sure what the difference between a well-defended school and a prison is, except that the kids can leave at the end of the day. Most teachers don't want to be armed. I respect their right to not have to carry a weapon.

Other arguments that I would refute are: you own guns to protect your family (if you're that scared, you need therapy, you're also lacking empathy for others, and the things should be locked up in a safe anyway so you don't have time to get them in a break-in), and you own guns because of some abstract idea that you are going to gun down the government boys when they come after you. I have news for you. If the government really wants you, no amount of weaponry is going to save you. You're just going to end up dead.

We already have gun laws. You can't own a tank, can you? Or an air-to-ground missile launcher. Or many other items available to the military.

Anyway, I wanted to know what the difference is between these AR-15 semi-automatic weapons and my husband's hunting rifle was, so we went to a local gun shop so I could see for myself.

My husband hunts with a .270 caliber rifle. It is a semi-automatic. He was under the impression that under Virginia law he could only have a magazine for his gun that holds four bullets, but I can't find that anywhere in the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries rules. But anyway, that is all his magazines hold, so he can have 5 bullets, one in the chamber and four in the magazine, before he has to either reload the magazine or insert another magazine. I don't know if he could purchase larger ones for it, but he seldom needs more than one shot to make his kill anyway.

His .270 is a heavy long rifle. I can hardly lift it. I most certainly couldn't aim it with any accuracy and I'd have to put it down after a round because of the recoil. The recoil means that if I were to pull the trigger and shoot the rifle, my shoulder would probably be bruised if not dislocated. I'm not strong enough to handle this gun.

In contrast, a .22 rifle, which I have of my own, is smaller, and it is also a semi-automatic. However, it is a rifle and requires time to aim and shoot. It also must be held at the shoulder, and while it doesn't have much kick, there is some. It also doesn't do the damage a larger bullet can, although a .22 could certainly kill if aimed at the head or heart. But it's still a rifle, with length and weight. I haven't shot it in a while but I have very good aim, when I take my time. I don't usually kill with it although I have shot two groundhogs and a snake in my lifetime. One of the groundhogs was after the dog and the other groundhog was after me (I think that one was sick). The snake was, well, a snake. Usually I chop their heads off with a hoe but I couldn't find the hoe.

So I am not standing here with no blood on my hands. I have used a rifle to kill something. I hated it each time (even the snake) but I live in a rural area, and sometimes stuff happens.

Anyway, at the gun shop we checked out the AR-15. This gun is at least as light as the .22, if not lighter. We could have purchased magazines up to 30 rounds at the shop we visited, and I imagine more are available. I did not shoot the gun, but my husband, who has fired one, says it has as much or less recoil than my .22 rifle. Additionally, because of the lack of recoil, the AR-15 can be held down at the side, and a person could strafe a crowd without aiming and be sure of inflicting major damage to a vast amount of people. Let's be honest, you can click a trigger many, many times in the space of second with your index finger.

Because the gun is light, someone could run with it, and because it is smaller than my .22 in length, it is more easily concealed (say, beneath a coat). The bullets in an AR-15 can kill and maim because they use .223 caliber and up. You have to hunt deer with a .223 and higher caliber bullet, so the bullets for this gun (and similarly made guns) are made to kill.

After reviewing this gun and holding it, moving around with it, and understanding more about its use, I agree that this is a weapon that should not be in the public's hands. It is too easy to use, and anyone with no skills can obtain one because of our lax background checks, conceal it, walk into a crowded space, and fire. It also is not a sporting rifle, and frankly someone who uses this gun to hunt with is not a sportsman. This weapon takes no skill, and hunting should challenge the sportsman.

I know people will argue that a pistol could do the same kind of killing in a crowd, but I held a pistol also. It requires more control than the AR-15, plus a pistol with the same or similar caliber bullets would have a recoil that would preclude strafing in a mass of people, unless you have wrists the size of baseball bats or something.

This AR-15 gun and guns like it were once banned, and our legislators let that ban slip away. That was a mistake. That ban should be reinstituted.


My solution to this problem would be to ban assault rifles and then institute a voluntary buyback program for folks who have guns and would like to be rid of them. Note I said voluntary. The rest should be voluntarily registered. After all, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Then I would require additional insurance on gun owners. That means we would be paying more insurance but I would rather do that than see another innocent soul lost.

Background checks should be uniform nationwide and the process should require a waiting period. Women have to wait to have abortions; young male dudes should have to wait to get their gun. I can't think of a single reason why I would need to go in and purchase a gun and have it within 20 minutes, aside from the convenience of not having to return again. I have to keep making trip after trip to the drug store because they can't figure out when they can actually give me my prescriptions, so if I can be double inconvenienced over something I have to have to survive, then surely everyone can be slightly inconvenienced over something they don't need.

Parents should be held responsible for any injuries caused by their children if they own guns. I don't care how much they lock them up, some smart kid can find a way into a space to obtain what they want.

Notice none of this takes away your guns. It might inconvenience you a little bit, but if your convenience is worth more than a life, then you have something seriously wrong with your thinking. To me, this is simply a sensible way of dealing with a horrific problem.

None of this would stop what is going on immediately, but I think it might slow it down and eventually halt it. Maybe we could return to a nation with some sanity about us. Wouldn't that be a welcome change.