Obama once again has started to debate about solutions that do not address the correct problems.
Currently we are entering a season of heavy debate over gun-control. The Democrats had given up on this area of debate over the past 10 years. Their lust for the renewed debate is palpable.
Whether due to lack of information or a desire to make a showy argument, Democrats once again focus on the wrong end of the debate. They wish to restrict "assault rifles."Many writers of done a better job of describing the problem with definitions. A recent New York Times article describes the problem of definitions, too.
The Democrats have desired to get rid of guns that look mean. They look at the stock. They look at the barrel. They look at the grips. They look at the magazines. What do they not look at?
I am not a marksman. I am not a specialist on guns. I do believe that I know a bit more about guns than the average Democrat.
What I'm looking at a gun, the first question that comes to my mind is "What do I want to do with it?" Do I want to shoot squirrels? I want to shoot deer? Do I want to shoot quail? Do I want to shoot a home intruder? Do I want to shoot an intruder on my farmland? Do I want to shoot a mugger? Do I want my wife to be able to protect herself from a rapist?
Each one of these seems to describe a different gun or configuration for lawful use of a firearm. Some require shotguns. Some require large bullets out of powerful guns. Some require short barrels. Some require long barrels with telescopic sights. Some require easy concealment. Some require being able to be placed in a woman's hand bag.
And then the question becomes, "What defenses do I have available?" Am I able to hide behind a wall? Do I have time to react and target carefully? Do I need to stop the movement of a person? Do I need to put a hole through a person? How long do I need to wait for additional assistance from police? How long do I need to wait for assistance from family members or neighbors?
I would be a fool to take a heavy gun used for deer to shoot squirrels. There would be no squirrel left. I would be an equal fool to shoot at deer using a squirrel gun. I would merely annoy the deer.
If I am in fear of my life, do I want to put one bullet into an intruder or attacker? Do I want to put on entire clip into the attacker? Do I trust that my aim would be true on the first shot? If I am running away from the attacker, as many states would require, would I be able to hit my target?Is the attacker shooting back?
How does a military grip answer these questions? How does a folding stock answer any of these questions? How does a small clip solve these problems? How long am I willing to wait for police to arrive to discover my dead body? As one joke says, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."
Selecting the right gun for the correct problem is an important step.
Equally to avoid problems using guns, proper identification of the guns that are the problem is important.
The biggest problem with guns in crimes is that a human being picks it up. Until the gun is put into action by a human being or set up in a trap by a human being, the gun is merely an inanimate object. The fastest way, then, to identify the gun that is likely to be a problem, is to identify the person holding the gun that is a problem.
Since only the law-abiding will dispose of guns as gun-control is imposed, we leave the criminals armed and the citizenry unarmed.
The proper solution is to find ways to have citizens be better armed and better trained than criminals. The proper solution is to have more well-trained citizens carrying weapons. The proper solution is well-trained citizens able to use long guns to protect their homes and families at a safe distance from criminals. Short guns are for short distances. Long guns are for long distances.
The best criminals are dead criminals outside of a home. How many bullets does it take to achieve this goal?
