Support stricter gun control in Washington
Limitations need to be placed on what’s made available to citizens, restrictions set for age guns are purchasable at
The key to endangering less people to gun violence is to keep the more dangerous kinds of weapons inaccessible to most everyone.
January 23, 2019
I want to take your guns away. No, not the pistol used to defend your home, or the rifle you hunt with, but some simply should not be in civilian hands.
The second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. But it doesn’t specify which arms are legal to keep.
We already have gun control in this country but hardly any American would get upset over not owning a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. The government has banned a plethora of weapons it deems unsafe in citizens’ hands, so why is further restriction a constitutional crisis?
The government takes measures to protect its citizens already and guns are the next logical step, even if it means removing some liberties of law-abiding citizens.
David Makin, WSU criminal justice professor, explained how we can limit gun violence as a society but said more research needs to be done before conclusions are drawn.
“We need to slowly introduce policy that follows what the research tells us,” Makin said. “Make policy that is not based on what is sensible to the individual based on their anecdotal understanding of where they politically fall, but rather what does the research tell us.”
Introducing anticipatory measures to Americans may be a challenge but it is no different than current policy around items like drug paraphernalia and burglary tools.
“The justice system is about creating stability,” Makin said. “Law is about stability and sometimes people forget that. The challenge is ways we go about achieving stability.”
The goal of stability is hard for many Americans because it prevents outliers. Extraordinarily good and bad cases are equally suppressed.
This stability gives us a comprehensive list of things you can and can’t do behind the wheel of a car. The rules here apply the same to a 16-year-old new driver as much as they do to American race car driver Dale Earnhardt Jr.
The second amendment is supposed to defend the vulnerable, but it is currently hurting those who cannot defend themselves the most.
Here in Washington, lawmakers took steps to keep guns out of the wrong hands, and legislation like this will lead to a safer society as a whole.
The recently passed Initiative-1639 bans assault rifles and pistols for people under the age of 21. Legislation like this will prevent tragedies like Parkland High School, where an 18-year-old legally purchased the assault rifle used in the shooting.
Guns are a powerful tools at best meant for personal protection. Meaningful conversations need to happen for those who deserve the power. There is also a need to set limitations as to how much they’re allowed to have.
This dialogue should happen regularly, not just in times of crisis after a mass shooting. The gun violence in this country harms many and is not stopping anytime soon.
America has one of the highest rates of gun violence of any developed country, but with more legislation that number goes down and gives Americans much needed safety.
A solution to keep citizens safe without stripping others of constitutional rights is best reached by keeping talks open and having constant discussion. Washington should lead by example and show the rest of the country what effective gun legislation looks like.
Tom Oster • Jan 29, 2019 at 12:40 am
“We need to slowly introduce policy that follows what the research tells us,” Makin said. “Make policy that is not based on what is sensible to the individual based on their anecdotal understanding of where they politically fall, but rather what does the research tell us.”
The research tells us that rifles of any kind are very rarely used in homicides. Rifles are used to kill fewer people every year than are beaten to death with bare hands or feet, fewer than are killed with hammers. In all of 2017, there was exactly one homicide with a rifle of any kind.
So if you want to base public policy based on research, the research would indicate that the political and media hysteria over so-called “assault weapons” is not based in reality, but instead in myths mostly gleaned from tabloid press and action movies.
Byron L. McLean, Esq. • Jan 24, 2019 at 3:39 pm
The biggest flaw in this article is the fact that it conflates safety (negligence prevention) with stopping criminal (intentional) conduct. Criminal laws are not prophylactic. They are only enforced once the law is broken, the suspect caught, and the prosecution successful. They are reactive laws designed only to dictate what punishment will apply to a given violation. A criminal intent on violating our capital laws against murder carrying a penalty of life in prison or death penalty will not be deterred at the threat of a lesser gun charge tacked onto the capital crime. And that is why Califronia, DC,, Chicago, and every other strict gun control experiment has failed in this country. The result of imposing strict gun laws that only the law abiding observe merely shifts the balance of power to the criminal.
The author is correct that civilians are barred from possessing grenade and rocket launchers. The reason for this is that those weapons are not personal defense weapons. They are impossible to limit their destruction on a single human aggressor without a high probability of collateral casualties. An AR-15, however, can be aimed specifically at one individual employed without worry of collateral damage. The AR-15 operates under the same principle as any other semi-automatic rifle or handgun (i.e. only one round is discharged with each pull of the trigger). There is no difference other than how the weapon looks.
A few days ago, I watched the testimony in support of a high-capacity magazine ban to legislators in Olympia by the mother of a slain Freeman High School student. My heart goes out to this parent. I can’t even imagine suffering such a loss. I listened to her testify that, had the rifle the shooter used not jammed, that high-capacity magazine would have made the situation much worse. Ironically, she stumbled on the very reason that it wasn’t worse. The higher the capacity, the higher the failure rate because the spring tends not to provide consistent tension required to present the rounds into the ready position for feeding into the chamber. Had the Freeman shooter packed multiple lower-capacity magazines, his gun would have had less chance of jamming, ergo more carnage. The same thing occurred in the Aurora Mall theater shooting…the high capacity magazine jammed the rifle, and the shooter switched to his shotgun and handgun. A mass shooter plans ahead. Put in your ban, and the shooter will pack more of the lower capacity, more reliably-feeding magazines. I don’t see how our AG, Bob Ferguson, can sit there and say this type of legislation will mitigate carnage with a straight face unless he lacks any familiarity with semi-automatic firearms and the inherent flaws in high-capacity magazines.
Our courts typically look to a specific gun’s common use within the community to determine if a ban should be upheld. Thanks to the passage of 1639, all semi-automatic rifles are now considered “assault weapons”. I posit that by making such an overbroad classification, the State of Washington has just increased the probability that no bans on semi-auto so-called “assault weapons” will survive because semi-autos constitute over 80% of the retail firearms market. Research time and time again has told us that the bulk of criminals get their weapons through already illegal channels. Stacking more laws on top of those we already have do nothing…It all comes down to enforcement.
Benjamin Scott Schaffer • Jan 23, 2019 at 2:01 pm
Or we could do the opposite if everyone had a gun then people would not commit crimes