New laws won’t stop crim­i­nals from ob­tain­ing guns

The Hamburg Area Item - - LOCAL NEWS - — David Drevyanko Honey Brook

For trans­parency, I am an NRA life mem­ber, hunter, fa­ther and grand­fa­ther. In re­sponse to Mr. Ta­tum’s March 13th ar­ti­cle, I feel he has missed the mark. The NRA is made up of like­minded peo­ple who are gun own­ers for var­i­ous rea­sons. I fol­low leg­is­la­tion closely and feel they come to the ta­ble with an open mind and sup­port proper leg­is­la­tion. It is good that youth are in­volved and want to af­fect change, but they are young and may not have enough in­for­ma­tion on gun con­trol to make un­emo­tional de­ci­sions. Gov­ern­ment cre­ates ad­di­tional laws that limit 2nd amend­ment rights and pro­motes them un­der the guise of mak­ing our world safer.

Like any other leg­is­la­tion, gun laws con­tain a lot of “pork.” What the me­dia re­ports as the crux of the pro­posed law is never the en­tire is­sue. Does Ta­tum re­call how the NRA drafted “clean, rea­son­able” leg­is­la­tion for re­strict­ing Te­flon bul­let pur­chases? Be­hind closed doors, politi­cians added lim­i­ta­tions on other un­re­lated am­mu­ni­tion. The NRA with­drew sup­port be­cause of the changes and me­dia re­ports stated only how they wouldn’t sup­port re­stric­tions on Te­flon bul­lets. Re­in­stat­ing ex­pired as­sault weapon leg­is­la­tion would gain NRA sup­port, if the def­i­ni­tion of as­sault weapon didn’t in­clude semi-au­to­matic hunt­ing ri­fles and shot­guns. Peo­ple must dig deeper to de­ter­mine why the NRA op­poses leg­is­la­tion. At the heart of their op­po­si­tion is an ob­jec­tion to the “pork” which erodes 2nd Amend­ment rights and the me­dia doesn’t re­port that side.

Al­ready, 20,000+ gun laws ex­ist in­clud­ing laws gov­ern­ing back­ground checks which the NRA sup­ports. Checks would be ef­fec­tive if law en­force­ment did a bet­ter job up­dat­ing crim­i­nals’ records. New laws won’t stop crim­i­nals from ob­tain­ing guns nor will it make law en­force­ment bet­ter at stop­ping them. Bet­ter en­force­ment of ex­ist­ing laws, hold­ing peo­ple ac­count­able for their ac­tions, stiff­en­ing con­se­quences for crimes, and dis­con­tin­u­ing glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of crim­i­nals through me­dia cov­er­age should all be pro­moted. En­forcers need to act on rather than ig­nore ev­i­dence and they must be ac­count­able. The se­cu­rity of­fi­cer who ran from the Park­land school and told oth­ers not to go in while those chil­dren were be­ing shot should lose his job.

The na­tion’s moral con­science is slip­ping away, as reli­gious be­liefs are re­moved from so­ci­ety. Peo­ple must value hu­man life. When peo­ple can’t obey ba­sic laws like “Thou shall not kill”, and feel no re­morse for killing an­other hu­man, what gun law could pos­si­bly stop this in­hu­mane act?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.