texasjq2


Confiscation is not the answer
January 10, 2013, 1:40 pm
Filed under: Happening Now, Politics | Tags: , , , , ,

I hear the Mayor of NYC and the governor of New York State screaming about the need to confiscate guns, take guns away from law-abiding citizens so that crime will go down. The real idiocy with these things is that Law Abiding Citizens are not the ones committing the crimes, with guns. The ones who commit gun crimes are those who don’t care about laws in the first place, they are called criminals.

The history of gun control is that it does not work, crime increases when citizens do not have guns with which to protect themselves from criminals with guns and other weapons that destroy lives. Where I live is a prime example, when we are out feeding our animals, we never know what or who we will meet up with. I do know that the border patrol has caught a number of drug smugglers and people smugglers in our county, some on our property. These people are armed with semi-auto and automatic (assault weapon) weapons. You see that is the other problem with this discussion, one side seems to want to make any gun an assault while the other side wants to make every gun OK to own. Somewhere in the middle is where I am. I own handguns, and semi-automatic rifles and a single shot 30-06 rifle.

None of my guns is an “assault” weapon, because none of my guns can be fired on full automatic. Yet it is said that anyone who owns a gun that can hold a magazine of more than 10 rounds is an assault weapon. Wrong! Assault weapons are those weapons that are capable of firing either one round at a time of 10 rounds at a time. The law says that those weapons are not available for sale to the general public, in other words, I can’t buy an assault weapon even if I wanted one, which to be perfectly honest I do not.

Interestingly enough, criminals seem to be able to get and use assault type weapons in committing their crimes.

The UK has taken guns away from their citizens, the police who used to go around with only a club as their protection and weapon. Are now armed with guns, simply because the criminals who they have to go up against began using guns once the citizenry had no way to protect themselves. So it seems that if you take away the guns from those who will obey the law, then those who do not obey the law will be able to get guns anyway, and are more than willing to use them in the commission of crimes. So, once again I find myself asking why are we trying to remove a deterrent from our law-abiding citizenry when it does actually cut down on violent crime? Just look at the Florida, when the citizens were not allowed to have guns, gun crime was rampant in the state, when they passed the law that allowed citizens to begin carrying concealed weapons, violent crime went down. In every state where this has been tried, violent crime has decreased. Where are there more gun related deaths? Try Chicago, Washington D. C. and other places were guns are not allowed in the hands of law-abiding citizens, but the criminals have plenty of firepower.

So in this debate, let us scrap the “feel good” stuff and begin to look carefully at what it is we are trying to accomplish. So called “Gun Free Zones” are the places were these crimes happen, over and again. Whether it is a movie theater or a College campus or an elementary school. How do we deter these things or at least protect those who are the innocent victims? We make sure that there are armed persons there to protect those places. Not necessarily, teachers but persons who are trained in the use of guns and are willing to use them to protect those teachers and kids. There are many who are trained. Most of us who served any time in the military, know about and respect guns, and how they are to be handled. In States were Concealed carry is acceptable, you have a group of folks who are able to protect themselves and others.

I know that I would be happy to spend a day or two a week in our school system to protect those who are there to learn and to grow, and there are teachers who also do not want to carry guns, as well as those who do have the license. Let us use the resources we have to protect those who cannot protect themselves, it will be a deterrent when the school or theater is no longer a “gun free zone.”

What do you think? Does this make sense, or do you have a different perspective?



Emotion Rules the Conversation

The more I see and hear about the conversation on guns and gun control issues, the more I see that emotion has taken charge. When a Senator says that we should put the National Guard in our schools, I know that she is not thinking, she is reacting emotionally to what has happened. Of course there are also the folks who say that NRA members should be shot, or they are the new KKK, which is patently outrageous, and of course there are also the folks who are saying that all guns should be taken away and no one should have a gun for any reason at all.

Somewhere in the middle of all the rhetoric, is where we need to be. Now let me say this, as a rancher in South Central Texas, just a few miles from the Mexican border and the violence that happens there on a regular basis, when I go out to feed our deer and other animals I go armed. We have had illegal persons caught on our ranch by the border patrol, some were armed some not, but the ones that were armed were smuggling drugs. They were more than willing to exchange bullets with the agents chasing them. The other side of that coin is wild animals that we may run into. Namely wild boar, Mexican Mountain lion, and of course the ubiquitous rattle snakes. So please get real about taking away my guns thank you.

So now that we have established a place where conversation can be held, let us look at what is going on here. A person who, legally could not own a firearm, stole them from his mother, killing her in the process. He then went to the school, shot out a window in order to bypass the security of the locked door, once inside he went to the school office where he killed the women inside, before going to the classroom. He then killed 20 children and their teacher, finally, killing himself.

Had there been just one person in that building who was armed, the picture might very well have been very different. I do not suggest that we put the Army or the National Guard in our schools, nor a police presence per se. What I do suggest is that we have those folks who are retired police/sheriff deputies/military who know about guns and how to safely use them. I would think that at least some of these are also grandparents of young kids and would be glad to volunteer to guard the schools that those children are in, even the schools that other children are in. I know that many teachers do not like or want to handle firearms, I don’t see why they should have to do so if that is their feeling in the matter. I know that I would be glad to volunteer my time one or two days a week to help protect our local schools. Of course you might want us to have an authority to answer to, say the local sheriff or Police Dept.

I think that would solve the problem, while costing next to nothing, you might want to feed us lunch, and of course you want to do a background check to be sure that none of those folks have any problems around children. Of course concealed carry, requires a background check, as does the purchase of a firearm. Let us understand too that we cannot stop people from doing crazy or stupid things, but we can stop them from doing these things in our schools.

One other thing I have heard a great deal about is the gun show loophole, supposedly you don’t have to have a background check if you buy a gun at a gun show. I have purchased guns at gun shows, every time I did I had to give ID and they did a background check on me. It is a requirement if you want to purchase a gun. What do you think about all this? Leave a comment, join the conversation, become a part of the solution, because our politicians seem to thinking emotionally, not logically. The sad part is that as a member of the NRA, I am disappointed in Wayne La Pierre. His statements about placing police persons in the schools, does not take into account the reality of how thinly our Police Departments are already, and the cost of doing so is prohibitive for any Government entity to do. You are talking many millions, if not billions of dollars to accomplish this.

So lets hear what you have to say, thank you for reading this blog of mine, I hope it has been helpful in the midst of a difficult time in our nation.

Comments Off on Emotion Rules the Conversation