There was a shooting very late Friday night across the street from my building. I was on the balcony of my condo, 23 floors up on the opposite side of the building, and I heard it, but didn't see it. There were about a dozen police about a block north, as there often are at closing time for the night clubs and bars in the area. Surprisingly, while a few hundred people ran away from where the sounds seemed to be coming from, perhaps 50 ran towards the sounds. Some of them were cops. At first, the sounds seemed like a string of firecrackers--at least 4 shots going off within half a second, with several more following, but when I saw the look on the cops (from 250 feet away) I knew it was something else. One guy was killed on the scene, gun still in hand, two others were injured and were taken to the hospital, and the cops are still looking for another shooter. They're not saying whether the two injured people were bystanders or participants, but the two principals, the dead guy and the one that got away, had been friends.
The comments to the newspaper article are telling. Virtually all of them point out how upcoming initiative 594, which would require background checks for all gun transfers, would not have stopped this. Perhaps, but over time, things will be different. Right now, we have a gun culture. Too many people think, incorrectly, that having a gun makes them safer. The statistics say something quite different. As illustrated by Friday night's gunfight, the presence of a guns makes the situation much more dangerous for everybody, both those with the guns and others. This was most likely an argument that escalated. Had there been no guns, there might be bloody noses or even broken bones, but it's unlikely anybody would be dead. It doesn't sound like it in this case, but it could also be that it was gang related. Were possession of an unlicensed firearm a crime, the police could have stepped in before there was a problem. The only people who are made safer by having a gun are those who have a job that exposes them to armed and dangerous people all the time: basically police and active duty military. All have extensive training. A 19 year old pub crawler does not.
The backers of I-591 not withstanding, nobody is suggesting confiscating firearms (or anything else) without due process. Seriously, nobody, apart from those who are raising it as a strawman to be opposed. If you think such a thing is at any risk of happening in the United States, your sanity is in question.
This is not what is in the law, but here's how I think it should work: To buy or receive a gun as a gift, you should require a gun license. This is functionally similar to a drivers license--you would need to pass a test, which includes a background check for mental health and criminal issues, and a demonstration of safety and handling competence. The license itself should simply be a number--16 digits, like a credit card, should suffice--which represent an account in a universal database. In that account are stored your safety and background check history and photographs, and the registration number of any guns you have. When transferring a gun, the seller looks up the number on the smart phone and submits a new photograph of the buyer. The seller can look through the old photos to verify that this really is the person, but apart from yes/no on whether the purchase can be allowed, has access to no other information, not even the name and address of the buyer. Submitting a photo of a person other than the recipient of the gun would be a crime. There would be no general access to the database without a specific, court-issued warrant--e.g. look up the ownership history of a gun that was used in a crime, or look up the guns owned by an individual suspect of a crime. Broader searches, such as looking up all owners of a specific model of gun, should probably not be allowed, although there are fuzzy areas, such as if the registration number has been damaged.
There are some things that should be banned from general use: fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, explosive projectiles, projectiles above some caliber, etc. All of these things should be allowed on a safe range, or to be handled by specially trained and supervised individuals, but their use off-range or unsupervised should be a crime. A swat team member may, for example, use a fully automatic weapon, but should be supervised at all times. An individual (including one early in their training) may use such a weapon on a safe firing range, but taking it off range would be a crime. It should be relatively straightforward to establish a safe range. If you have a big field with berms in appropriate places, or a big basement with thick walls, an appropriate inspector can certify that the range is suitable and you can plink or blaze away all you want.
update:
Local sources tell me that the two bystanders who were injured were not involved at all. The person who was killed apparently had just arrived on the scene with intent to kill the other guy, but the other guy was a quicker draw, and apparently succeeded in blending with the crowd and making his getaway. A third person has been taken into custody.
No comments:
Post a Comment