Our Opinion: Influential twist in gun-control debate

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Any realistic discussion about gun laws must be a matter of degree, not all or nothing.

Gun control, an issue that prompts impassioned debate, has resurfaced in the aftermath of a massacre that claimed the lives of 26 people, including 20 children, at a Connecticut elementary school.

Some firearms enthusiasts fear any regulations will lead to a slippery slope that will end in the confiscation of guns from American households.

We find those fears unfounded.

Even if we ignore the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, rounding up the estimated 300 million firearms in about half of all U.S. homes would be an unrealistic undertaking.

Previous examples of attempted eradication —Prohibition, the War on Drugs — have shown human behavior cannot be controlled entirely by efforts to eliminate an item, whether it is alcohol, illegal drugs or firearms.

A reasonable question is: Who needs what kind of weapon?

Clearly, military personnel are trained to operate weapons that are more sophisticated than those required by, or legally available to, civilians.

Other trained professionals — law enforcement officials, security personnel including Secret Service — are armed in accordance with their duties.

Beyond that, civilians largely acquire guns for sport — hunting, target shooting — and/or self-defense.

Gun control — who may acquire which weapons under what circumstances — is an ongoing debate in society and a policy matter for governments.

A recent — and potentially game-changing — development involves action by investors.

A major private equity firm has announced it will sell the company that manufacturers semiautomatic rifles, including the Bushmaster model used in the school shooting.

“It is not our role to take positions, or attempt to shape or influence the gun control policy debate,” read a statement from the investment company. “That is the job of our federal and state legislators.”

Despite the disclaimer, money often speaks more loudly than policy-makers.

More like this story

linoge 5 months ago

When the Central Communist Government began taking over Eastern bloc nations, the very first thing they did was take away the people's guns. They went town-to-town and house-to-house. At about the same time they began building the Berlin Wall, not to keep Westerners out, but to keep their own people in. This is a history lesson we should pay attention to.

fuzz610 5 months ago

It's a common sense thing.. when you are not using your guns lock them up and/or put a gun lock on them!! Some people should not have access to guns!! You own the gun YOU are responsible for it.

connor 5 months ago

A firearm locked up might as well not be owned if you expect to have it ready for defense purposes.

As far as the statement of money talking, well in this case it is really the lack of money doing the talking. The investment company that bought out Bushmaster has been looking for a reason to dump it long before the Conn. shooting and this most recent firearm debate. Frankly that company has been heading down hill for years now.

Remove the citizen's last line of defense against a tyrannical government at your peril. The Second Amendment it not about hunting or sport shooting it is about the common man having the same access to the basic tools of defense as the government.

CommanderBarkfeather 5 months ago

I subscribe to the Wyatt Earp method of gun control... No guns... no exceptions.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune