Licensing, police inspections and demonstration of need; those are all components of strict gun control detailed in yesterday’s on-line Time article by an Australian gun owner who explained life in a nation with restrictive gun laws, a nation mentioned by President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as an example America might follow.
The author of this article is identified only as “Peter.” According to Time, “Peter has asked to be identified only by his first name out of fear that his collection could make him a target for weapons thieves.” Well, how about that?
Says Peter: “In Australia we don’t want guns to protect our homes. That idea’s ridiculous.” Two paragraphs later, he adds this: “I don’t want my full name used in this article because if the biker gangs or somebody wanted a firearm, I don’t want to wake up with a knife to my throat and someone saying ‘Take me to your safe.’” One might suggest to Peter that this is the reason why Americans do want guns to protect their homes.
He also acknowledges, “I would feel less safe in Texas where everybody’s walking around with open carry. That would freak me out.” The solution to Peter’s imagination-fueled angst is simple: Stay out of Texas.
Peter did allude to the fact that theft is how many criminals get firearms, as a story in today’s Seattle Times attests. The newspaper reported on the arrest of a Bellevue man by Seattle police, who recovered “dozens of guns, body armor and ammunition” in a burglary investigation in connection with two recent burglaries in South Seattle. That man now faces ten felony counts and is being held in jail in lieu of $400,000 bail.
By no small coincidence, the newspaper’s Wednesday edition carried yet another editorial pushing for stricter gun control that mentioned crimes that would not have been prevented by laws currently pushed by the president, most notably expanded background checks. The editorial referred to the shooting of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the Sandy Hook tragedy and the terror attack in San Bernardino.
The man who shot Giffords and killed six other people passed a background check. The two mass killers in California got guns through an alleged straw purchase. Adam Lanza, the Newtown killer, murdered his mother and took her guns, which had been legally purchased with background checks under restrictive Connecticut law.
The editorial also fell back on the bogus argument that guns are “an epidemic that claims 30,000 lives in this country every year.” Such rhetoric is deliberately designed to make people believe there are that many homicides annually, but the majority of those deaths are suicides, and the gun control crowd and the newspaper editorial board know it.
There is a legitimate argument that suicide is not a gun problem, but a mental health and emotional problem. To call it “gun violence” would necessarily have to classify other forms of suicide as, for example, “rope violence” or “razor blade violence” or “bridge violence.”
“Peter” likes Australian gun laws. Perhaps he’s never enjoyed the notion of owning firearms as a civil right, not just a government-regulated privilege. While he argues that “The idea of having people own guns with no concept of gun safety and no reason to have a gun” is his idea of freedom, many in the American firearms community would argue that he doesn’t know what freedom really is.
In this country, you don’t need a reason to exercise a constitutionally-delineated civil right. Police need a warrant, and a good reason, to search someone’s home. Apparently, warrantless searches are just fine with Obama and Clinton, and regulating guns as a privilege rather than honoring gun ownership as a civil right is okay with the Seattle Times.
Got an opinion about this column? Share your views in the “Comments” section below.