Commentary
Don't guns merit as much regulation as cars?
by John MartySen. John Marty, DFL, represents Roseville in the Minnesota Legislature.
The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary prompted national soul-searching about what can be done to stop these mass shootings. Some have called for security changes in schools; some have called for a reduction in the violence in movies and video games; some have called for strengthening our mental health system, and some have called for gun laws with teeth. Not surprisingly, the NRA has called for more guns in schools.
Most of these ideas could have an impact. I was an author of a Minnesota law requiring lockdown drills to improve security in schools. Although it is not something government can do, I believe it is important that each of us challenge the idea that watching violence, or "virtually" killing others, is entertainment. And we would see huge reductions in violent crime if we ensured that all people, including those most troubled by mental illness or chemical dependency, receive the care they need when they need it. To make this happen, we need more than rhetoric: We need to pass the proposed Minnesota Health Plan, or an alternative that truly delivers comprehensive care for everyone.
But in addition to these reforms, it is also time to take a comprehensive look at our gun laws.
Practically anyone can purchase an arsenal of weaponry powerful enough to gun down dozens of victims in minutes. Even people who have committed violent acts and even those with serious mental illness are able to purchase assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition clips.
The NRA's allies argue that if Adam Lanza, the gunman in Newtown, Conn., knew that teachers and other adults were carrying guns in the school, he would have been scared away from entering the school and murdering children. But Lanza wasn't afraid of getting killed; he intended to die in his shooting rampage. He committed suicide.
The idea that numerous armed teachers in every school might reduce the carnage as they engage in gun battles with intruders is preposterous. More loaded guns in classrooms would result in accidental shootings, and perhaps even intentional ones, when an angry student uses a gun found in a teacher's purse or desk drawer.
The NRA's call for the federal government to spend several billion dollars a year to pay for one or more armed police officers at every school in the country would be one of the most expensive, ill-conceived solutions possible. Gunmen like those at Columbine or Sandy Hook or other schools often orchestrate their attacks carefully. They could easily plan to kill at times or places in the school where the officer was not around.
Besides, most of these killers have far greater firepower than the school police officers would have.
It is a hopeful sign that we are seeing the beginning of a national conversation about our gun laws. The gun lobby has so much political clout that few politicians have challenged it, and discussion of gun laws has been cut short. When Minnesota passed the carry-permit law several years ago, the gun lobby defeated an amendment that would have denied gun permits to applicants who had a restraining order against them. In effect, the gun lobby persuaded legislators that a protection order was not enough reason to deny an abuser the right to carry a gun.
Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban would be a step forward. But for a more comprehensive look at how we should regulate guns, let's consider how we regulate cars. There are lawful uses for both guns and cars; both are deadly when misused.
With cars, we require the operator to be trained and licensed. We register the vehicle, and re-register it when transferring to a new owner.
But for guns, there is no licensing, no training requirement, and no registration. This enables criminals to obtain guns from a private citizen with no background check, no waiting period — no means of enforcement at all.
We don't have a gun registration system because the gun lobby has used fear tactics to fight even modest regulation. They say, "First they'll register your guns, then the next thing they'll do is take them away." Sure. Just like they did with cars.
Actually, the government does take away cars, but only from people using them illegally. In Minnesota, the courts can seize the cars of drug dealers and repeat DWI offenders. It is not a radical thought to suggest we should do the same for criminals with guns.
Here are some reasonable changes that are long overdue:
Licensing gun owners and registering firearms.
Extending waiting periods and criminal background checks for private gun sales.
Imposing a lifetime ban on gun ownership for people convicted of violent crimes.
Reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons and large ammunition clips.
These modest proposals do not punish responsible gun owners any more than vehicle registration punishes responsible car owners. But these proposals will help stop the arms race on our streets, where deranged killers and gang members are more heavily armed than the police.
Despite public support for gun control, the gun lobby continues to fight common-sense reforms. It is well-organized and intimidating. Lawmakers raising this issue are accustomed to nasty phone calls. The NRA works to discredit such proposals and those who offer them.
I am a moderate on gun control, yet I have received "F minus" ratings on the NRA report card, because I seek responsible gun laws.
Perhaps because most of the victims were young children, there has been a perceptible shift in momentum on the issue since the Sandy Hook school shootings. Now is the time for public officials to stand up to the NRA and have a rational discussion over public safety and responsible gun laws.
Comments (16)
If we had liability insurance on guns, as we do for cars, we will see which insurance company would insure at which price folks with arsenals
How many people were maimed or killed by guns in the US? As compared to drunk drivers... Regulate alcohol sales and consumption then look at more ridiculous regulations concerning gun ownership. "Public safety"...
I suppose under your rule anyone convicted of a violent crime couldn't purchase or own a car? Also anyone with a record of mental illness? Others have tried to register guns and then they know where they are to confiscate them. Hitler was one that comes to mind. Please use your time to do something that will matter. You can have my guns when you pry them out of my cold dead fingers or when I run out of ammunition, not until. Remember the 2nd Amendment protects all of us from those who would take our freedoms away. I lived in the country in a area where burglary was quite common, but all I had to show that I was armed were a set of antlers over my garage door. Always one of my two vehicles were in the driveway and didn't have a break in while I lived in this area for 23 years. I made it quite clear that if you tried to steal from me you would die. Thank You.
By the mention of cars you have just opened up a CAN O' WORMS...how many people die in motor vehicle accidents every year?
Last figure I saw for 2011 was a bit over 32,000. How many of them alcohol related? About a 1/3.
So you are proposing that we save lives by instituting regulation of firearms when they actually cause ~66% fewer deaths than that of vehicles.
Furthermore. According to FBI reports in 2011, rifles (that is ALL rifles, not just your 'evil' ones) were the result of 323 homicides. There were more than twice as many deaths (728) caused by fightings with bare hands and feet than there were caused by ALL rifles. How about more? Fact, there were over 5 times (1,694) the number of deaths caused by
knives and other sharp objects than ALL rifles. Fact, there were more blunt force deaths (496) than ALL rifles.
And a AWB is the answer? Quit running on emotion and look at FACTS!!!
Let me remind you, a person who is determined to be a criminal will find a way to obtain whatever they need to accomplish their goal(s). We license, insure, and register cars and drivers, yet 3 times as many people still die. Same with drunk driving, it's been banned for years, yet we have just as many deaths because of it as ALL firearm deaths. The regulation of these things has likely done very little to save lives. FACT! I'd say the progress in the declining rates of deaths in vehicles is by better education than is regulation. Fact, criminals will be criminals.
Banks have armed guards to protect our money, because we value our money.
We value our homes, therefore we have armed guards at gates that close, or private security, or the paid armed guards driving around the neighborhood in police cars.
No one complains that we protect the gold in Fort Knox with armed guards. We value our gold.
Our court rooms have had armed guards for as long as anyone can remember, and in recent decades we have added armed guards in the halls and at the entrances, and metal detectors too, because we obviously value our court system.
Fact is, everything we place a high value on, we protect with ARMED guards.
Yet, Mr. Marty & his group do not place enough value on our 6 year olds to protect them with the only proven method known to mankind, armed guards.
Imagine someone so enslaved to a polical dogma that he puts our children in continual risk rather than demand the only protection for those little ones, armed guards.
Mr. Marty worships at the alter of the Democrat Party and cares not what happens to the children.
If he cared for them, he would be working hard to install armed guards & double locking doors, etc., in our public schools, properly protecting what we claim we value the most, our children.
You are not a moderate on gun control, Mr. Marty, no matter how much you may think you are. You are an extremist, and deserve the F-minus you earned.
If you do value the little ones, prove it. Champion armed guards in the schools. The only idea that works.
Thank You Senator Marty! A man with common sense--when common sense isn't very common! Your recommendations are not out of line. Come on, people, LET'S DO IT!!
Thank You Senator Marty! A man with common sense--when common sense isn't very common!
Your recommendations are not out of line. Asking that guns be registered, people have training, extending waiting periods, banning automatic weapons and large clips, which serve no purpose except by the military, are common sense actions.
I don't believe for one moment that two or three guards at the door of Sandy Hook Elementary would have stopped the shooter. (Who will be paying for those guards?) I, for one, do not want to see the US become a "military/police state" whereby there are guards with guns on every corner, at the door of every building and on every rooftop.
I'm not asking anyone to give up all of their weapons--have your guns, but be regulated. The NRA chooses not to regulate itself, therefore we the people need to do something. There are all kinds of laws and rules that each of us live with every single day from car and license registration, to seat-belt laws, drinking age laws, laws about working hours and ages, and fishing and hunting regulations. I would rather have some gun regulations than have to worry every day about my children, my grandchildren and myself being shot at by some lunatic with an assault rifle.
EQUALLY as important, something needs to be done with our mental health system; obviously it's broken, it's not working and it needs to be fixed.
Why can't we compromise and work this out so it's a win/win for everyone?
Thank you for posting this.
I have been wanting to get involved with some sort of organization that would promote liability insurance for all gun owners. (and I speak as someone who has guns in our house). I see no reason why we regulate and insure auto's but somehow cannot regulate and insure weapons. It is time.
Please Senator, how can those os us who want to get involved in this help? I will plan to contact your office and see if your staff can point us to local resources. I have downloaded the text of a bill that was attempted in Illinois, perhpas MN could model something off this.
Lastly, we MUST get gun owners into this conversation. Yes, there are people who would like to remove guns, but that is NOT what I want. I want to see sensible laws, not bans. Please don't just post knee-jerk hatred on here. Most of us posting want to see a good solution and do not want to take away your guns.
According to CNN, there was an armed sheriff's deputy at Columbine the day of the killings.
He drove around the building and arrived 5 min after the shooting began, and after the gunmen had killed several. He exchanged four shots from the parking lot. So the gunmen left the area and spent the next 40 minutes shooting up the rest if the school, detonating bombs, and killing ten more in the library, while the deputies remained outside. After the gunmen killed themselves, several bled to death while the swat team spent four more hours methodically searching the building. (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/TOC.htm)
Criminals will be criminals sick people will be sick people. Registration on guns they are supposed to be locked up not accessible to anybody but you. No matter how the crime is committed vehicles, guns, knifes, bats or clubs you can't hold an adamant object accountable for what the person behind it dose with it.
I think that if you choose to want guns you need to keep them locked away and safe not accessible to anybody but yourself it is your gun and responsibility is it not. Gun laws are really thorough the way they now. unfortunately people that can not obtain them legally will find another way.
Licensing gun owners and registering firearms.
Extending waiting periods and criminal background checks for private gun sales.
Imposing a lifetime ban on gun ownership for people convicted of violent crimes.
Reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons and large ammunition clips.
These are sensible and do not stop the law-abiding, non-criminal person from having a gun. And we need to add how licensing is done - we screen who we trust in the army, navy, air force, marines and national guard with weapons in our "well-regulated "militia. The disparity between what moral character you may need to enlist in the armed forces and lawfully have ammunition there is very far from the moral and law-abiding character expected of any civilian.
Senator Marty,
As an elected representative, your suggestion equating auto regulation with firearms regulation is especially worrisome. I’m sure you’re aware that driving a vehicle is a privilege, and that gun ownership is a basic civil right in this country. The purpose of government is to protect Rights, not violate them. In my opinion, equating the two is disingenuous at best.
Your supporting arguments are questionable as well. Felons, as a rule, cannot legally purchase firearms. Neither can those charged with or convicted of domestic abuse nor those judged mentally defective. Perhaps you’re suggesting those individuals could purchase firearms illegally? Well, DUH.
You also make several assumptions in your article, that police officers are always out-gunned and that more guns in schools will result in more “accidental shootings”. People with crystal balls telling us what will be are called fortune tellers, or far worse if they’re asking us to surrender just a little more of our rights because it’s politically expedient.
Absent from your article are any references to citizens using firearms to stop crazed killers before their rampages could be extended. You might prefer to correlate it to people driving their cars responsibly. There are numerous instances of this occurring in recent years, although these occurrences receive little coverage in the mainstream media for some reason.
Instituting more knee-jerk feel-good legislation will not solve the problem of mass shootings by criminals or the mentally ill. There are enough laws on the books already restricting the second amendment. Addressing the abysmal state of mental health treatment in this country and better enforcement of existing laws to reduce drug and gang related violence will have far more effect on reducing gun violence. It’s only common sense.
If armed guards would be ineffective at our schools then why are they at the capitol building and all of our government buildings? I value our children much more than I value any of you clowns in congress. Take the guards you pay at all the government buildings around the country and transfer them to the schools. Also, please stop calling the certain weapons you want to ban assault rifles. They are NOT the same rifles the military uses. They just look like it. You can buy a Chevy Monte Carlo NASCAR replica but it is not the same thing the big boys are using. I use my AR-15 for coyote hunting and long range target shooting because it is very accurate over a long distance, meaning sportsman do have a use for “assault rifles”. Do I have a use for a high capacity clip? No I do not, go ahead ban them. Then when only three innocent kids are killed instead of twenty at least you can say “hey, look what I did “. People are nuts! Parents are not parenting, and the government is out of control, pass the beer nuts.
Why are gun people so afraid to take on as much responsibility (and cost) as an automobile owner? Have all the guns you want but if someone gets injured even accidentally or the weapon gets stolen why isn't anyone supposed to be responsible for it ? In a case like Sandy Hook the school and the city and the police dept. will be facing Law suits, why not have some liability insurance to pick up some cost. AS A TAX PAYER THESE LAW SUITS ARE PAID WITH ALL OF OUR TAXES. Yet gun owners bear none of this, WHY ?
You say that the evil NRA wants to solve the problem by putting more guns in schools..... John Marty, you are an educated idiot. Adam Lanza after seeing two people with guns comming after him...SHOT HIMSELF.... Yes it would have been a real shame if a couple of those first teachers had had guns in a lock box in there desks. It would have been a real shame if he, seeing two guns 5 minutes ealier, would have not had a chance to kill all of those kids I guess.... The world is a worse place with idiots like John Marty. Come try take my gun Ass clown
I am for gun ownership regulations. That does NOT mean I think people shouldn't own guns. But why do you need a semi automatic weapon in your home? Why not buy a handgun? And to that point, who is saying that regulations = taking anyone's guns away? If you're reading these pro-regulation arguments properly and you're worried about losing your stash of firearms, then you're basically admitting guilt of misconduct (that's the only reason they'd be taken away). If you're a law abiding citizen with properly registered guns, no one's taking anything away from you. I don't understand the objection to that.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
