Education Environment Health Care Politics Public Policy Social Issues Taxes  

Gun "Control"

Transparent Statement:
I support measures to reduce gun violence, but believe most are feel-good measures that will have minimal impact.

I realize that simply labeling this topic Gun Control is controversial. But calling it Gun Safety or Gun Violence was not as explicit.

Full Disclosure: I do not own a gun. I am not an NRA member. I have never even fired a gun. (Note to criminals: I am really good with knives though!) I also have family members who previously attended Sandy Hook Elementary, although they had moved out of the area prior to the shooting.

I am not against guns. I do not plan to take away anyone's guns. I have many friends who hunt or have guns for protection. I realize that most gun owners are responsible citizens who are not militia members or anti-government.

I also realize that no matter what legal barriers there are, criminals will always find a way to get a gun. After all, if they were planning to obey the law, they would not be criminals.

But gun violence is a serious issue and it would be irresponsible of us if we cannot agree on some reasonable measures that could help reduce the number of innocent people injured and kills by guns.

I am in favor of closing the so-called "gun show loophole." The background checks are quick and easy, so there is no reasonable justification for not requiring them.

Some believe the background checks are worthless anyway, given how few people are rejected. I am not familiar enough with the details. But the fact that people are rejected at all suggests they work, even if only a little. Besides, it only takes 1 person with a gun to commit a heinous crime.

I do wonder why when people are turned down for a gun purchase, they are not prosecuted by the Federal government. After all, it is a crime to even try to purchase a gun if you are not allowed to.

I also believe it is reasonable to require that adults make sure their guns are locked up so that children cannot get them. Too many children get injured or killed after stumbling upon a loaded gun in their home. There is no reason this should EVER happen. The law is not meant to punish adults so much as reinforce the importance of the need to lock up their guns.

I am also in favor of preventing people with protection orders against them from owning guns. I realize some believe that women may use this as a ruse to take away their ex's guns. But if a woman goes through the effort to get a protection order, then the law should make help to ensure she is truly protected.

I support the right of businesses to make their own decision as to whether to allow guns on their property. I realize many feel this is a gun rights issue, but that is about carrying a gun in public. As long as it is clearly posted, people and businesses should have a right to choose what is allowed on their own property. (Gun owners can then decide whether or not to support that business.)

As for assault weapons with large magazines, I do not honestly know why any citizen needs a military-grade weapon. I am sure there are hunters who like them, particularly for target practice — and I am happy to hear from people on this. I would be willing to restrict the purchase of these, but I would not personally pursue this as a priority.

Finally, there is the notion that guns don't kill people, bullets do — and that we should restrict the sale of bullets just as we do with guns. A gun is useless without bullets. But if you cannot own a gun, why should be allowed to purchase bullets? I am not sure whether bullets are officially considered "arms" under the Second Amendment. But regardless, I would also be willing to require background checks before purchasing bullets.

Steve Rubenstein for Governor | Privacy Policy