gun-fucious
October 16, 2003, 07:30 AM
http://www.thetentacle.com/Articles_Oct/Oct8_article1.html
Guns And Gun Violence
Richard B. Weldon Jr.
October 8, 2003
Two of my colleagues from the General Assembly, Sen. Rob Garagiola (D.,
Montgomery) and Del. Neil Quinter (D., Howard), have resurrected the bill to
ban assault-style weapons in Maryland.
They suggest that Maryland cannot depend on the Republican-controlled U. S.
Congress to extend the current assault weapons ban. They also suggest that
the federal ban does not include all of the weapons it should, most notably
the Bushmaster.
It's all in the name. The Bushmaster is the commercial name for a
semi-automatic rifle that resembles a military rifle. The Bushmaster would
probably have escaped our attention had it not been for John Mohamed and Lee
Malvo.
Last year, these two perpetrated a series of horrific crimes, randomly
killing innocent victims with a Bushmaster rifle. They could just as easily
(maybe even more easily) committed these crimes with any other commercially
available semi-automatic or single shot long gun.
As long as sick, twisted criminals have used guns in the commission of
crimes, we've had legislators argue for the banning or restriction of
firearms. The logic is that if we ban the guns, we'll save lives.
As is the case in almost every political argument, both sides of the
question can point to studies and analyses that support their particular
argument. Clearly, if we were actually able to prevent guns from getting
into the hands of violent and dangerous people, fewer people would be hurt
or killed by gunfire.
Unfortunately, that presumes that criminals will respect laws governing
acquisition and ownership of banned or regulated weapons. In case after
case, in jurisdictions with some of the most prohibitive firearms
regulations, we see that there is no rational connection between
restrictions in ownership and reductions in gun violence.
I hear opponents of regulation cite the constitutional protection of
firearms ownership as the basis for rejecting firearms regulations. I
personally don't subscribe to that theory. When the framers drafted that
language, they were contemplating the possession of black powder guns, and
they were concerned about an overly powerful central government ignoring the
will of the people, necessitating armed resistance.
I wonder if they would have included protections for the possession of fully
automatic weapons, or bullets designed to pierce the vests worn by law
enforcement officers. I'm no conspiracy theorist, so you can't sell me on
the idea that I need that kind of protection from our local police.
I'm looking for the logical, rational public policy debate on this question.
Don't trot out the line of victims as an excuse to implement poorly
conceived public policy.
I can tell that Sarah Brady is a good woman, and I was deeply saddened by
the shooting and crippling of her husband Jim, President Reagan's press
secretary. Unfortunately, I don't think she is an effective spokesperson.
Her politicization of the issue of gun control has severely limited her
credibility as a voice for change. Liberals who attack sportsmen because
they either don't understand the sport or don't want to see animal
populations managed this way demonstrate a dangerous ignorance of how others
choose to live.
Likewise, don't shout about what Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin meant by the
Second Amendment. We weren't there, and they aren't here. I fail to see how
owning a street sweeper, a shotgun with a large cartridge capable of a high
rate of fire, is necessary for personal protection. You won't be deer
hunting with a compact machine gun, because the venison would be so full of
lead that you couldn't chew a mouthful without losing some teeth.
Instead, why can't we engage in a meaningful, substantive debate on how we
protect our safety while ensuring the rights of law abiding gun owners?
Technology and information can be an asset in this discussion.
We can look at the entire range of thought, from states with concealed carry
laws to the most restrictive firearms regulations. We can analyze statistics
on how effective the current crop of laws has been in combating violence.
We can debate why our enforcement of existing law is so random and
lackadaisical. We can determine the usefulness of certain weapons that have
as their principle use the killing of as many people as possible in the
shortest possible time.
Urban legislators see this problem very differently than the rural
legislators do. Unfortunately, urban legislators represent the bulk of
Maryland's population, so they control large blocks of votes in the Maryland
House and Senate.
Often, our urban colleagues view rural legislators with disdain. I recall a
floor debate on the question of requiring a driver to move out of the left
lane when begin overtaken by another driver. An urban legislator referred to
Del. Kevin Kelly (D., Alleghany) as sponsoring the "pickup truck driving,
gun toting, tobacco-chewing Bubba" bill.
That's how many of them see us. If we argue in favor of the rights of
legitimate, law-abiding sportsmen, these urban legislators feel it necessary
to defame and dismiss instead of engaging in meaningful public policy
discussions.
Unfortunately, to do what I suggest will require national, state, and local
leaders to place the larger interests above petty partisanship. Montgomery
County Executive Doug Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley held joint
press conferences with Sen. Garagiola and Del. Quinter to push for stricter
gun laws.
In both cases, shots (excuse the pun) were taken at President Bush and
Governor Erhlich. Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Duncan are less concerned about a
meaningful firearms debate than they are posturing for the 2006
gubernatorial election.
If Mr. Quinter and Mr. Garagiola are serious in their pursuit, they will
encourage a broad debate during the next session on the issues I've raised.
They'll be open to considering how to accommodate the interests of
legitimate points of view that might not follow their own. If not, then they
will join the ranks of past legislative activists who ignore the complexity
of this question. We'll be no closer to truly dealing with this difficult
question than we were before they started.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RICHARD B. WELDON, JR.
Republican, District 3B, Frederick & Washington Counties
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa13978.html
Lowe House Office Building, Room 324
84 College Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401 - 1991
(410) 841-3240, (301) 858-3240
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3240 (toll free)
e-mail: richard_weldon@house.state.md.us
fax: (410) 841-3308, (301) 858-3308
Mr Weldon obviously doesn't know about the Puckle Gun:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=536388
Guns And Gun Violence
Richard B. Weldon Jr.
October 8, 2003
Two of my colleagues from the General Assembly, Sen. Rob Garagiola (D.,
Montgomery) and Del. Neil Quinter (D., Howard), have resurrected the bill to
ban assault-style weapons in Maryland.
They suggest that Maryland cannot depend on the Republican-controlled U. S.
Congress to extend the current assault weapons ban. They also suggest that
the federal ban does not include all of the weapons it should, most notably
the Bushmaster.
It's all in the name. The Bushmaster is the commercial name for a
semi-automatic rifle that resembles a military rifle. The Bushmaster would
probably have escaped our attention had it not been for John Mohamed and Lee
Malvo.
Last year, these two perpetrated a series of horrific crimes, randomly
killing innocent victims with a Bushmaster rifle. They could just as easily
(maybe even more easily) committed these crimes with any other commercially
available semi-automatic or single shot long gun.
As long as sick, twisted criminals have used guns in the commission of
crimes, we've had legislators argue for the banning or restriction of
firearms. The logic is that if we ban the guns, we'll save lives.
As is the case in almost every political argument, both sides of the
question can point to studies and analyses that support their particular
argument. Clearly, if we were actually able to prevent guns from getting
into the hands of violent and dangerous people, fewer people would be hurt
or killed by gunfire.
Unfortunately, that presumes that criminals will respect laws governing
acquisition and ownership of banned or regulated weapons. In case after
case, in jurisdictions with some of the most prohibitive firearms
regulations, we see that there is no rational connection between
restrictions in ownership and reductions in gun violence.
I hear opponents of regulation cite the constitutional protection of
firearms ownership as the basis for rejecting firearms regulations. I
personally don't subscribe to that theory. When the framers drafted that
language, they were contemplating the possession of black powder guns, and
they were concerned about an overly powerful central government ignoring the
will of the people, necessitating armed resistance.
I wonder if they would have included protections for the possession of fully
automatic weapons, or bullets designed to pierce the vests worn by law
enforcement officers. I'm no conspiracy theorist, so you can't sell me on
the idea that I need that kind of protection from our local police.
I'm looking for the logical, rational public policy debate on this question.
Don't trot out the line of victims as an excuse to implement poorly
conceived public policy.
I can tell that Sarah Brady is a good woman, and I was deeply saddened by
the shooting and crippling of her husband Jim, President Reagan's press
secretary. Unfortunately, I don't think she is an effective spokesperson.
Her politicization of the issue of gun control has severely limited her
credibility as a voice for change. Liberals who attack sportsmen because
they either don't understand the sport or don't want to see animal
populations managed this way demonstrate a dangerous ignorance of how others
choose to live.
Likewise, don't shout about what Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin meant by the
Second Amendment. We weren't there, and they aren't here. I fail to see how
owning a street sweeper, a shotgun with a large cartridge capable of a high
rate of fire, is necessary for personal protection. You won't be deer
hunting with a compact machine gun, because the venison would be so full of
lead that you couldn't chew a mouthful without losing some teeth.
Instead, why can't we engage in a meaningful, substantive debate on how we
protect our safety while ensuring the rights of law abiding gun owners?
Technology and information can be an asset in this discussion.
We can look at the entire range of thought, from states with concealed carry
laws to the most restrictive firearms regulations. We can analyze statistics
on how effective the current crop of laws has been in combating violence.
We can debate why our enforcement of existing law is so random and
lackadaisical. We can determine the usefulness of certain weapons that have
as their principle use the killing of as many people as possible in the
shortest possible time.
Urban legislators see this problem very differently than the rural
legislators do. Unfortunately, urban legislators represent the bulk of
Maryland's population, so they control large blocks of votes in the Maryland
House and Senate.
Often, our urban colleagues view rural legislators with disdain. I recall a
floor debate on the question of requiring a driver to move out of the left
lane when begin overtaken by another driver. An urban legislator referred to
Del. Kevin Kelly (D., Alleghany) as sponsoring the "pickup truck driving,
gun toting, tobacco-chewing Bubba" bill.
That's how many of them see us. If we argue in favor of the rights of
legitimate, law-abiding sportsmen, these urban legislators feel it necessary
to defame and dismiss instead of engaging in meaningful public policy
discussions.
Unfortunately, to do what I suggest will require national, state, and local
leaders to place the larger interests above petty partisanship. Montgomery
County Executive Doug Duncan and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley held joint
press conferences with Sen. Garagiola and Del. Quinter to push for stricter
gun laws.
In both cases, shots (excuse the pun) were taken at President Bush and
Governor Erhlich. Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Duncan are less concerned about a
meaningful firearms debate than they are posturing for the 2006
gubernatorial election.
If Mr. Quinter and Mr. Garagiola are serious in their pursuit, they will
encourage a broad debate during the next session on the issues I've raised.
They'll be open to considering how to accommodate the interests of
legitimate points of view that might not follow their own. If not, then they
will join the ranks of past legislative activists who ignore the complexity
of this question. We'll be no closer to truly dealing with this difficult
question than we were before they started.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RICHARD B. WELDON, JR.
Republican, District 3B, Frederick & Washington Counties
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa13978.html
Lowe House Office Building, Room 324
84 College Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401 - 1991
(410) 841-3240, (301) 858-3240
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3240 (toll free)
e-mail: richard_weldon@house.state.md.us
fax: (410) 841-3308, (301) 858-3308
Mr Weldon obviously doesn't know about the Puckle Gun:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=536388