Gun hysteria | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    I guess I might as well add my two cents worth to the "discussion" about guns. Let me start by saying that I am and always have been a defender of the Constitution since I reached the age of reason. Most of what I have to say has probably been said somewhere else but there are some questions that remain.

    Letting our legislature pass a bill regarding "assault weapons" without a real definition of the term means we will get some truly terrible legislation filled with emotional "facts" and not reasoned logic. How do we define an assault weapon; is it by the overall size of the weapon or by the number of rounds it can carry or by just the look? We already see and hear talking heads describe the AR 15 as an assault rifle, an automatic weapon and a high powered machine gun. It is called an assault rifle by the military because of why and when it is used. It is not an automatic weapon nor is it a high powered machine gun. There are already laws on the books banning automatic weapons and in the realm of power, as it pertains to weapons, it is on the low end.

    Do we decide on the amount of ammunition that the gun carries? Where do we draw the line; 50 rounds, 20 or maybe 10? Is 10 too many, how about 5. If it is to be 5 how do we keep the "killers" from stuffing their pockets with lots of 5 round magazines? If it is to be the number of bullets do we also have to classify bows and arrows as assault weapons? Most archers carry several arrows in their quivers so guess they would have to be denied more than a couple of arrows to go deer hunting. I carry a sidearm with multiple rounds in a magazine; will that also become an assault weapon?

    Again our legislators can't let any crisis go to waste. All the media is filled with them getting their face and voices out to the public and none have said "let's sit down and discuss what happened and is there anything we can do to prevent the next one" and there will be a next one because of their insistence on making decisions based on emotions and not facts. The only thing that comes out of their mouths is "we have to have more laws, we have to ban guns.

    This morning on CNN they were comparing the Japanese death rate by guns to our death rate by guns. Their premise, put forth by a representative of the global ban on guns, said "Japan has banned guns altogether so if we do that we will stop all the gun violence." Nothing was said of the cultural differences between our two societies. The one person defending the Constitution was talked over by several of the CNN's do-gooders in an effort to claim the high ground. During an interview with the governor of Florida the female host continued to try and get him to commit himself to her definitions of what he would do but after trying unsuccessfully she gave up and dismissed him as uncooperative.

    I hate to say it but if banning guns would stop this kind of tragedy why hasn't the banning of drugs stopped the tragedy that this plague has brought to this country? I spent some years working in the mental health field and saw many instances where the "patient's rights" were more important than society's. During the 60's and 70's they were moved out of places where they could be helped on a daily basis and put on the street to fend for themselves in the name of "patient rights" Now they have more rights than most of the rest of society.

    In my opinion we need to reevaluate these patient rights if we want to "help" keep them from doing something similar in the future.

poll#30