I have been reading
reports of those who have been successful in their efforts of bagging deer and
filling their freezers with meat to use during the winter. I have talked to
others who have used their firearms for skeet shooting or target practice. I
know some who belong to gun clubs and find pleasure in collecting guns from
history and telling stories of parents and grandparents using some of those
guns to feed the family of bygone years. I know others who simply say they feel
protected by having a gun close by in case their house is penetrated by
would-be robbers, or worse.
On the other hand I read
in the paper or watch on the news the mayhem of murder and destruction at the
hands of those wielding guns to take others' lives in movie theaters, public
places, schools, drive-bys, back alleys and sometimes just for initiation to
join some street gang. I read about five hundred murders in a city like Chicago
where some of the toughest gun restriction laws in the nation exist. Yet, the
discussions of what to do about it seem always to be centered around better
background checks for people who buy the guns, more time in jail or greater
fines for those who fail to report their guns being stolen, or a ban on the
amount of rounds can be put into a magazine clip.
It seems to me like there
are two kinds of people who own guns: One kind is that group who use the gun
for hunting for food, or recreation of target practice; or simply feeling safer
to have it available for protection against attack. This kind of person is
willing to abide by the laws on the books regarding acquisition and concealment
of their guns. The other kind of person is one who uses the gun to rob, kill
people, intimidate others, belong to a gang and usually will not abide by any
law governing the acquisition or concealment of that gun.
I wonder why the focus of
the discussions of the problem of violence by firearms always seem to gyrate
toward the group of people who use the gun for hunting, recreation or
protection, and not toward the person who uses the gun to rob, kill people,
intimidate others or belong to a gang?
In cities like Chicago,
New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and every other larger city in America,
there are police forces with divisions that focus on murder, gangs, robbery,
rape and kidnapping. Those police departments have detectives that are infused
into the population with their informants and "inside" people in the
gangs and cells of violence. Why not "militarize" those "special
forces" within the police departments and focus on hitting hard those
people who use guns for violence, those people who are members of street gangs
that create violence and enforce the laws that are already on the books. Keep
hitting them hard week after week until the gang's will is broken and they
learn it is not to their advantage to continue with the intimidation and violence.
Legislators should focus
on passing and insisting on the enforcement of laws that focus on stiff
penalties for gang violence, armed robbery and murder. The legislators should
focus on the appeal process and the loopholes, as well as the bargaining for
"reduced" sentences and lesser charges that puts the violent gang
member back on the street using the police front door as a revolving door. In
time, a real "deterrent" would evolve and the person who uses the gun
for violence would think twice before using it that way.
If we continue to focus on
the law-abiding citizen who uses the gun for hunting, recreation and protection
while neglecting the person who uses the gun for violence, the day will come
when even the police will not be able to provide protection for themselves, let
alone the citizens in the community.
Jim Killebrew
No comments:
Post a Comment