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