Itap hard to believe that the Democrats were so cowed. Cowed by the National Rifle Association, cowed by the GOP. Although generally once advocates of consequential gun control, they were reduced in Monday’s Senate debate to arguing over whether suspected terrorists should be banned from buying semi-automatic weapons (which most on the other side, unbelievably, still oppose).
Here’s why this was barely productive: Adam Lanza, who slaughtered 26 children and teachers in Newtown, Conn., wasn’t a suspected terrorist. James Holmes, who murdered 12 Batman fans in Aurora, wasn’t a suspected terrorist. Even the radical Muslims who mowed down 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., weren’t previously suspected of terrorism. They all got their hands on semi-automatics.
Back when I was a talk show host on KOA Radio, I used to argue for gun control myself. My thinking, supported by statistics that hadn’t been twisted by the NRA, was that guns do more harm than good. I still think so.
But I got countless calls from gun owners saying, “Hey, I hunt,” or, “My sport is target practice,” or, “I have a right to protect my home.” Valid arguments for sure. But not against limits on some level. And because the Second Amendment is not absolute, we do have limits.
Hunting is fine, but you don’t need to do it with a tank, so we can’t own tanks. Target practice is fine, but you don’t need to lob a grenade at a target to test your skills, so we can’t own grenades. And protecting your home is fine, but do you need an AR-15 to do it?
Whatap more, if you have an AR-15, do you really need a magazine with 30 bullets? Here in Colorado the limit is 15 and even thatap absurd. Are we better off because a mass murderer can kill only 15 people at a time?
If more guns really made us safer, which is the fantasy argued by gun-rights groups, we would be the safest nation on Earth. We’re not. Do you realize that although the United States has less than 5 percentof the world’s population, we have almost a third of its mass murders? And guess what: semi-automatics are the mass murderers’ weapons of choice.
Look at Israel. It faces the threat of terrorism like few other nations, yet there’s no codified “right” to bear arms. To get a license for a gun, you must need it for work or security, and you must go through mental and physical exams, then pass shooting and safety tests too.
Here in our country, though, the right to bear arms is settled law. So be it. However, it is at loggerheads with another cherished right from our Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which means, today, the right to live and not to be killed by a maniac with a semi-automatic.
Of course, the genie’s out of the bottle — the guns are out there, everywhere, and itap too late to get them back. Thatap why the assault weapons ban of 1994 failed to move the needle. But now, everyone’s talking about a spectrum of measures to reduce violence, especially in the form of homegrown terrorism. How can anyone argue that keeping additional assault weapons out of the marketplace won’t help?
Both politically and pragmatically, old-fashioned notions of gun control are moot. But are our politicians really willing to confine themselves to this narrow debate about terrorist watch and no-fly lists?
Semi-automatic weapons are byproducts of the military. They are designed to kill a lot of people. When we’re at war, thatap what I want. But they have no rightful place when we’re at home. What politicians should plainly say to gun owners is, we don’t want to take away all your guns. Just your semi-automatics.
If only the Democrats had the guts.
Greg Dobbs of Evergreen is an author, public speaker, and former foreign correspondent for ABC News.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
