Truth About Guns,
I write this to you as a question and I wonder what your thoughts are on this . . . I happen to be active duty military, but I am first and foremost a believer in the constitution, the second amendment, and in the importance of having civilian firearm ownership as a check on government oppression. That said, the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School has me worried, as I am sure it has worried you and the rest of your readers . . .
I own several AR15s, an LR308, and several high capacity handguns. I love them and I know that restricting firearms based on cosmetic features or magazine capacity will have no effect on crime and will not prevent these massacres. I know that preventing law abiding citizens like 99.9% of your readers from owning firearms only prevents us from defending ourselves, enjoying our hobbies and sports and, in my case training for my profession. It will only embolden criminals and do nothing to save lives. Still I am so worried by these events that I have an interesting question.
If this shooting is indeed our Dunblane, might it be smart for us as gun owners to give a little to save much more?
Regarding our AR15s, Kalashnikov clones etc, might it be smart to preemptively propose legislation limiting ownership of high capacity magazines and, perhaps, require background checks for the private sales of firearms. If, for example, Republican, NRA backed congressman proposed a simple bill that would limit ownership of high capacity magazines it would probably pass with little effort and would placate those that say “something must be done.”
It could get us past this madness without losing our beloved firearms. Personally, I would much rather have my AR15s–even with limited magazines–than for them to be illegal altogether. At least it makes more sense than banning cosmetic features and, in some circumstances it could be argued it might limit casualties in situations like this. I don’t believe that, as I have seen how much damage a bomb made out of fertilizer and a propane tank can do during my two tours in Iraq, but it is more logically sound than banning pistol grips and bayonet lugs.
It could also save the thousands of jobs involved in the firearms and firearms accessory manufacturing business and it could save our beloved competition shooting (3 Gun, High Powered Rifle etc). Perhaps high capacity magazines might be simply regulated and not be banned outright but, bottom line, I am more concerned with keeping my rifles and pistols than magazine capacity.
I understand that this might be a slippery slope, and might only embolden Dianne Feinstein and others, but I think it likely would end the argument for the time being. MSNBC could have a feel good gun control story, and we could still own our weapons legally. It could be a rhetorical victory for the gun control advocates and firearm owners alike.
Let me be clear, I don’t want any restrictions on firearms or magazines, but recognizing the possibility that the tide will turn against firearm owners based on this tragedy, I throw this out as food for thought.