Gun control and regulation has recently risen to the top of the charts of important issues in the United States.
It’s a divisive, emotional issue, with many layers and even more opinions.
In this feature, several local citizens address the issue by answering the question:
Do you think that government at any level should be involved in controlling or regulating the sale of guns, and if so, how?
Tim Ceplina
(Houston police sergeant)
I am an ardent supporter of the Constitution. We have long had certain limitations on guns and I believe the measures in place are sufficient. Civilians need licenses to own a machine gun already. Background checks are already conducted before a store sells a firearm. “Assault rifles” are no different than most regular semi-automatic sporting rifles used year round, across the country. They look more menacing, but function the same. They are semi-automatic rifles. I think that allowing the (federal) government to begin tampering with the Bill of Rights places our nation on a slippery slope. The current regulations regarding firearms are effective. The transfer of firearms after legal purchase could be documented better. We don’t need any more divisive issues. We need strong leaders in place that safeguard our rights and see the people as the source of government’s power. As a Marine and a police officer, I prize our rights and have sworn to protect them. I will. I do believe the current background check could be more in depth. I am not a proponent of gun registration. Simply put, the government at any level is somewhat held in check by the second amendment. It is not intended as a means of hunting or sport. It is in place to keep government from becoming tyrannical and allowing the people to keep power. Laws are already in place to punish those who violate weapon laws. We need to place more emphasis on the person controlling a firearm than the firearm itself. Accountability and being responsible for our actions should be the key element. People driving cars kill more people yearly than firearm related events. While I believe regulation is necessary, I am decisively opposed to gun control or over-regulation (in any field).
Linda Garrett
(Texas County associate commissioner)
There are many reasons I do not support any type of gun control. I strongly support our Second Amendment. It has been proven gun related crimes are not reduced in cities and states with some kind of gun control. In fact in some cases they have increased.
I believe law-abiding citizens have every right to protect themselves, their families and their property with whatever gun they choose. Some people believe we should not be allowed to own a semi-automatic gun with additional clips. We all know a criminal minded person will be able to get these guns and clips. I think we should be able to defend ourselves with the same type of gun.
Instead of gun control, I think we should concentrate on who and why these people are committing these crimes. I believe it is more of a society problem than a gun problem. We need to teach people how to respect others, learn how to control their anger, be responsible for their actions and not have the “me-me” attitude.
I do not think any gun control laws will stop anyone from killing someone if that is what they want to do. In fact, I think more will be killed if law-abiding citizens are limited to how they can protect themselves and others. We cannot pass enough laws to control the many things that can kill people, so let’s try to change attitudes. We can do this in our homes, churches, schools and our entire communities. We have a problem, but let’s not depend on the government to fix it, we can do it ourselves.
I believe many videos, movies and television shows are contributing to some of the violence we are seeing today. I believe in the First Amendment, but if the majority of the people would stop watching and buying these products, I think it would reduce our crime rate. Again, we need to teach people these things are not good for our society.
Have you noticed when citizens of a dictatorship country try to defend themselves they are only using rocks and sticks? Is that because their country has already taken away their guns? Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment.
We don’t need gun control laws, instead we need to enforce the laws we have. We also need to be tougher on the people that commit these types of crimes.
Scott Dill
(Houston Schools superintendent)
The issue of guns and gun control has been much on my mind of late. As the debate rages through all aspects of our society, I am forced to reconcile the rhetoric and the reality. The reality of the situation is that the world we live in has not changed. There have always been those who would do us harm, and those who stand ready to protect us from harm. Behavior cannot be legislated.
My primary vocation is that of an educator. I am teacher to my very core. I believe in the value of education and learning to meet the needs of our society. Our schools serve a dual role within our communities. On one hand, our schools represent federal and local government, and the influence they have on our lives. On the other hand, our schools are the embodiment of our local culture and values.
The dual nature of our role within society places our school system at the crux of this issue. I believe it is the role of our schools to promote dialogue, rather than debate. In a debate there must always be a winner and loser. Dialogue, on the other hand, allows all participants to voice their ideas in an environment open to all ideas. In order to have a dialogue, participants must first set aside their preconceptions and be willing to listen.
Our great and noble society is currently passing through a crucible. I have every confidence that we will pass through this crisis and emerge the stronger for it. The issues at hand demand our attention, but they also demand the application of logic and reason to ensure an outcome that will safeguard the future of this great experiment we call the United States of America.
Don Tottingham
(Houston mayor)
I would like to begin by expressing my sorrow for the ones who lost their lives in the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings as well as the others in Colorado and other communities in our country, and I pray continuously that such a tragedy would never happen in our area.
I do not think government control of guns is the answer to stopping violence. I do, however, think people who have demonstrated an inability to be responsible with guns (felons, ones with mental instabilities, etc.) should be restricted from gun ownership.
I realize this subject has created a strong division in our country; some feel the government should control everything while others think the power of the government should be limited by the U.S. Constitution to protect our personal liberties. I tend to agree with limiting the power of the government because I feel that without the protection of the Constitution, all our liberties would soon disappear.
The second article of the Bill of Rights states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The second article of the Bill of Rights was written into the Constitution to provide protection for the citizens from a tyrannical government; a right that the writers of the Constitution felt so strong about, that they were willing to fight and die for.
Elected officials, from the President of the United States down to our local officials take an oath of office that says something similar to this: “I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will uphold the Constitution of the United States, of this state, and demean myself faithfully in office.”
Doug Gaston
(Texas County associate circuit judge)
We cannot forget that the Founders of this great nation were brave souls who secured for us the beautiful gift of freedom – a gift from God that government cannot take away. It is important to remember they did this by taking up arms against a government which was trying to enslave them.
There is nothing more important than making sure our kids are safe. As we go forward, I believe we must make sure our Constitution is our guide, and remember that the 2nd amendment is a special guarantee of liberty – and that our right to bear arms protects ourselves, our families, and our freedom.
Jim McNiell
(Houston police chief)
First of all, I believe in the Second Amendment and the right to have arms, but I also believe that there are certain conditions that should be met. Primarily, I think we should have strict guidelines in the purchase of weapons, as far as a background check. I have no problem with the type of weapon, as long as it’s not an automatic weapon, but I do have problems understanding why people need 30-round magazines. I know there are people who like to go to a range and have that extra firepower, but you can have several 10-round clips and still have your firepower.
I think requirements at gun shows should be looked at closely, and we should make sure they’re following federal guidelines in the sale of weapons. I’m also a firm believer that if you’re caught committing a crime with a firearm, you should be punished to the maximum extent allowed by law. We should be sending a stronger message that you can have your firearms, but there are certain rules you need to abide by to ensure the protection and security of the people.
I wasn’t born yesterday, and I know that while the good people in our country abide by the laws, the criminal element does not, and they’re still going to find means to obtain weapons, and if they want to use them to commit a crime, then they’ll do so. But I just think that if they’re caught committing a crime with a weapon, they need to be dealt with very severely.
I’m not for federal or local government taking weapons, and I think people have the right to protect their homes and families, and the Second Amendment gives us that right. This is not about infringing on anyone’s rights in my opinion, and it’s about insuring safety and promoting the idea of acquiring weapons legally.
Kerry York
(Houston)
When you look what the framers of the Constitution were trying to accomplish, one can see the overall focus is broad freedoms and narrow government control. At the time the Constitution was written, one has to consider what was considered arms of that day and the purpose for ensuring the citizens’ rights. At that time, citizens had mainly muzzleloaders, pistols, knives and bows for defense against persons threatening harm or government tyranny. It’s my opinion that citizens still deserve the right to bear arms and should not be penalized because our definition of arms has evolved, but there has to be further definition. I do feel citizens should not be allowed possession of weapons of mass destruction. So then the question is what is considered a weapon of mass destruction? Can we categorize fully or semi-automatic rifles with 30-round clips along with chemical and nuclear warfare? I am not comfortable with my neighbor possessing any of those three mentioned. We have seen the devastation possession and use of these has caused. I believe there needs to be increased responsibility of the gun owner in cases as the Connecticut shooting. Gun owners, as myself, must secure the weapons from persons of known low morality or impaired mentality. Legislation should be passed raising the level of accountability for poor management by the gun holder when they can be proven at fault. As someone who has been seeking 9-millimeter bullets at various locations and been unsuccessful in finding them, one can only imagine a passive aggressive conspiracy allowing everyone to keep their guns but limiting availability of ammunition. It’s going to take a collaborative effort to raise accountability and further definition of assault rifles. The thought of outlawing multiple round clips is not a new concept, as there have been regulations on shotgun barrel length for years, among other particular laws regarding guns. Buying all of your family members guns and hoarding up ammo will only cause more problems.
Gary Parish
(Houston)
Yes – not everyone in America gets to buy a car, fly a plane, or buy a gun. The regulations they have on guns now are adequate in my opinion. Guns are not the problem, only an instrument that these troubled souls use to carry out their wishes.
I truly believe the issue is a social one. The people who commit these terrible crimes are not law-abiding citizens anyway, and taking away guns won’t stop them. It’s always been against the law to kill or assault someone. Maybe we should better enforce the laws we already have.
One of the 10 rules we should all live by is “I shall not kill.” What else do we need?
As a whole, the ATF is doing a good job. But like so many government offices, they are under-staffed. If the ATF is at capacity enforcing the laws in place now, I wonder how effective they will be with a bunch of new regulations.
Joe Marsillo
(Cabool)
Government already has a hand in the sale of firearms by implementing the background checks that are required when someone purchases a firearm. I believe this is necessary to keep those people who have criminal records and those who are mentally unstable from obtaining a gun.
However, enacting new laws which make it difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain a firearm does nothing to protect our children and ourselves from a person who is determined to commit a heinous act such as what took place recently in that Connecticut school.
I believe that more security in places where people are a “captive” audience such as schools, churches, theaters, etc. is worth more than trying to regulate the problem away.
Let our government take the money that they are giving to foreign countries who hate Americans and our way of life and put it into security measures and training to keep us safe.
Bob Roach
(Eunice)
I am the president of the Big Piney Sportsman’s Club, and I have been on the board since 1981. We do not need any additional government regulations involving the sale, possession, or registration of firearms – period.
Preventing school shootings is the main reason listed for needing more gun control laws. To start with, in school shootings the last 15 years in grades kindergarten through 12th grade, only six of the shooters were old enough to buy a long gun or ammunition under the current laws. Only two were old enough to buy a handgun. No guns were bought to commit the crimes from what I could tell, with the exception of a couple of the older shooters, all the guns used in the crimes belonged to parents, grandparents, or were stolen from neighbors homes. No additional gun laws would have changed anything.
Over the past 15 years that school shootings have started to happen in America, the average number of student deaths per year in grades kindergarten through 12th is five per year, this average number includes Columbine and Sandy Hook, which really raised the average number. We currently have 55 million students attending school in grades K-12 in the United States. Let’s look at some numbers. In 2008, we had 4,054 teenagers between 15 thru 19 killed in car crashes. In 2008 we had 3,118 teens ages 15 thru 19 die in a car crashes where a teen was the driver. We had 685 fatal car crashes where the teen driver was legally drunk. We had 346 in the age group 15-20 killed in motorcycle crashes.
Now let’s look at texting while driving. According to Forbes, 11 teen drivers are killed every day texting while driving. Do the math: 11 X 365 = A REAL PROBLEM that does need to be addressed. In the 2010 USA Cause of Death by Cause and Age, it shows that we have around 1,400 deaths in the age group 1 through 24 from drowning, thousands from vehicle accidents, over 400 deaths from fires, almost 300 deaths from falls, almost 500 more from strokes, and the list goes on for a total of 50 causes of death.
During that same 2010 reporting period in grades K-12 we had a single 14 year old killed in a school shooting.
During the reporting period of 1996 through 2006 in the United States, we averaged 18 deaths per year from lightning strikes in the age group infant thru 19 years of age. Some perspective: on average, a school age child is THREE times more likely to be killed by lightning than by a school shooting incident.
Something that does need looked into is the age group of the school shooters. In school shootings grades K-12 involving students and teachers, we have nine shooters age 14, and eight shooters age 15. Considerably more than in any other age group. We need some answers on what drugs they were taking, what games they were playing, what movies they were watching, what they were doing on the computer. Something this age group is doing is the root problem that needs addressed, not more gun control.
We need to get the mental health program back up and running.
We need graphic violence throttled back in movies.
A Board needs put in place to review and approve interactive video games before they can be released.
Our mental health professionals need to be able to report people they believe are dangerous to themselves or others.
Our national news media needs to be more responsible. I believe a safe bet would be that Half the school shootings in America would not have happened at all, if the stories of ones that did happen were only carried on the local news, and not made into a National Media Circus for weeks.
School security needs beefed up, and taken more seriously.
Schools do not need to be Gun Free Zones. School officials with proper training should be allowed to carry concealed on campus, as should anyone else who is licensed to carry concealed. Liberals do not seem to get it. Law abiding citizens are not the problem here.
My view on the gun control agenda:
The black military-style guns take the blame for all the evil in the world, per liberal politicians and the news media? As far as I can tell they are used in very little crime at all. In movies and TV shows they are portrayed as being fully automatic and in the hands of every criminal in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. The AR15 used in the Aurora Colorado shooting is about the only one that stands out as being used in a major crime. We have millions of these military-style semi-automatic firearms in responsible civilian hands in the United States. The AR15 has been the top selling center fire rifle in the United States the last 8 years, since the sunset of the last assault weapons ban. We have had no increase in the use of the previously banned so called assault weapons in crimes as far as I can tell the last 8 years. What makes the semi-automatic AR15 so popular? The same things that make it a great military rifle: It is lightweight and shoots a low recoiling round, and is user friendly for both male and female shooters of any size. It is also modular, which means it is easy to tailor into any number of combinations of parts. With a vice and a few inexpensive tools the home enthusiast can change the Butt Stock to any one of dozens available. The forends can be changed to any of dozens of different ones on the market. Then we have barrels that can be easily changed from a light carbine to a heavy target barrel depending on what the user wants. Aftermarket parts are endless, with match triggers, gas blocks with front sights, without a sight, with removable front sight, and folding front sights. We have lots of super duty parts designed to address wear issues. We have all sorts of optical sights designed just for the AR15. The modular design means the AR15 can be a lightweight carbine, a ranch rifle, a target rifle, or a varmint rifle depending on the parts used to assemble it. We now even have 22 LR versions that work the same and are very economical to shoot. The AR15 is just plain fun to shoot. Some things to think about: almost all the neat custom parts for the AR15 are manufactured here in the United States. A large multi-million dollar industry providing lots of scarce American jobs. When the military needed optical gun sights for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they simply selected an optical sight that was developed and marketed for civilian shooters. No R&D required.
The FBI keeps track of weapons used in murders. All rifles are on the list together, not just black rifles, all rifles to include the single shot 22. Rifles are down the list below fists and feet, as well as Hammers and Clubs. I am surprised the Liberals have not tried to get the deadly Assault Hammers and Ball Bats out of civilian hands, as they are used more than rifles in murders in America.
Now if the AR15, and your old M1 Carbine, Mini 14, M1A, etc are not used in crimes to any great extent at all, Why are they a Huge Problem and need to be taken out of civilian hands? You need not look farther than the United Nations Gun Ban Agenda. The United Nations wants our guns rounded up and destroyed; this is not a public safety issue. Our goose-stepping liberal politicians are right on the ball trying to help the UN out with this. I think an issue that needs looked into is what the UN plans to do in the future that they need the United States disarmed of all weapons that we the people could put up a real fight with. The Australians have had all semi-automatic and pump shotguns and rifles destroyed already. In the documentary I watched they were cutting up old Enfield Bolt action military rifles as well. Citizens in Australia had to show cause to have the few guns they were allowed to keep. England and most of Europe has been pretty much disarmed of all but a few approved firearms for years. Has crime gone down in England and Australia since guns were taken away? They have the same old story as gun-free zones in America, crime is much higher than before they were disarmed. The most violent crime area per capita in the United States by more than double its closest competitor is the District of Columbia where almost all civilian guns are outlawed.
The bumper sticker that says “When Guns are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Guns” is very true, and takes very little research to prove.
Every one of us needs to contact our elected officials and let them know how you feel about having our Second Amendment rights trampled over a made up nonexistent problem.
Shirley Daugherty
(Summersville)
I think we need some kind of control, but I don’t want each state to do their own because if we have one kind of law and another state has a different one that’s less strict, people will just go there. I think there needs to be a uniform, nationwide type of regulation, and there needs to be something done about mental illness. We have to make sure that not just anyone can buy a gun; every time a gun is sold, there needs to some kind of background check.
But we don’t need 30 round clips, because you don’t need a 30-round clip to protect yourself or kill a deer. Once you shoot at a deer, if you miss it’s going to be gone anyway and you’re not going to have 29 more chances.
I have no gun, so I’m not trying to keep my guns. But I feel that responsible people should be able to have them. There just needs to be more regulation of gun sales – and that goes for gun sales anywhere and everywhere, whether private or public.
Mike Daniels
(Raymondville)
Gun stat’s
•A Gallup poll in 1959 found that 60-percent of Americans favored a ban on handguns.
•A Gallup poll in 2011 found that 26-percent of people favored a handgun ban – a record low.
•47 percent of Americans asked told Gallup in 2011 that they had at least one gun at home.
•In 2009, the total number of non-military firearms in the U.S. was estimated at 310 million.
(CNN.com)
Who can’t own a gun in America
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from owning guns:
•Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year.
•Fugitives from justice.
•Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance.
•Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution.
•Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
•Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
•Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship.
•Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders.
•Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Note: With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.
(usgovinfo.com)