I'm a gun-owner, and generally hostile to the liberal ban trope. However, I wholeheartedly support regulations intended to reduce gun violence, under the "least restrictive means" test.
I lock up my gun to ensure children and burglars can't get hold of it. Why would any rational person oppose keeping guns from being stolen or used by children? If Adam Lanza's gun-enthustiast mother had locked up her guns, she'd still be alive, as would 20 children and 6 adults.
Republicans were beside themselves when a straw-purchased gun was used to kill a border patrol agent. Do they not see the hypocrisy when comparing it to stolen guns being used in murders?
Having guns locked up is absolutely reasonable. Responsible gun owners already do it. Unfortunately, there are lots of gun owners who don't. The government has a compelling interest in reducing gun violence and protecting children. A lock-up requirement certainly seems to be the least restrictive means to fulfill that interest.
Perhaps a better law would be, if your gun is used in the commission of a crime, you are charged as an accessory to the crime. That would not require guns to be locked up, but smart gun owners would take the prudent step by themselves.
People are getting tired of gun violence. The NRA's intransigence will eventually lead to an Australia-style ban. This is why I oppose the NRA.
No comments:
Post a Comment