This commentary is by Don Keelan of Arlington, a retired certified public accountant.
When it comes to guns in America, one often hears the phrase “gun control.” That phrase should be discontinued; it is meaningless.
Today in the United States, 400 million guns are in private possession. A Wall Street Journal article in early June noted that the number of assault rifles (AR-15s and such) acquired since 1994 has increased from 400,000 to 20 million. This is since the ban on such weapons expired in 2004.
Two critical factors to consider when addressing guns: There is no appetite among most Americans to change the Second Amendment, nor do they want to remove guns now in possession of law-abiding citizens. So, what do we do?
The first step is to stop using the phrases “gun” control or “gun” reform. The weapon is not the issue. It is the person who takes this instrument and decides to use it for harm to oneself and others.
In the past 10 years, many shootings throughout America have been carried out by individuals prohibited from ever possessing a gun.
The second step is for politicians to stop the charade of addressing the gun matter only when there is a horrible mass shooting at a school, house of worship, or shopping mall. In weeks, we will return to where we have been for the past 50 years because the recent tragedies will no longer be the center of our elected representatives’ interests.
The recent decisions in Washington to address gun safety may make many feel like they have accomplished something by assisting states with red-flag laws (temporarily stripping guns from folks who might harm themselves or others); prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines; establishing standards for safe gun storage in one’s home; funding for mental illness; and waiting longer to purchase a gun.
Gun violence is not just “someplace else,” but in Vermont. The morning I wrote this column, the daily media reported shootings in Burlington, Bennington, Waterbury and Watertown. I will wager that the shooters should not have possessed a firearm. So, how did they have a gun?
Before I go too far into opining, I am the first to yield to the experts. I bring little expertise to the complex issue of guns. What I bring is a degree of common sense.
If a criminal commits yet another crime and possesses a gun, why not remove the criminal from society for five years in addition to the underlying criminal charge? If a second offense, state’s attorneys and judges have no choice; it is a mandatory 10-year prison sentence for gun possession or use.
What if one does not have a criminal record but does commit a crime with a gun? They, as well, should face a mandatory five years in prison. These suggested mandates are not new. There are laws on the books, but they are not enforced by progressive/reformist district attorneys and judges.
In many jurisdictions, the law-abiding citizen who wishes to own a gun must wait six months to be permitted. This time frame accomplishes two critical objectives: one, to give research time for the gun applicant, and two, to provide a time separation if needed.
As long as the public perceives that the criminal will receive leniency, then expect the law-abiding citizen to acquire a gun.
Look forward to a tsunami of gun purchases if the recent statement in VTDigger by a legal fellow from the Vermont ACLU gains traction: “There is little evidence that police keep us safer.”
Last month, Congress passed and the president signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law. It will have a minimum impact until our elected leaders realize we must address the criminal, not the gun. If you use a firearm or provide the weapon for any unlawful purpose, you will be removed from society for a long time.
