Thursday, April 11, 2013

Reacting to Sandy Hook

Gun Control

As I hunt and peck this blog, our government is moving to vote on a new and I predict, ineffectual gun control bill.  Part of the problem with any law is its reactionary nature.  It only has force after a crime has been committed.  And who brings these scofflaws to answer for their crimes?  Good guys with guns.

The magazine limits and so-called assault weapon components have been eliminated, for the time, but could be added back as amendments.  The core of the current bill seems to be background checks on private sales. 

Suppose I want to sell an unwanted gun to someone I know.  How would this work? What kind of paperwork is needed? (It’s the Feds.  There will be paperwork!)  Who would pay for paperwork and background?  Would we need to become firearms dealers?  Can BATF demand to see my gun sale records at anytime of day or night because I sold a gun to my shooting buddy?  If I have to do background checks, can I sell out of state?  Is this the first step to gun ownership registration?    I don’t know.

The problem with many laws passed in response to public outrage is the legal ramifications, and blow-back is not considered.  Ask any of the NYC cops who now discover it is illegal for them to have more than 7 rounds in their guns! 

So much of what I hear of the current gun violence reduction reminds me of the suggestion that to reduce public drunkenness, we should sell liquor in smaller glasses.  It misses the point.  Some people drink too much and the size of the glass or percent alcohol in the glass makes no difference.

While the news media debates the life-saving potential of smaller gun magazines most of them missed the mass knifing at a Texas college.

Seems a student, Dylan Quick, went from building to building knifing people.  I was under the impression two were dead, but fortunately it seems this information was wrong.  Nobody has died.

I was asked how a person could stab and cut so many people.  I suspect he ran up to a group of students, started stabbing and slicing and quickly moved to another group before anyone could react. 

His weapon?  No, it’s not an automatic or switchblade, bowie knife, flick knife or any of the other knives NYC or Chicago wants to ban.  The description in the press sounds like a Stanley utility knife.

It seems you don’t need a gun to kill and injure people.  Just the desire.

Tactical content:  A knife can be a deadly, almost unstoppable up-close weapon.  Don’t let people you don’t know, or people acting suspicious, into your personal space.  Keep your reactive distance secure.

Notes in passing

A NY Times article on self-rescue deals with the response time police need and the potential victims of a active-killer.  You can find the entire article at 

The article discusses passive resistance like barricading a door, or knowing where the escape routes are.  It even gives the example of a teacher who held a door shut while students jumped out the second floor window.  The teacher gave his life so his students could escape.

But I found this snippet interesting:

“In 16 attacks studied by researchers, for example, civilians were able to stop the perpetrator, subduing him in 13 cases and shooting him in three cases. In other attacks, civilians have obstructed or delayed the gunman until the police arrived.

You can draw your own conclusions, but for myself, I know it’s better to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it.

No comments:

Post a Comment