Last Saturday I attended rallies against gun violence in Huntington, Great Neck and Old Westbury. It was exciting and heart-warming to be part of the legions of diverse people who came together for this common cause, gun reform.
I try and look at this issue from both sides.
On one side, Americans, like myself, and those I was with at the rallies against gun violence, have had enough.
We want to ban weapons of war from the civilian population, and we want to limit gun ownership to those over 21 years of age.
On the other side, the NRA and its membership are fighting against all change.
To resolve the intensity of this argument, we need to understand the difference in perspectives.
First, for many families, hunting is a right of passage. Many local residents have fond childhood memories of hunting trips with their parents.
Guns were woven into the fabric of their lives, and they fear gun reform may infringe upon this.
Second, in rural America (like much of upstate New York), homes are much further apart. In sparsely populated areas the feeling is, if an intruder breaks into your home the police can take too long to get there, and by then it would be too late.
Most rural American gun owners feel they need all the firepower they can muster to protect themselves and their families.
In Nassau County, where most homes are so close together you can throw a ball and hit your neighbor’s house, gun ownership for protection feels less necessary.
Finally, the Federal government has a history of overstepping.
Take the 16th Amendment, which introduced the Federal Income Tax, as an example often cited by gun owners.
In 1913, the top Federal Income Tax Rate on regular income was 7 percent, but rose to 70 percent or higher from the 1950s-1970s.
The concern is that once the government starts getting involved with restricting the right to bear arms they won’t stop, and the 2nd Amendment would be in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, it took the mass murder of 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland Fla., to be the possible tipping point for real change.
Those who want stricter gun laws feel there is no rational need for high capacity magazines, armor piercing ammo and semi-automatic and automatic rifles (all illegal or restricted in New York under previous gun laws or the SAFE Act).
New Yorkers and anti-gun advocates across America want to raise the age of legal gun ownership to 21 and outlaw bump stocks, which make semi-automatic weapons fire faster. They insist on expanding mental health services and want more stringent universal background checks encoded into law.
The NRA solution to stopping gun violence is arming teachers, security guards or retired police to protect students, but many feel this is insane, and that more guns are not the answer to mitigating gun violence.
Since new drivers need to take driver education classes and pass a road test, wouldn’t it make sense for new gun owners to be mandated to do the same?
If a person demonstrated a lack of proficiency or safety, they could be denied a permit, which could stop future shootings before they start.
New York is one of over 20 states in the country that do not require live-fire training classes to carry a concealed handgun.
The best time for change is during a crisis, and/or during the budget process. With the Parkland mass murder still in the public consciousness, and the New York State budget due April 1, that time is now.
