Gun Act Results In Questions
To the Readers’ Forum:
I have questions.
With the submission of the NYSAFE Act, I, like many gun owners have many questions. I’m not writing this to debate the issue of “gun violence,” as it is a fact there is an issue. Is there such a thing as a violent gun, left untouched, committing a crime on its own accord? Has a gun of any type ever been incarcerated and sentenced for being violent? Sorry for the sarcasm, but in light of the abstract use of the term “gun violence” in my opinion, valid questions. We can discuss all the media and political “buzzpoints,” both pro and con, until we are all blue in the face and not gain anything. The questions I pose regard certain aspects from the NYSAFE act as I perceive them or are unclear with.
Regarding gun owners to recertify every five years, why must we recertify when we have not committed any crime or offense and complied with some of the strictest existing handgun regulations in the nation? Why do I feel now, we, as gun owners, are being looked at with a suspicious eye?
Were there ulterior motives swaying our state representatives to pass a bill that further restricts and encumber those who follow the law, add additional expense and choose for their constituents? What defines “offensive” aspects of a firearm? How many of those representatives who voted in favor of the bill actually know the simple difference between a semi-automatic and full automatic firearm? How many actually read and fully understood the bill as it relates to the people they claim to represent? What is the motivation in a bill that proposes to make the public more safe, yet raises more questions than it answers?
Governor Cuomo, in his speech regarding the safe act, said it won’t affect hunters or recreational shooting. “Hunters don’t need 10 rounds to kill a deer” is this fronting a deeper more structured agenda? I’m just thinking out loud, asking questions. Are we as gun owners getting all worked up into a lather about a single tree instead of stepping back and looking at the forest? Ok I admit, bad analogy, but you get my drift.
How does a law mandating stiffer penalties for those who first kill, first responders, make us safer? Aren’t the penalties only enforceable if the perpetrator isn’t shot or end his own life? When did a person focused on carrying out any type of violence with any type of weapon care about the consequences? How is safety afforded after the fact? Is there flawed logic here? Are the penalties less sever if the same person killed was not acting in a first responder capacity? By the way, I am an volunteer EMT/Firefighter.