Let's take a look at Reality: Sane Gun Regulation

The word " Sane " gets thrown around a lot, and unfortunately the word has become watered down because of it. The thing is, sanity can in fact be measured, we have professionals that determine sanity. Our courts admit this, simply by allowing a plea of " Not Guilty by reason of mental defect " to be admitted. So to that extent, let's attempt to keep reality and sanity in the Gun Regulation debate.

There are many things that are proposed in the gun regulation debate. The assault weapons ban, limiting magazine size, and closing the illegal gun loopholes in our country.

Of those only the last reflects a significant reality, while I can understand the desire to remove assault weapons from the ownership of civilians and to limit magazine size for civilians, it's a purely emotional issue and does not bear in any way towards significant reductions in gun violence in our country, the reduction in that gun violence would be so low as to be nearly insignificant, and does not reflect a plan as to address alternatives that would still be available to murderous thugs to carry out their murderous deeds. Neither the assault weapon ban or limiting magazine sizes would prevent or even seriously impede a deranged person from their horrible deeds.

For example, to an untrained civilian, I hold the opinion that the single most dangerous privately owned weapon that they could own would be a pump action shotgun. This weapon is easy to use, easy to aim, and extremely deadly. With an at most 8+1 magazine size it would not be unaffected by a magazine restriction, and it is not considered an assault weapon so it would be completely ignored by the assault weapon ban. It's close connection with hunting means that all but the most liberal progressive wouldn't even hint at banning this weapon, and if they did, all but the most liberal progressives would vote against him for it. It is, and will remain, an incredibly deadly weapon, easily available to the public. The AR-15 by contrast, with or without the limit of it's magazine size, actually requires some ( though not an extreme amount with a proper instructor, I will admit ) training to use effectively, and while deadly and with a longer range than a shotgun, and a larger magazine size, does not have the spread of accuracy. I'm not in anyway defending the AR-15, I am simply making an argument that it is less deadly in the hands of a lunatic than a shotgun.

I hope people noticed the words " deranged " and " lunatic " in the above paragraphs, because that's the elephant in the room that no one seems to notice. The fact of the matter is that we make it entirely too easy in this country for deranged lunatics to acquire firearms. Closing the gun show and other loopholes is easily step one, and something that everyone can and should get behind, but it isn't the complete solution that this country needs to consider. The true consideration is whether or not someone's mental health should be a factor in whether or not they can acquire these weapons. Some would say this is discriminatory, but that has never stopped our nation before. We discriminate against 14 years old's with permission to drive, 17 year old's with permission to buy cigarettes, 20 year old's with permission to buy alcohol, and those are just some examples. Yet we all have known 14 year old's that are more mature than the 30 year old's who do drive, and would be less dangerous drivers. 17 year old's who are more conscious of the facts about cigarettes than people older than them, and 20 year old's who would never drink to excess. The discrimination about age therefore is an attempt to blanket cover a protection for society in order to establish an average period of life in which the majority of people are mentally and emotionally prepared to take on the responsibility of various tasks that are dangerous in one area or another. This is the way we run our society, that we make an attempt to find a point at which the majority of people who are legally able engage in risky behavior is at it's highest point.

So how do we apply that to gun regulation? Age is already set in most states, either 18 or 21 or in some cases 18 for " hunting weapons " and 21 for handguns. This is a reasonable start, but it is obviously not enough. I can't fathom a person who would disagree with the idea of a renewable ( like a driver's licence in many places ) four year proficiency examination by a professionally trained public servant ( say a police officer ) for each firearm licensed to a person including the ability to maintain the weapon and to fire the weapon accurately. I cannot imagine people arguing that if a person can't hit a target with the weapon they own at the optimal range of that weapon ( say for example 15 feet for a 9mm handgun, just throwing that number out there ) that they should be allowed to own it. To be against that policy would be very close to being by proxy against regulation ( that already exists ) that prevents people who cannot operate a freight truck from driving one. However I suppose some people on the fringe would make an uproar over it. So be it, it's always good when the fringe makes an uproar, it lets you know where the fringe is so you can keep away from it. All of that taken into account as a regulation that everyone can get behind, let me move on to the more controversial regulation I propose, one that actually deals with sanity.

I do not think I will ever be able to understand the mentality of anyone who was against the following " I do not support legislation that would force an individual to undergo a psychological examination before owning a firearm " unless of course that person was afraid they themselves would fail an examination. My proposal is simple, during the application process for a licence to own ( and for that matter carry concealed, I particularly don't mind concealed carry permits, I'd rather people do that than wear them openly, what's the point in upsetting people if you can avoid it? ) you were presented with a test, created by say the AMHCA, that was designed to measure the mental stability of the individual. Such a test should be presented in a way where there are no " obvious " right answers, but to determine the way in which individuals think. There are plenty of these tests out there that would do a reasonable job of determining how stable mentally a person is. Or if that's too " liberal " for some people, let's just use the in place Military mental health test that is administered in determining whether or not to accept someone into the Military. I think it reasonable that if the Military wouldn't take you because they think you're mentally unstable, that you certainly shouldn't own a firearm in the civilian world. Either way would do for me, but if you're so far to the right that you don't think that the test we give our soldiers is fair to give to you, then please just admit to yourself that you're the type of person that make talking about gun regulation and attempting to implement it necessary. If you want less regulation, volunteer yourself to be prohibited from owning them, and then perhaps the rest of us will consider less regulation on this issue. I'd be willing to drop regulation from my list of woe's if I saw people coming forward saying " I don't think it's safe for other people if I own a gun ", until I see that, regulation is necessary.

I'm always looking for counterpoints when I lay out this idea, this " plan " if you will, mostly because I don't see a lot of well thought out retorts in response. In fact when I get retorts they seem to reinforce the concept because any person who can emotionally detach themselves from the issue long enough to actually read the retort realizes that the logic is convoluted at best. I truly believe this is the best regulation plan for the United States, and while it has next to zero chance of becoming reality, it really should, and I wish I could somehow start a grass roots movement on this issue, because we do want sanity in our country. We want well thought out, emotionally detached, fact based regulation for all things that are potentially dangerous to the public at large. I'd even go so far that we as a people, want fact based, emotionally detached, logical legislation overall, in every sphere. So why don't we just get together and agree on what reality is here, let's agree that people who are unhinged shouldn't have firearms.

One man speaks for so many of us.

First off thank you TYT for reporting this story when no one else has. Tomas please hold on a little longer. I am a disabled veteran as well, the world still needs us. We are the face of the war. The people, the citizens must see and hear us so that the horror and travesty that we have been through will not be repeated.

It is a lot to ask I know, I live with the pain every day, but we still have a duty, we still have our honor. We still have our oath to fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. The domestic enemy is still out there, and we must fight by simply staying alive. It is much to ask, your injuries were more severe than mine.

We must force them to see us, we must make them see us, we are the instrument that will bring about a lasting peace for our nation, and with hope and faith in those citizens of our Nation that we signed up to serve, even though our devotion to our country and to those citizens was stolen by corporate greed and corrupt and depraved political figures, it is to those citizens that we owe our allegiance. To this land that those who bore us helped to build, and to the children who do not yet understand what has happened over the last 10 years.

My daughter was not yet 2 when I left to go to war, I too was wounded in 2004, Dec 5th, a date I'll always remember because I lost 3 men that day, and I've had to live with the fact I survived and they did not. We must endure the pain, my 13 year old knows what the war has cost. She sees it every day because her dad has only one leg. Her friends come over and meet me and they stare, for a little, and ask what happened.

I get to tell them what happened Tomas, that's our duty, to tell them what happened. At first they look horrified, and then I find them nodding to themselves, and when they leave they have a look of resolution on their faces. These 12 and 13 year old girls who tell my daughter she has " The Coolest Dad ", who are so much more aware in this information age than we were, they looked resolved and they understand what the cost of the war really was.

I've been invited to speak at my daughter's school, I've told them about the war and my part in it, and of course, what happened to my leg. I tell them, and some look shocked, but I always have everyone's attention, even the one or two who always look like they don't want to be there, all of a sudden I have their interest. So I tell them the truth, and I look over their faces, and again I see that resolve, the resolve to fight any attempt to ever let this happen again.

I've seen it over and over again in the last eight years ( it amazes me to think it's gone on so long ) people stepping up to make sure the story is told. I've seen teachers who know they could get in trouble for allowing such " graphic " or " inappropriate " or " political " discussion be presented in their classroom, resolve themselves to the truth. To put fact over compliance. The world needs us Tomas Young, at least a little longer. You and I both know that one never stops being a soldier, we know it because at the end, when we think of the end of our lives, we think of " a soldier's death " not of " death " but " a soldier's death ". It's the product of what we have seen, of what we have done.

The world still needs us Tomas, who better than us to stand or sit, or be rolled in front of the cameras. Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer was fired from BAE because he opposed them selling weapons to enemies of the United States. No one has covered that, but if they did, if we could make them, they could not ignore us. Who else is going to stand up to BAE, or Halliburton? Our country still needs us, and our ends will find us one day. We'll climb that last hill one day. Not today though Tomas, not today. Today our country needs us. I sincerely hope that somehow you read these words, on a small blog, from someone you never met.

I hope somehow you do, because Tomas, you are my brother, and I am trying to, desperately trying to, grab your hand and pull you out of the line of fire, and tell you to dust yourself off, that we still have a job to do. It's time to honor those who gave it all, by making sure those who were their true enemies are not met unopposed. If these words never reach you, I want to say thank you for saying what you did, and that it was an honor to serve with men like you.