Skip to main content

Ohio has gone cray cray with their new proposed gun bill

I've spoken to many common sense gun owners, even NRA members, whom agree that some gun laws are necessary, such as mandated background checks (with that, closing the gun-show and Internet-sales loopholes) and not allowing guns in bars. Some even agree that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be outlawed. When Ohio passed a law in 2011 allowing guns in bars, several pro-gun business owners I know thought the idea was so outrageous, they posted signs at the front of their establishments to show that no guns were allowed. Well, if these very individuals thought that law was outrageous, that was nothing compared to the recent legislative proposal made by state Representative Ron Hood of Ashville, Ohio.

Currently, it's state law for aspiring gun purchasers to complete an eight-hour training course regarding gun usage and safety before getting their concealed handgun license at the sheriff's office. Well, if this new bill gets enacted, no training will be necessary to purchase a firearm, nor will it be necessary to obtain a permit at the sheriff's office. That's right, so long as you're not a convicted felon, you can purchase this deadly weapon even if it's your first time holding the device!

Often times, far-right gun "advocates" like to combat gun-control proponents by comparing guns to cars, saying, "There are more car-related deaths than gun-related deaths; are you going to want to ban cars too?" Of course, this argument misses the mark on multiple levels, considering the fact there are many vehicle-related laws in place to reduce the number of such deaths and lessen the odds of such incidents occurring, not to mention the fact a vision, written, and driving test has to be passed in order to obtain a license, and while some gun-control opponents do support the banning of assault weapons, I don't believe I know any whom support the banning of all guns. Not only that, but perhaps due to the lessening of gun regulations in recent years, while car-related deaths have been on the decline, gun-related deaths have been moving in the opposite direction. No matter how off-base this comparison and argument is, however, I'll play along for a moment to showcase just how ridiculous this new potential law is.

In 2012, 33,361 people died via car crash, while in 2011, firearms were responsible for killing 32,251 people. It's been estimated that, as of this year, deaths via gun violence will surpass deaths via car crashes. So, no matter where one wants to take the comparison of gun-related versus car-related deaths, the annual totals are rather similar at this point.

So, let's think about this for a moment. Ohio, like a few other states, is proposing that so long as a person isn't a convicted felon, he or she should be allowed to purchase a firearm without any training and without obtaining a permit. Let that sink in for a moment. Yes, that would be like not requiring a person to pass a written, vision, and driving test in order to obtain a drivers license and drive an automobile. Know how many people are scared of 16-year-olds or 86-year-olds behind the wheel? Imagine seeing these very 16- and 86-year-olds being allowed to get behind the wheel without passing a written, vision, or driving test. Scared now? Yeah, same here. In fact, I may be fearful to ever step outside the house again if that were the case.

It's simply common sense to mandate training and obtaining a license for potentially deadly devices, such as guns or cars. For those that feel there's absolutely nothing to worry about with regard to an untrained, unlicensed individual from purchasing a gun, I simply have to ask, "Would there be anything to worry about with regard to an untrained individual from driving a car?" If their answers are consistent, I won't give them too much flak, except to think their next stop might be the loony bin. However, I'm guessing for most people, that's not going to be the case. Just because one favors needing to pass written, vision, and driving tests in order to obtain a drivers license and legally drive a vehicle does not make one anti-car, and just because one favors needing some training and a license in order to purchase a gun does not make one anti-gun. Hopefully this bill doesn't pass and as a result, I don't feel the need to wear a helmet and bulletproof vest wherever I go.

http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/story/news/local/2015/04/07/bill-allow-concealed-carry-without-permit/25423781/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"