Below you will find a link to a story that recently ran in the UDK yesterday about a State House bill that passed on March 28th.
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/apr/02/guns_dont_kill_people_recent_house_bill_does/?opinion
The House's version of the bill allows citizens to legally own machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and suppressors. The State Senate's version of the bill does not allow for citizen ownership of automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns), suppressors, or sawed-off shotguns. The House's version of the bill passed with a 105-18 vote. The final version of the bill will be settled after the two houses come together to negotiate the terms.
Suppressors are currently legal in over 30 states, so this is not a revolutionary bill by any means. However, their negative connotation in society comes mostly from movies. They are portrayed as devices that nearly eliminate the noise of firing a gun. Actually, depending on the gun, ammo, and surroundings, a "silenced" weapon can still audible from a considerable distance. Suppressors are also useful in the sense that they reduce recoil and increase accuracy. The fact that they reduce recoil makes them a great advantage when hunting.
Sawed-off shotguns are shotguns with a shorter gun barrel. This allows the shotgun to fire at a wider angle, with about the same power. More importantly, it makes them more concealable. This is a major concern, especially with greater media focus on school shootings (also mall, church, and other shootings). They became infamous in my mind after the Columbine massacre, in which two sawed-off shotguns were used. I see no reason to allow non-police officers to possess sawed-off shotguns. However, I am not so knowledgeable on the subject other than what I have already said.
Finally, machine guns do not need to be legal. I don't see any practical use of these, and this is the only one of the three topics that Stewart (the author of the article) agreed with. Why? What could you possibly need a machine gun for? Is hunting not easy enough with a high-powered scope on your rifle that could kill a deer from 500 yards away? Do you want to take out an entire herd instead of just one animal? Do you want to take out an entire class instead of just one person? I see no practicality in legalizing automatic weapons.
This article was ass-backwards and I can't imagine what inspired him to think that silencers should be considered more dangerous than machine guns. He goes on to ramble about how he is probably being described as a "leftist Castro wanna-be," how silencers would be a good idea if guns cooked burritos, and reminding us that we don't live in the movie "Evil Dead." He never even mentions that this bill isn't in effect, it isn't even in its final draft. This is a perfect reason why Op-Eds should be prefaced by the facts that are so often overlooked by non-reporters.
Leave a comment