Except not really, because nine of the twelve proposals recently published by the PA Auditor General are biased trash
that’s narrowly focused on an agenda and not an actual solution.
Proposals 1, 2, 7,
8, and 12 – These proposals would be good for helping prevent
violence of any form. My frustration with this is that it’s never
addressed as the broader issue that it really is, but instead tunnel
vision on something that’s not even the underlying issue. This just
flows with the rest of the report, which is littered with repetitive
talking points to convince people that a particular inanimate object
is somehow a unique threat and public health crisis. This is
unhelpful as it draws attention from the real issue with mental
health and violence, and what motivates so many individuals to commit
mass murder. The instrument is irrelevant, as it’s just one of a
million different options. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, was
convicted for 48 murders and confessed to 71, and yet the way he
strangled his victims rightfully never caught the crazy fixation of a
political agenda.
Proposal 3 – MD’s
are not qualified to discuss the topic of gun safety, and falls well
outside their swim lane (the NRA was right). It’s the equivalent of
your car mechanic lecturing you on how to avoid a car accident. Their
technical expertise does not make them an expert on physics, driving
techniques, or human behavior. If this is the standard that we’re
setting, then do it across the board and be prepared for the longest
“health” surveys of your life: Do you own a car? Do you ride a
motorcycle? Do you own a swimming pool? Do you own sharp objects? Do
you have any OTC medications or items that are toxic? Do you have
access to a tall building or roof? Do you have any stored gasoline or
propane? (this list could go on forever) All great safety talking
points, but to cherry pick firearms for discussion in a clinic is
blatantly biased. If I were asked this question in a doctors office I
would tell him/her to go fuck themselves and that it’s none of
their business. I’ll talk to a SAMI if I want an opinion from
someone who actually matters on this subject.
Proposal 5 and 6 –
A training course with qualified firearm experts is a great way to
teach safety, but it makes no sense to waste tax dollars to create a
new voluntary program with such a narrow subject that few people will
attend. Valuable courses already exist in the private sector, and
teach way more than simple fundamentals of safety. They expand into a
wide range of topics, that even involve live fire training (I have a
feeling Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). The encouragement of safe
storage is good, but this is a bigger problem than education – it’s
financial. If anyone really supports these proposals, then give
people their hard earned income back by offering tax credits to
create an incentive and make it affordable. A single safe that offers
actual security can greatly exceed the value of the average
homeowners firearms. Additionally, you can also donate to the NRA
because training and safety programs are what they already do (again,
I bet Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). If you’re concerned with
lobbying, campaign funding, or legal actions that the NRA is involved
in, that is a separate pot of money collected by the NRA-ILA.
Proposal 9 –
Bureaucracy at its finest. Create an additional expense and
administrative burden to tell us that thieves steal things, and might
commit even more crimes later. When we read the reports, we’ll all
pretend to be surprised that criminals don’t care what the laws
are.
As for the other proposals that are decent, #4 is something I'm sure is already practiced by FFL dealers, but it doesn't hurt to offer insight. Proposal 10 does offer the opportunity to connect individuals to multiple crimes, which would help ensure criminals are being held fully accountable. Finally, proposal 11 is what every law abiding gun owner has been advocating from the beginning - enforce the laws already on the books!
