David Brooks, "More Treatment Programs": More Important, a Ban on the Sale of Assault Rifles

Has David Brooks ever fired an automatic assault rifle? I doubt it.

In the aftermath of the Aurora tragedy, Brooks declares in a New York Times op-ed entitled "More Treatment Programs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/brooks-more-treatment-programs.html):

"Personally, I’ve supported tighter gun control laws. But it’s not clear that those laws improve public safety. Researchers reviewing the gun control literature for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, were unable to show the laws are effective.

And gun control laws are probably even less germane in these cases. Rampage killers tend to be meticulous planners. If they can’t find an easy way to get a new gun, they’ll surely find a way to get one of the 200 million guns that already exist in this country. Or they’ll use a bomb or find another way."

Instead of more stringent gun control, Brooks concludes by calling for "a more aggressive system of treatment options, especially for men in their 20s."

More treatment options? Sure, I'm all in favor of treatment. And if you see a disturbed person on the street, call 911. The problem, however, with this solution is that police emergency call centers will be overwhelmed within minutes. Moreover, given the way I look after a night spent working until the dawn, I wouldn't be surprised if I were to be reported to the authorities were I to risk going out to buy myself a cup of coffee.

Unlike Brooks, a significant chunk of my life has been spent in the military living with guns, particularly assault rifles. I have eaten, slept and gone to the toilet with my rifle by my side. To be without my rifle would instantly create a feeling of extreme anxiety that something criticial had gone missing from my body.

I also came to know the power of my assault rifles. Fired on automatic, I could unleash a hail of bullets, exchange magazines in the blink of an eye, and resume shooting. And the possession of such an instrument of destruction demanded a heightened level of caution and responsibility to ensure that this tool of death would never be misused while entrusted to me.

In his opinion piece, Brooks fails to distinguish between target guns and assault rifles. There is a world of difference.

Sure, a determined maniac will always find a means to kill, but let's not make their task any easier by permitting the sale of assault rifles, whose sole purpose is for killing.

Gail Collins, "Guns and the Slog": Yes, I Collect Weapons

Yes, I collect weapons.

Anyone entering our home cannot miss the antique weaponry on the walls and shelves interspersed with the paintings and prints of Ardyn Halter. There is a Union cavalry sword from the US Civil War (thanks, CQ), assorted Minié balls, a 150-year-old scimitar from Afghanistan, two 150-year-old Ottoman pistols crafted from olive wood, a 2,700-year-old bronze Luristani dagger, and arrow heads dating from the Stone Age.

Assault rifles? Over the course of several decades spent in the regular army and reserves, I have had to eat and sleep with my weapons. Sometimes, I've even had to bring them home while on leave, but was always careful to disassemble them and lock them away from my inquisitive children, separately hiding the firing pin.

Glocks and the like? I've also served in law enforcement, but don't want them anywhere near the house.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Guns and the Slog" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/guns-and-the-slog.html), Gail Collin has the integrity to observe New York Mayor Bloomberg's scalding criticism of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney "for limiting their post-Aurora remarks to expressions of sympathy for the victims."

On the other hand, in his New York Times op-ed "Mourning and Mulling" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/blow-mourning-and-mulling.html), Charles Blow fails to relate to the absence of a meaningful response from either US presidential candidate to yesterday's tragedy.

Bloomberg's reaction to the horror (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/michael-bloomberg-nyc-mayor-reacts-colorado-shooting_n_1689211.html):

"And everybody always says, 'Isn’t it tragic,' and you know, we look for was the guy, as you said, maybe trying to recreate Batman. I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities – specifically what are they going to do about guns?"

Bloomberg is right. No matter where you stand with respect to the Second Amendment, there is need for urgent discussion, particularly regarding the sale of assault rifles.

Will we hear from Obama or Romney with concrete proposals involving guns, or even the economy, anytime soon? Don't hold your breath. After all, honesty could cost them the election.