One side argues it is counterintuitive to think the solution to gun violence is more guns, and at the very least government should try to control access to firearms and who has them. The other side argues that an armed thug may think twice about attacking others if he believes the would-be victim might shoot back.
Both sides make legitimate points. Giving up and making our country a free-for-all for weaponry doesn't make sense.
We should at least try to curb the flow of firearms to the bad guys through serious background checks and being able to trace guns sold illegally to those who aren't supposed to have them.
The incident which triggered this op-ed piece was a grisly triple-murder and suicide which happened over the weekend. Three brothers died together in the incident and the shooter had a felony record.
This is the message I hear from gun control folks. I believe it's an exaggeration to say gun control advocates want to ban guns or eventually confiscate guns. I believe what we want to do, at least most of us, is find a way to "curb the flow of firearms to the bad guys," as Don Huebscher said.
What's your opinion? Why would pro-gun people oppose attempts to do this? Doesn't common sense dictate that we should work together on this? Rather than gun control proponents fighting against pro-gun people, it could be gun control people and pro-gunners against the criminals. Wouldn't that make more sense?
What do you think?
"it could be gun control people and pro-gunners against the criminals. Wouldn't that make more sense?"
ReplyDeleteIt would make a lot of sense, however, the gun control people spend an inordinate amount of time and resources attacking those who haven't broken the law.
I'm honestly interested in any laws that will stop criminals from getting guns while still protecting my constitutional rights. But no one has shown me any laws that will do that, and the mantra of laws being pushed for by anti-gun groups definitely don't. Laws being suggested would just make sure my ability to get a gun is limited or taxed while doing nothing to keep criminals from stealing guns or buying them overseas if things get too hot here (like they do with drugs).
ReplyDeleteAnd the RKBA is still a political right as a counter balance to central government, which I still believe is very important based on what we see elsewhere in the world, and we will lose that part of the RKBA if something like universal background checks, which equals universal registration, is passed in to law.
We need to focus on punishing criminals, but real criminals; not the person who forgets he has a gun in his glove compartment when he passes from P.A. into N.Y. I don't see that happening, as anti-gun groups focus on laws that will affect people like me, who are not criminals.
If the shooter was a felon, then it was already illegal for him to have a gun... any gun. I think you've been told this before.
ReplyDeleteGun control measures were already in place and did what they do best: nothing.
We should at least try to curb the flow of firearms to the bad guys through serious background checks and being able to trace guns sold illegally to those who aren't supposed to have them.
ReplyDeleteLet's see here, how do you propose to trace guns sold illegally? Doesn't the fact that they are being sold illegally mean the people involved in the sale wouldn't report it regardless of what the law is?
First step for gun controllers is to admit that criminals don't obey the law. After that, for every law you propose, explain how it will keep criminals from the guns. If all your law does is make law abiding citizens criminals for doing the exact thing they were doing before the law, it is truly an abhorent law. If someone wishes to curb the rights of others, it is their responsibility to show how society will benefit from the infringement on rights.
Frankly, we keep on saying that you want to ban guns because that is the only way to have a chance at keeping guns from criminals. All of your arguments lead to it. I'll be the first to admit that countries like England, Australia, Jamaica, and Japan that ban civilian ownership of firearms have a lower rate of firearm deaths. But the fact that they still have firearm deaths should prove to you that even banning guns will not work.
Uhh, once again, gun control laws didn't work here. The criminal could not possibly have obtained his gun legally. If there were even more laws in place, he still would have broke them.
ReplyDeleteI guess if you tell a criminal hell bent on murder that he can't use an illegally gotten gun enough he will just say, "ok, sorry, my bad. I won't do that any more"
I mean if it is already illegal, why not make it super duper illegal. That will help!
Frankly, we keep on saying that you want to ban guns because that is the only way to have a chance at keeping guns from criminals. All of your arguments lead to it. I'll be the first to admit that countries like England, Australia, Jamaica, and Japan that ban civilian ownership of firearms have a lower rate of firearm deaths. But the fact that they still have firearm deaths should prove to you that even banning guns will not work.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are comparing 1000 deaths to one death?
Which is better to achieve?
DaisyDeadhead,
ReplyDeleteSo you want to trade 1000 gun deaths for 1000 knifings, bludgeonings and strangulation? Why? Because gun murders are morally repugnant to killing someone up close and personal?
Daisy - While they have lower rates of FIREARMS deaths they overall death rates & violent crime rates are higher.
ReplyDeleteWe see that in the U.S. as well, where homicide with firearms will drop 50% while during the same period homicides via stabbing increase 300%, resulting in a net increase in total homicides.
Kingston Jamaica is one of the most violent cities in the world despite extremely strict gun control.
I'm rather curious as to what a "serious background check" is. Don't we already do that? There seem to be some belief that you can't do a thorough background check instantly on the computer. Really, that's about all the background check you can do given the volume at work here. During the early Brady Act years, when background checks were dumped on local police, most of them just went through the waiting period, and were approved by default. Police agencies didn't have the resources to conduct the checks, and after the Printz lawsuit, local police departments couldn't be forced to do the checks. It was only with the arrival of NICS did you have a workable system.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who says there is some more thorough background check is selling snake oil.
Sebastian, I agree the use of "serious background checks" is curious. But what he goes on to say is, "being able to trace guns sold illegally to those who aren't supposed to have them."
ReplyDeleteI don't know if he meant the background checks conducted now aren't serious. I think he was just trying to make the standard gun control argument, with which I completely agree.
Reputo asks, "Let's see here, how do you propose to trace guns sold illegally?" I don't know why he would belabor a point that is obvious. The gun's generally start out legal and pass into the criminal world at some point. Anything that would increase our ability to follow those transactions and identify exactly where they go wrong is good.
By the way, thanks for the history of the various types of background checks they've used through the years.
The gun's generally start out legal and pass into the criminal world at some point. Anything that would increase our ability to follow those transactions and identify exactly where they go wrong is good.
ReplyDeleteAnd the best you can do is trace it back to the last LEGAL owner, which accomplishes what exactly? It doesn't help you follow the guns into the black market.
Mike W., said in his usual spinning way, "And the best you can do is trace it back to the last LEGAL owner, which accomplishes what exactly? It doesn't help you follow the guns into the black market."
ReplyDeleteBy doing that we can also know the first illegal owner, the one to whom the last legal owner gave or sold his gun to. That's the point.
The right way to do it, of course, would be to register all the guns and license all the gun owners.
By doing that we can also know the first illegal owner, the one to whom the last legal owner gave or sold his gun to. That's the point.
ReplyDeleteMike, you obviously failed logic. I'm not spinning anything.
As Tamara so succinctly put it
When someone asks you about licensing and registration, pick up a pen and a sheet of paper. Tear the paper in half and hand half to your questioner. Say "Okay, this pen is a gun. The paper I'm holding is my license and the paper you're holding is the registration. Using only these two pieces of paper, explain to me just how you are going to keep me from shooting someone?"
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/04/boomsticks-licensing-guns.html
Let's say you can trace a gun back to me. That doesn't tell you who the new illegal owner is, nor does it tell you how it got to the black market. Furthermore, it doesn't increase your ability to get the gun off the black market nor prevent crime.