Gun Owners & Sellers Need to be Held Accountable to Save Lives
The article itself doesn't seem nearly as contentious as the title suggests. Dr. Webster describes a process by which we might move from a cultural debate to a policy debate.
A policy debate would start from generally agreed-upon goals -- and what I believe is an almost universally agreed-upon goal: Dangerous people shouldn't have guns. We must keep saying that and using evidence to back it up.
If we start from that premise and move to specific policies, we can focus on what measures can work. What is the alternative?
Which side is preventing this, do you think? I believe both sides accuse the other of being unreasonable and uncompromising. What do you think? Which is most at fault.
Here's the accountability part, speaking about the Johns Hopkins studies:
These findings debunk the notion that retailers have no role on this issue. We need to make it so that licensed sellers of guns are more accountable for what they do. The same thing applies to private sellers of firearms. States that regulate private sellers have significantly less gun trafficking than those that do not regulate gun transactions.
What do you think about that? Is it fair to place more focus on gun sellers? Isn't that where it often goes wrong?
Please leave a comment.
"Which side is preventing this, do you think? I believe both sides accuse the other of being unreasonable and uncompromising. What do you think? Which is most at fault."
ReplyDeleteI think both sides accuse each other of being unreasonable. One side proves their point...
Why not focus on the FBI who approved those sales?
ReplyDelete"These findings debunk the notion that retailers have no role on this issue. We need to make it so that licensed sellers of guns are more accountable for what they do. The same thing applies to private sellers of firearms. States that regulate private sellers have significantly less gun trafficking than those that do not regulate gun transactions."
ReplyDeleteHogwash. If this was any way remotely true then there would be little crime in Illinois and New Jersey. These states highly regulate all forms of firearm ownership yet they are awash in gun trafficking.
"Which side is preventing this, do you think? I believe both sides accuse the other of being unreasonable and uncompromising. What do you think? Which is most at fault."
ReplyDeleteYes! I agree that both sides are the problem.
Anti's use sensationalization and twisted facts, logic, and reasoning to push one supposed agenda, while everyone knows they have another, deeper agenda (e.g. 'we just want safe handguns' when in reality they would really like to ban all handguns).
Pros use many of the same tactics, but are so gunshy (pun intended) about the lack of ability to trust antis that they've dug their feet in and insist on NO change, or a retraction of previously implemented actions.
I'm not really sure which side started it, but it's a mess at this point with no trust on either side.
As for putting the onus on gun sellers, I'm not certain...not enough facts from actual studies. I was under the impression that the majority of 'street guns' were stolen, but economics does indicate that, with an attractive risk:reward ratio, people will do what they can to optimize their own benefits, so I'm sure there are some licensed dealers out there causing problems.
As many on this blog have mentioned before, regulating private sales could be done appropriately and would likely help, but it wouldn't be the panacea many would claim it would be. However, the distrust and concealed agendas that would go into creating the infrastructure necessary to monitor private sales well would prevent this for the near term, at least until the discussion can be moved, as suggested, to a fact-based policy debate.
Antis: Quit trying to shove the supposed 'assault weapons ban' that government studies have shown to be inconclusive. Quit fighting the 'individual right vs. militia' argument that has been debunked so many times, the Supreme Court ignores it, and anti-gun coalitions don't even bother with it any more. Quit calling your group 'XXX against illegal guns' when your actual goal is to ban as many guns as you can. Pros: Admit that there IS a problem with firearms violence and the 'acceptability' of resorting to them.
Get to the real facts, state what each side actually wants, and work from there. WHY do antis want to ban guns? They dislike inanimate objects of a certain shape, or more likely, they see them as too much of a threat of violence? Why do so many people want to own and use guns? To be able to kill someone whenever they'd like, or for sport or safety reasons? Without addressing these underlying issues, you end up with a UK-style ban which now has had to expand to include: place setting knives, swords (?!), and now even glass pub mugs.
Pros: Admit that there IS a problem with firearms violence and the 'acceptability' of resorting to them.
ReplyDeleteCJ, we have no problem admitting that there is a problem with firearm violence, however, the problem is with violence (regradless of what weapon is used). Efforts targeted towards decreasing violence will decrease firearm violence as well. Efforts targeted towards decreasing firearm violence at best will only transfer the violence to another weapon.
MiksB: "Is it fair to place more focus on gun sellers? Isn't that where it often goes wrong?"
ReplyDeleteSorry -- too general.
I need to see the details of the problem with gun sellers, and the details of the proposed solution -- THEN I can comment.
You know where they say that the Devil is...
However, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research already has a bad record for me. They were big backers of lawsuits against gun makers and dealers just for selling guns that eventually turned up in crimes -- even if local police AND BATF had investigated them and found NO illegal activities.
We need to make it so that licensed sellers of guns are more accountable for what they do.
ReplyDeleteThey already are. They don't sell to me if I don't pass the NICS check.
If a dealer is not following the law he needs to be prosecuted. That's an enforcement matter.
CJ - Anti's have continually proven that they are not to be trusted and that their notion of compromise is entirely one sided.
Mikeb has a point: It's not always black and white.
ReplyDeleteI figure that there must be gun dealers who "look the other way" re straw sales, because there are dealers in tobacco and alcohol that "look the other" when straw purchasers buy for minors.
There are gunowner advocates who doubt such accusations, and I sympathize with the reason why. The accusations often come from those with a known anti-gunowner agenda and who have often LIED about gun issues. The group at Johns Hpkins is a good example. The column that Mikeb quoted might sound reasonable in a vacuum, but there are other examples (in addition to the lawsuits I mentioned) where thay have been deceitful.
The answer? The gun industry group, the NSSF (the NRA is a gunowner group, not a gun industry group) is waging a campaign to educate dealers against straw purchasers.
http://www.dontlie.org/
Mikeb has a point: It's not always black and white.
ReplyDeleteI figure that there must be gun dealers who "look the other way" re straw sales."
I don't think any of us have ever claimed otherwise.
If a particular dealer is breaking the law then the laws should be enforced and they should be punished. It really is that simple.
The problem is that MikeB and his ilk want more laws that burden ME because the laws already on the books are being broken. Go after people breaking the law, but don't tell me that their actions are justification for more gun control or for banning private sales.
Funny how Mike and many other anti's want to coddle criminals while passing more and more gun control laws.
Mike W. says, "Funny how Mike and many other anti's want to coddle criminals while passing more and more gun control laws."
ReplyDeleteIt's not coddling criminals to consider if mitigating circumstances should be considered or if children should be treated differently. Those are not just my opinion.
About "more and more gun control laws," I think that's an exaggeration too. How many is "more and more" supposed to be? I mainly talk about a few things, licensing and registration and the background check on private sales. Is that "more and more?"
MikeB302000,
ReplyDeleteYou link to, support and cite the Brady Campaign constantly.
They have dozens of laws that they want to see enacted.
Once again your distortions border on the untruth...would be more blunt then that but it might hurt your wittle feelings and get my comment disapproved.
Is that "more and more?"
Since you support the Brady Campaign and others, using your theory of shared responsibility, then yes, you want more and more.
Show that I'm wrong using your own logic