Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Boston's Inner-City Children

Laci sent us the link to a very touching article in the Boston Globe. It brought to mind the sarcastic mockery used by some pro-gun folks when they say, "it's for the children."  I would be ashamed of myself if I'd ever said that.

The article brings up an interesting point, too. The problem is much bigger than gun availability.  It's about poverty and poor education.  It's about the marginalization of entire groups of people in our cities. Many factors contribute to this ongoing tragedy which is now synonymous with America, gun violence.

Of all the contributing factors, I maintain, access to guns is the most tangible. It's the one we can address most directly, but not as long as private sellers can operate without using background checks and straw purchasers can easily buy guns and have no further accountability for them.

No, we need proper gun control laws and we need them desperately.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. > straw purchasers can easily buy guns and have no further accountability

    Citation needed.

    Even if you could inconsequently take away access to guns, you will still have the tragedy of poorly educated poverty stricken and marginalized groups of people.

    Address that, and you will see the violence problem fade on its own.

    Gun control is a dangerous proposition--there is no guarantee that removing access to defense will not further marginalize and endanger the people.

  2. Oh Good, VD, do you support the "Socialist" programmes which would help reduce the wealth inequality? Are you willing to pay the taxes required to get the schools up to snuff?

    Or do you prefer to pay the taxes to house them in prison?

  3. Only a statist like the yappy dog sees the government (through taxes) as the solution.

    Why does the government have to address it, Laci? Why does the government have to be the solution to every problem?

  4. Laci, when I was young, my parents paid taxes to educate other people's kids. They also educated me and my siblings on their own dime, because they were smart enough to recognize that the school system was failing their kids.

    Now that I'm an adult, I plan to give the public system a chance, and have moved to an area known for having some of the best public schools available. Like my parents, I will not hesitate to pull my kids out if they are not learning.

  5. " It brought to mind the sarcastic mockery used by some pro-gun folks when they say, "it's for the children." I would be ashamed of myself if I'd ever said that."

    When "the children" are 14-24 year old criminals, I don't feel ashamed.

  6. Van Dyke, in his exuberance said, "straw purchasers can easily buy guns and have no further accountability"

    "Citation needed."

    Your attempts to raodblock any attempt at communication are tedious. If I say the sun will rise tomorrow, I suppose you would demand proof.

    When a straw purchaser buys a gun to help a criminal friend or to make a few bucks that person has no further accountability, the way things are now. That needs to change.

    Do you not understand my point?

  7. I don't. If straw purchasing is a crime, then how can they have no further accoutability?

    Either they are prosecuted for their part in straw purchasing or they are not. If they are not, then there is an issue in carrying out the prosecution, not an issue in the law itself. If they are, then they are held accountable for their part.

    Unless you are saying that they (the straw purchasers) need to be held accountable for the eventual crime that is/might be committed with the gun. If that is what you mean, then attempt to get that law passed.

    Sort of like your "safe storage laws," you want to hold people resonsible for everything down the line, no matter what?

    If so, at least in this case, I might begin to agree with you, since the act of making a straw purchase is a conscious act to break the law. However, I have reservations about holding people responsible for something they didn't actually do. Aiding and abetting would apply in that situation, though.

  8. Well the straw purchasers I'm talking about would be guilty of not possessing the gun they'd purchased in the past. The idea presupposes licensing and registration, but as an integrated gun control process, much could be accomplished with little disturbance to the truly law abiding.

  9. How is not owning a gun you once owned, a crime? Are you suggesting that once a gun is purchased, it is like a marriage, that a person would have to get a lawyer and "divorce" themselves from the gun? It becomes a lifetime commitment?

    There are a multitude of ways to not own a gun you once owned, and almost every one is legal.

    The one that is immediately obvious as not legal is already dealt with (because it is not legal, and therefore punishable).

    What are you after?