Saturday, January 22, 2011

Gary, Indiana - 3 Dead, 2 Wounded -- Another Lesson in Responsibility

As soon as the report indicates that it was "drug related" the pro-gun extremists breathe a sigh of relief, exonerating themselves of all involvement.

That's where I come in.

You see, the guns used in this terrible incident, which by the way involved humans not some sub-species of expendable beings often referred to as "goblins" or "scumbags," was carried out with weapons that started out in the custody of legitimate gun owners. The ease with which lawfully-owned guns flow into the criminal world is a big problem, it's called "gun flow" or "gun availability."

All those who resist reasonable restrictions which would improve this critical situation are partly responsible.  Along with the perpetrators of these gun crimes, lawful gun owners who fight against background checks on all transfers and safe storage laws and one-gun-a-month laws and proper licensing and registration schemes, are guilty.

What's your opinion?  Is that too severe?  Please leave a comment.

7 comments:

  1. Because quite simply, those willing to disobey the law aren't going to go through the background check.

    Those willing to disobey the law aren't going to restrict themselves to one gun a month.

    If you want to see a complete failure of licensing and registration to accomplish anything that justifies it's exorbitant cost, just read the reports of the fiscal failure of Canada's gun registration, and I believe there'a another state or two that forces registration of firearms - and almost NO crimes are solved using that registration data.

    Do you know that the Supreme Court has ruled that felons have constitutional protection AGAINST registering their firearms? Look up U.S. v. Haynes (1968).

    Frankly, calling your restrictions "reasonable" doesn't make them so, and the actual facts prove otherwise.

    All of your ideas of gun control pretend that the "gun flow" is like a faucet, that you can just restrict, slow down, or even stop the flow with laws. What you fail to grasp is what is easily proven with the flow of illegal drugs - Those determined to break the law will ALWAYS find a way to meet the supply.

    Right now states with the strictest gun control see guns imported from other states with weaker laws. The supposed solution is to tighten the laws in the other states, but this wouldn't reduce criminals getting guns, just evening out the supply - if it's no easier to get a gun in another state, might as well just find a way to get one here.

    Even if you could completely shut down all gun availability here in every state in the US, criminals would either smuggle them into the country, or MAKE guns - basic firearms are incredibly easy to manufacture, and you get an added unintended consequence: fully automatic firearms are MUCH easier to manufacture than semi-automatic weapons, so now you get an increase in machine guns on the street - not the result you're looking for, was it?

    Unfortunately for your beliefs, facts and logic are going to trump your emotional bias on this issue almost every time.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gun owners don't like to believe that their legally-acquired weapons could be stolen and used to shoot innocents, but as I said in my most recent blog post at New Trajectory, approximately 95,460 firearms were stolen in burglaries every year between 2003-2007, and in most places a homeowner isn't required to report it. That's 95,460 weapons that went to the black market and the hands of criminals.
    http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/01/alternatives-to-gun-ownership-for-home.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Orygunner, It is like a faucet, and it's wide open right now. Between the "private sale loophole" and some of the other gaps in the existing laws, the faucet is wide open.

    Your comparison to illegal drugs fails because those drugs start out illegal. Unlike guns, they were never under control.

    Baldr, 95,000 stolen guns a year sounds like a lot. I wonder how many sùguns are straw purchased each year.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Mikeb,

    You wrote:
    "Your comparison to illegal drugs fails because those drugs start out illegal. Unlike guns, they were never under control."

    Most illicit drugs, no. However, as my wife that works at a pharmacy can attest, there is a lot of scamming going on with drugs that DO start out legal that move to the illegal market. They are constantly catching people getting prescriptions for narcotics like Oxycodone and re-selling them right out in the damn parking lot outside the pharmacy!

    So most of the guns here used in crime DID start out here, because they're legal here. The more you restrict them here, the more incentive there is to bring them in from other countries or manufacture them.

    If it is a faucet, you don't have the key to turn the handle! Back in the 1950's and 60's when anyone could buy a gun through MAIL ORDER, the flow was really wide open. What's the firearm-related crime rate NOW with all this gun control compared to THEN?

    Oh, it was LOWER? Could it be ther there's other, more DIRECT factors involved in violent crime besides guns and gun control, and we should be focusing our attention on those instead?

    ...Orgunner...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Orygunner said, "Could it be ther there's other, more DIRECT factors involved in violent crime besides guns and gun control, and we should be focusing our attention on those instead?"

    No, not instead. We should and we are focusing on the other factors involved in violent crime, but it's not an either/or deal. We need to focus ALSO on the control of the guns. Availability plays a part and it's a very concrete and easily addressed part.

    You don't KNOW that they would import from abroad or manufacture guns if they were less available. You just think that. I would agree it's probably true but only up to a point. The net reduction in gun availability would be a big plus in reducing violent crime. And it wouldn't prevent you from doing what you do now. Why are you so against it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Mikeb: I'm against it because I'm convinced that trying to reduce availability of guns to dangerous people by limiting availability through legal channels DOES NOT WORK. I have never seen any concrete, credible evidence that it works to reduce the rate of violent firearm-related crime to ANY significant or consistent degree.

    With no proven benefit, the expense and restriction of free exercise of our rights is not justified. If you can find some form of gun control that actually WORKS, and you can prove it works, I would probably support it. So far nothing has.

    As far as I'm concerned, it IS an either/or deal. Either it works, OR it's a waste of time, resources, and energy. The negative side effects and unintended consequences must also be considered. Without a total analysis to the causes of violent firearm-related crime, we won't find a solution that works.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's proof that it works. Joe Huffman kept asking me, so I presented this to him. I'll bet you won't be any more satisfied than he was.

    ReplyDelete