I'm writing to show you this interesting letter that got me to pondering. The writer laments the recent opposition being voiced by both citizens and law enforcement leaders to the upcoming deadline of the New York SAFE Act along with the numerous vows to either not obey or not enforce the act.
The part that got me wondering was this,
"How startling to find that the cult of the firearm should monopolize the passions of this group over their responsibility to uphold and follow the law, the same as all others in society do — their wives and children, neighbors and friends and community leaders."
And I asked myself the question, am I in a cult? I found this definition to be the most germane,
"The word cult is not a term of abuse, as this paper tries to explain. It is nothing more than a shorthand expression for a particular set of practices that have been observed in a variety of dysfunctional organizations."
So then the question becomes as I'm wont to do, in trying to troubleshoot something, what has changed? Up until recently, everyone in both New York and Connecticut, where we are also seeing these actions, has been fairly content to obey the laws of the land and only voice their discontent without advocating disobedience of the law.
Both states have histories of having stricter than average gun laws, and fairly low crime rates. Both have fairly liberal Legislatures and Governors. Yet for some reason, after both states passed fairly similar legislation of a nature that supposedly enjoys the support of whatever percentage that constitutes a fair majority of the voters, one state shows a sizable number of citizens ignoring the law, and in New York, anecdotal evidence suggests that compliance may fall below 10% and a large number of law enforcement leaders have voiced public disapproval.
"The state refuses to say how many were registered, claiming it is confidential information protected by the law.
Gun-rights advocates estimate compliance will be less than 10 percent."
These supposed cults at present seem to currently be restricted to two states, however, to me it seems to raise a disturbing question. In these two states, the tipping point seems to be where these most recent legislative actions have restricted what to some are called "assault weapons" and others call "modern sporting rifles". And in these two cases, both managed to pass this legislation without perceiving the potential for the law being ignored by many.
This would suggest that each state has its own unique tipping point. For example, New Jersey has laws much more restrictive than either New York or Connecticut, yet, there is no word on any actions such as this.
It makes me wonder what state will be next.
It took seat belts decades to reach a high compliance rate, and it never would have gotten there without making wearing a seat belt, a law. Many cried foul and denounced the government intrusion into what was a seen as a personal choice. But statistics clearly showed an unnecessary loss of life simply because people were not wearing a seat belt. Wearing seat belts has saved countless thousands of lives. Some still denounce the idea that the government should be able to force people to wear seat belts, but it's people's lives that are being saved, even against their will. Is not wearing a seat belt only endangering your life? Laws are made for public safety, not the individual who claims they don't need that law to keep themselves safe. Many legitimate comparisons to gun safety laws.
ReplyDeleteAnon, whatever the future holds for future firearm designs, like cars, the ones already produced will be grandfathered in. And of course, guns don't wear out like autos.
DeleteGuns certainly can wear out. Grandfathered in, is a political device and is not guaranteed. Extremism comes in all forms and certainly any gun, or all guns could be made illegal given the right political circumstances. We once had a car culture of "muscle" cars. You can still buy those gas guzzlers, but laws have made it virtually impossible to manufacture them anymore.
DeleteThe good news is that in most states, resistance isn't necessary. But I feel for my brothers and sisters in arms in the repressive states. We're all pulling together on this.
ReplyDeleteSo, how does 90% of the banned rifle owners compare to the total population? Where's TS when we need him?
ReplyDeleteAre you asking for an estimate of how many new felons there are?
DeletePlaying it dumb in order to get you pet peeve remark in there.
Delete