"Criminals will always get guns," is one of the most touted little pieces of wisdom the gun-rights crowd has. They repeat it incessantly. If you propose gun restrictions in the hope of thwarting criminal gun abuse, they trot out the old tried and true dictum, "criminals will always get guns."
I suppose what they mean is "since criminals will always get guns no matter what gun control laws we try, we shouldn't try any at all." Of course, this is false for two reasons.
Number one, criminals will not ALWAYS get guns. If guns are harder to come by, many criminals will not make the extra effort necessary to find alternate means of acquiring them. With proper gun control laws in place, private sales with no background check will not be an option. Theft will be harder due to safe storage law enforcement. Straw purchasing will all but cease to exist with licensing and registration. What's left is buying from other criminals, but even this will be more difficult due to the other restrictions. Guns on the black market will become more scarce.
What we have to remember is that criminals are like everybody else, they seek the path of least resistance. If guns are harder to come by many will do without.
Number two, even if criminals would always be able to get guns anyway, that does not justify making it easier for them to do so.
One thing the pro-gun crowd likes to overlook is that almost every single gun used in crime in the US started out the lawful property of some gun owner. That's why, as much as they hate the idea, it makes sense that most gun control laws focus on them, the law abiding. Everyone knows that criminals won't obey laws, so by constraining gun owners to act more responsibly, access to guns by the bad guys is diminished.
I reject the other argument too which says all this would put undue hardship in those law-abiding gun owners. There would be additional requirements but I don't see them as excessive. Even Second Amendment adherents, who I think are completely wrong in their thinking, have to admit that "reasonable restrictions" are allowed. So says Justice Antonin Scalia, one of their own heroes.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Actually, gun sales would go down if there is registration and background checks--they make it harder to sell guns on the black market.
ReplyDeleteYour use of the term "black market" implies that there exists a legitimate non-State arms market. The Second Amendment endows a collective State "Militia" with all arms within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) therefore all weapons are presumably some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.
DeleteTherefore there can be no constitutionally legitimate civilian small arms market.
E.N., the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment says that the right exists for the state. That makes no sense, as states have powers, not rights, but that's how some read it. Nevertheless, nothing in that declares all weapons to be state property. There's no bar to private ownership even in the most restrictive reading.
DeleteAnd since private ownership is legal in this country, we do have a legitimate non-state arms market. Look up the root of "legitimate" if you're confused.
Brilliant idea, laws to force people to act more responsibly. That'll work. Let's try it with teen pregnancy and limit the amount of beers a person can drink. OOPS! We did that with Prohibition. How'd that work out? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Actually, through taxation, licencing penalties (the revocation of drivers licences, and certain "dry counties" in many states, the Government does restrict the consumption of alcohol (other than keeping it away from minors). The act which causes the phenomenon of teen pregnancy also has its place in the legal codes, namely statutory rape.
DeleteFortunately, society isn't as "free" as you are led to believe.
For once I agree with something that E.N. said, "... society isn't as "free" as you are led to believe."
Delete1. There are 300,000,000+ guns in this country. What you'd have with your proposals is a huge black market--and a bunch of angry gun owners.
ReplyDelete2. Mexico is a prime example of a country with the kinds of gun laws that you want. It's also a nation where criminals get all the guns that they want.
3. We get lots of illegal products and persons coming across our borders. If you create a high enough demand, someone will provide the supply.
4. Your proposals would be a huge hardship. You've proposed medical exams, psychological exams, ownership only at the approval of a tribunal, no carry without the approval of the same, and on and on.
To understand how these things are an undue hardship and an infringement, ask yourself how you'd feel if the same restrictions were placed on your right of expression.
All bullshit, Greg, every one of your points.
DeleteIn other words, you can't answer what I've said. Rather than call my points bullshit, how about addressing them?
DeleteGreg
DeleteAs a question to you how many years of potential incarceration (excluding parole or "supervised release") would compel you to turn in (all) the weapons under your control to State actor (local, state, or Federal)? Would it require the threat of lifetime incarceration or capital punishment (presuming the rather unlikely event that the "death penalty" statutes are fixed)? What are you willing to risk to support your "cause"? How dedicated are you?
E.N.,
Delete1. The article discussed criminals getting guns. My points are to show that criminals will always have access to guns, no matter what the law is. The drug laws of this country are severe, and yet, drugs are still widely available. Guns would be the same.
2. Dear State Goon: My guns were all lost in an unfortunate fire, boating accident, attack of killer tribbles, or similar.
3. The kind of society that you describe is not one that I or many others in this country would tolerate. America is based on personal liberty. The kind of law that you spoke of could only exist in a tyranny. We'd be in civil war before we got to that.
Greg
Delete"The kind of society that you describe is not one that I or many others in this country would tolerate"
Ever been to an "airport"?
"Americans" will tolerate quite a bit, including a kilometer-long line, the occasional strip search, metal detectors, a no-pointy-object-policy (you must love that), full body scanners, mandatory shoe removal, all administered by infuriatingly incompetent personnel. This is tolerated to further public safety, in the presence of a potently dangerous technology (aircraft). When a paradigm shift occurs, and the Government (rightfully) becomes concerned about the dissemination of small arms among the civilian populace, U.S. citizens, like all other members of the Human race, will Tremble and Obey.
Also, many other societies have historically had rates of firearm ownership similar to the current situation in the U.S. Now U.S. citizens are alone in their collective armament. I wonder how that came to be.
Greg said, " The drug laws of this country are severe, and yet, drugs are still widely available. Guns would be the same."
DeleteDon't you see the difference between "still widely available" and "always." You guys insist criminals will always get guns.
I know in Norway have restrictive gun laws and I usually get offered a gun for cheap in Oslo if im out at night. But I am a law abiding gun owner so I decline the offer.
DeleteE.N., name another nation with our rate of firearms ownership that has successfully pulled off the kind of gun control that you advocate. With regard to airports, I generally avoid them. I prefer to drive myself.
DeleteMikeb, criminals will get guns. Not every single one of them, but enough to continue being a problem. I'm not going to guess at numbers. Have a look at this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
That's in strict Britain, an island surrounded by other control freak nations.
E.N. I refuse to cooperate with the "security theater" at U.S. airports and thus I refuse to fly. I enjoy driving now.
DeleteEN: Rather than impose draconian punishments on the overwhelming majority of gun owners who never hurt anyone except, perhaps, in self defense, let's impose them on violent criminals who have already demonstrated that they are a public menace. For simple assault (i.e. bloody nose, split lip, black eye), 12 months imprisonment. No 50% time off for good behavior or eligibility for parole after three months. For agravated assault (i.e. broken bones, internal injuries, concussion), 10 years imprisonment under the same terms. For violent felonies (i.e. murder and attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, home invasion), imprisonment for the remainder of the offender's natural life. This still won't deter the ones that don't care, such as the worst domestic abusers or gangbangers who don't expect to live very long, but it will keep the rest away from future victims.
DeleteKendahl
To the one who refers to itself as "Kendahl"
DeleteAs well as Greg Camp and his minions............
First of all "Aggravated Assault" refers to a legally accepted "Aggravating Factors" (such as the use of a weapon or the assault being in the commission of a separate felony) in the assault. A "suspect" (as they are referred to in the "innocent until proven guilty" U.S.) may be charged with "simple" assault if they push someone to the ground, and then kick them causing "broken bones, internal injuries, concussion" as you describe. If the same defendant where to point an UNLOADED handgun at the defendant (and cause no injury) he would be guilty of "Aggravated" assault. A system of mandatory sentencing (where an experienced judge is not endowed with sentencing discretion based on the circumstances of the offence only contributes to the abysmal prison overcrowding, consuming a ever larger percentage of the States budget.
I suggest that the possession of lethal arms by mere civilians (such as yourself) bear punitive legal sanctions, to reaffirm the distinction between State actors, who due to their occupation placing them in a position of public authority, who are entrusted with the safety of the populace, are endowed with coercive powers as necessary to achieve their duties and obligations. A mere peasant, such as yourself, carries no such public aggrandizement or endowment of authority, and therefore does not bear sufficient and valid reason to "keep and bear arms".
For examples of States which have successfully completed the disarmament of their subjects look to Kuwait, post-rebellion Formosa, Cambodia (beginning under the French and completed by Saloth Sar), and China under the leadership of Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Lin Biao, and Mao TseTung. These nations (or large provinces of such) have historically attained levels of mass armament, similar to the levels currently observed in (most) U.S. states.
E.N., thanks for walking straight into the trap that I laid for you. I asked you to name a country that has as many guns per capita as we do, but succeeded in the gun control that you want, and what do you offer us? Countries with authoritarian governments. Exactly. Look at the language you use for citizens: mere civilians, mere peasant. That's the kind of culture you want here.
DeleteThose countries with "authoritarian governments" provide more freedom to their subjects than you own. If you need proof, I can list some of those freedoms (which the current U.S. constitution ignores).
DeleteReally? Ask Ai Weiwei. Ask the Falun Gong practicioners. Since you mentioned Saloth Sar (otherwise known as Pol Pot), ask the millions of Cambodians who were murdered for having read a book or wearing glasses. Oh, please, do show us how the people in those nations are freer than we are.
DeleteEN:
DeleteI regret using the term "aggravated" when all I wanted to do was distinguish between minor injuries that require little or no medical treatment and will heal quickly with no lasting effects and serious injuries that can easily cause death or permanent disability and, at the least, require hospital treatment.
In the United States, the difference between police officers and private citizens with respect to deadly force is that police officers' duties require them to insert themselves into dangerous situations that private citizens are free, or even required, to avoid. Anyone may use deadly force to defend against an unprovoked attack that one reasonably believes will result in serious injury or death. Where I live, victims of crimes like armed robbery, home invasion, rape and arson are presumed to be in sufficient danger to justify defending themselves with deadly force. An assault where there is a large disparity of force in favor of the assailant can also qualify. The law makes a definite moral value judgment. The welfare of the victims is placed above the welfare of their assailants.
I don't know much about the other countries you held up as examples, but I have learned through the news media that China is a corrupt shit hole whose government has no respect for its citizens and regards them as no more than consumable raw material. American politicians, including ones convicted of corruption, are angels in comparison. Mao belongs on the same list as other 20th century butchers like Stalin and Hitler. The Cultural Revolution alone constituted a crime against humanity. The kindest thing I can say about the current Chinese government is that it has finally learned that free enterprise works and central control doesn't. What they still need to learn is that law must bind governments as much as it does private citizens.
Kendahl
Kendahl, look at the reports about the wealth of Chinese Premier Wen and family. The Chinese government's upset that the story even got published. We mere peasants aren't supposed to know what our masters are doing.
DeleteYour argument has some huge assumptions. However logical those assumptions may seem, they need to be verified.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you assume that new laws will actually be enforced. However, you do not explain why enforcement of new laws will be any different from existing laws which are not enforced.
You assume that gun control laws will reduce supply for criminals. However, you fail to explain how alternate supply methods will be unable to take up any slack. For example what new technology will enable law enforcement to stop smuggling? What new technology will detect people in garages or small machine shops making their own simple firearms? What technology will detect people purchasing $15 of common items from hardware stores and making their own firearms?
In the simplest of terms, laws haven't stopped people from assaulting or murdering citizens. Why would they stop criminals from acquiring guns?
I know that lots of people want to do something, anything, to at least try to remove the supply of firearms from criminals -- and I am one of them. What I will not support are measures that might, maybe, possibly, have some tiny effect while harming the liberty of all law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong and wish to harm no one.
"In the simplest of terms, laws haven't stopped people from assaulting or murdering citizens. Why would they stop criminals from acquiring guns?"
DeleteThere's where you're wrong. Laws have stopped people from assaulting and murdering. Do you honestly think if there were no laws against those things and punishments for getting caught doing them, there wouldn't be an increase?
Mikeb, are you saying that if there weren't laws against assault and murder, you would go out and assault and murder someone?
DeleteThat's like the nonsense that the drug control idiots spew. If heroin were legal would you run out and shoot up?
orlin sellers
Mikeb, the law exists to restrain bad acts. Owning or carrying a gun is not a bad act. Killing an innocent person is. The fact that you can't see the difference is one of the reasons that you're failing.
DeleteA agree with Mike that if you make something illegal fewer people will do it. For something like murder which is largely driven by one’s moral compass, that difference would be very small. But I don’t doubt there are some people out that who haven’t killed someone solely because they are afraid of being caught. To that end, banning “assault weapons” would “work” to reduce the amount of people who own guns that are defined as such. So if that is your final goal- yeah it would work to a degree. Would it actually reduce crime or murder rates? Of course not. How could something as silly as saying you can’t have a pistol grip on a rifle (but you can still have it on a pistol) make a difference? So what is your goal?
DeleteWhat Mike never addresses when he talks about minimal hardships is the criminal punishments that come with his “solution”. There are millions and millions of perfectly legal products that you want to make illegal. There are million and millions of perfectly legal activities that happen every year that you want to change to be illegal. You want to hundreds of millions of new activities that must be performed under the threat of law. Mike, do you understand that going to prison is a huge, HUGE hardship?
ReplyDeleteThat's hysterical nonsense, TS. My proposals would do none of that.
DeleteSo instead of laws, you'll just have gun control suggestions? Kind of like this site? I reject your suggestions. Now what?
DeleteSo there are no punishments for people who slip up and break one of your new laws? Didn’t you just say that the point of laws is to punish people who get caught in order to dissuade people from doing something? Mike, the punishments are a severe hardship.
DeleteWhat about the 50,000 annual death toll, caused by the armament of civilians? Is that not a hardship that society bears?
DeleteFifty thousand, E.N.? Check your facts.
DeleteE.N.,
DeleteBefore I married my wife she was raped while in college, the man that raped her had just received a plea bargain for Drug smuggling (heroin). Because he testified in court he was given probation. Three days into his probation he walked onto a college campus with a kitchen knife that he purchased legaly from a local Wal-mart. He grabbed the first woman that he saw alone which happened to be my wife. He then forcibly raped her at knife point and then stabbed her twice in the chest at about the time he was getting ready to stab her again another student walked in on him trying to murder her. The student had a concealed and carry permit and was carrying a pistol he fired 4 rounds striking him in the chest and the upper arm. One of those rounds hit him center of mass in the chest which killed him.
My wife at that point was taken to a hospital and recovered. About two years later I meet her while I was teaching an NRA refuse to be a victim class. Before she had been attacked she hated guns and felt the exact same as you that guns just cause violence and murder. She now realizes that its not the guns or really any weapon its the people that cause the issue.
No ammount of law will stop a criminal from commiting a crime regardless of how many "weapons" you remove or pass laws against. The only thing that stops criminals is law abiding citizens that protect themselves. Because as my wife states "If I had a firearm at that time he would not have hurt me, and I would have been able to at least try to protect myself".
Great story, B Spears, but anecdotal to say the least. It's hardly typical of what happens in the real world.
DeleteRemember what Gracie from Packing Pretty reported? Women have the right to protect themselves.
DeleteActually, Mike, rape is a common crime. What's unusual here is that there was a legally armed civilian on the scene to rescue the victim. Of course, you would prefer the rescuer to have tackled an armed rapist bare handed. Or maybe you think he should just have called for the police and left the rapist to complete his act of murder. One of the things I like about the United States is that rape and murder are crimes against which deadly force is an authorized means of defense.
DeleteKendahl
TS: " Mike, the punishments are a severe hardship."
DeleteWell, good thing the punishments only happen to those deserving of them.
Non-violent victimless crimes, Mike. It is pretty clear that how you want to add a whole bunch of new crimes for things that we currently do and then say we “deserve the punishment”, but don’t tell us we have nothing to worry about, and that these are only slight inconveniences.
DeleteMike: Most US states already have a very effective way to determine who can be trusted not to misuse firearms. It's called a shall-issue concealed carry permit. To get one, you must have no criminal record, no mental health or addiction issues and you must pass a training class which covers safe and effective gun handling and legal restrictions. Compared to a reference group, permit holders are less likely to commit crimes, less likely to have gun accidents, and less likely to shoot innocent bystanders or someone who is not really a threat. The reference group is sworn police officers.
ReplyDeleteKendahl
You call it highly effective because you don't want to be inconvenienced any further in your gun owning. You know the screening for those concealed carry permits is inadequate, that it's base on incomplete data. The rest of you comment is just a repeat of what all your other pro-gun friends keep saying.
DeleteNo, we don't know that the screening is inadequate. You claim that without proof.
DeleteWe keep repeating that holders of concealed carry permits are safe and responsible because it's true. Civilian concealed carry has expanded greatly over the last 25 years. Every change has been accompanied by predictions of blood in the streets and gun battles over trivial issues. They never come to pass. If these predictions had been proven correct, do you really think that the first states to liberalize concealed carry would not have reversed course and that other states would not have kept in place their existing prohibitions?
DeleteI agree that there are holes in the background check system. There is a large clerical backlog in reporting persons whose convictions make them ineligible to possess firearms. Budget limitations make this backlog understandable but not excusable. A more serious problem is an unwillingness to deal effectively with people who have dangerous psychiatric conditions. Consistently, we learn, too late, that mass murderers have longstanding, well known histories of threatening and violent behavior. Yet no one makes the effort to ensure that they get treatment and to report them, so that reputable gun dealers have a chance to turn them away, before they go on a rampage. The shooter in Aurora, Colorado is a typical example. His psychiatrist reported him to campus security. Rather than get him committed for treatment, they pushed him off campus so that he would become someone else's problem. I am aware of one such person who was handled correctly. In New York City, a man who owned a couple of guns threatened to go to a part of the city populated mostly by a minority and shoot many of them. A relative reported him to the NYC police who confiscated his firearms and, more importantly, took him to a secure psychiatric facility for evaluation.
In practice, the deficiencies in the background check system seem not to be important. The people who invest the effort and expense required to earn concealed carry permits are solid citizens. They have worthwhile lives which they know will be ruined if they misuse their guns. The thugs, hot heads and mental cases don't bother with permits even if they could slip through the background check.
Kendahl
Hi, this article was almost too much. Obviously written by someone without the slightest notion of social behavior or historical fact. If you plan on writing an article related to social issues in the future, I would suggest you get to know the subject and don't just start spouting "talking points".
ReplyDeleteThe argument that we shouldn't have gun control laws because criminals will not obey them is also an argument against ALL laws. People run red lights, so why should we have traffic laws at all? There are still murders committed in the US, so why do we even bother with prisons? Fire all of the cops, judges, contract lawyers, notaries, corrections officers and empty the prisons. They didn't deter every crime, so there's no point to having them, you know.
ReplyDeleteOf course. It's so simple.
Delete