In the wake of the Arizona massacre, we have the predictable, knee-jerk call for new gun-control laws. Notice how the liberal mind works (or doesn’t):
If, on the way to the scene of his premeditated mass murder, a hit-man or schoolyard sniper or crazed gunman suddenly remembers that’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon, he will say to himself, “Hey, on second thought, I can’t murder all these innocent people since that would break a law against concealed weapons!”
So, from the liberal standpoint, a law against murder has no deterrent effect, only a law against concealed weapons–even though laws against murder carry far harsher penalties than gun bans.
Steve: You have a situation where someone who was prevented from joining the military because of mental illness, who was able to buy a gun two months ago. Something is screwball here, but I suspect this is a matter of enforcing the gun laws we have, rather than writing new ones.
ReplyDeleteSome people shouldn't drive cars, and some people shouldn't own guns. Acknowledging this is no threat to the Second Amendment, surely.
Except that I've seen this discussed in relation to Arizona's concealed weapons' policy. That was my example. If you want to change the subject, that's fine. But let's be clear on what I was referring to.
ReplyDeleteAre you really trying to apply 'logic' to legislation?
ReplyDeleteAustralia brought in tight gun control laws and had a period of time during which weapons (including already illegal weapons) could be handed in without questions being asked after a killing spree in 1996.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not have the statistics on hand, the general incidence of crimes involving the use of guns has dramatically fallen.
In order to buy a gun now you basically have to be a member of a sporting shooting club with no prior criminal record, be in the police or be a special type of security guard.
Of course breaking gun laws is not going to be any real consideration for a criminal with a gun who wants to use it for a crime. They cannot force people with resolve to break the law from handing in their guns. I think gun laws act more subtly and slowly than that. Over time is markedly reduces the number of guns in the community and who has access to them. It cuts off the ability of people to readily buy ammunition. Overall there is simply less opportunity for guns to fall into the wrong hands and less opportunity for gun crime.
Personally I wouldn't mind having a rifle for kangaroo hunting on farms of relatives. I do not feel hard done by that I cannot have one (without being a sports shooter) and I am glad the incidence of gun crime is so comparatively low.
Yes, well, I've read that gun control laws in England had the opposite effect. Law-abiding citizens were afraid to go out at night while street gangs roamed the neighborhoods with impunity.
ReplyDeleteAMC SAID:
ReplyDelete"Australia brought in tight gun control laws and had a period of time during which weapons (including already illegal weapons) could be handed in without questions being asked after a killing spree in 1996."
Let's see–which segment of the population would comply with that law? Would the criminal element of the population voluntarily surrender its firearms? I don't think so.
Only law-abiding citizens comply with gun laws. So what you've done is to disarm the law-abiding citizens while the criminals remain armed. And, of course, the criminals no longer have the deterrent of knowing that their fellow citizens are armed.
BTW, crime stats can also be manipulated. Mayors and police commissioners have a vested interest in appearing to lower the incidence of violent crime rate. And that can be achieved by writing up a violent crime as a lesser offense.
So you also need to know if the crime stats are reliable or not.
Actually, they have a concealed weapons policy that requires no background check, and a gun purchase policy that makes it possible to buy locally-made guns without a background check.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think that does go beyond common sense. If you call requiring background checks for guns gun control, then you might as well call requiring people to have driver's licenses in order to drive car control.
Victor,
ReplyDeleteOf course, there's no Constitutional Amendment acknowledging our right to drive. There does, however, happen to be one acknowledging our right to bear arms.
Ironically, Arizona is an open-carry state: it is perfectly lawful for a citizen to wear a gun on his hip out here. Up until just a few months ago (September, I think it was), concealed-carry required a license, but anyone with a lawful firearm could carry it openly in non-restricted areas. I'm all for open carry and licensure for concealed (got my CCW almost immediately upon moving out here in early '06); but allowing any ol' bozo to walk around packing concealed is asinine. Now the gangbanger punks can't be jacked up when they're caught with a Saturday night special in their pocket or waistband. That makes no sense to me.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you suppose the shooter wasn't dispatched on the spot? Naturally, grocery stores and most larger businesses post signs at all their entrances notifying John Q. Citizen that he's not welcome if he's carrying a firearm. We duly-licenced law-abiders tend to respect the wishes of these businesses, of course, leaving our guns secured in our vehicles before entering such an establishment...and leaving ourselves and everyone inside ripe for harvesting by trigger-happy scumbags.
If I recall correctly, Switzerland requires gun ownership and yet has a low gun-crime rate.
ReplyDeleteA constitutional amendment allows me the right to free speech, but that doesn't allow me to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I understand that Loughner passed a background check when he purchased his gun. So something may be missing with respect to the kind of mental health warnings in the database. It's probably a matter of making existing laws effective rather than new legislation.
The point is we ought to be able to prevent people like Loughner from purchasing a gun without trampling on the Second Amendment. Surely, for example, the Second Amendment right isn't so absolute that we can't require a gun purchaser to be an adult.
Reppert's point seems obvious to me. This whole topic is so strange to me! The only people I see in Ottawa, Canada with guns are the police and everyone else is quite pleased about it.
ReplyDelete