Gun Control Blog
Interesting. Just in the past few hours, I got two different comments on an old post, my post on Gun Control from May last year. Usually I get comments on old posts very sporadically–to get two in such quick succession is very unusual. I thought maybe it was the same person using different names–but the IP addresses were different. Then I thought that someone was linking to my post from a popular forum or something–but no, my “Latest Visitors” stats page showed them coming from Google. Odd.
Then I figured it out: the Virginia Tech shootings. That has prompted people to search for sites that discuss gun control. And if you Google “gun control blog,” I’m #2 on the returns. And sure enough, when I checked my recent stats, the search terms “gun control blog” which lead people from search engines to my site have spiked in the last 24 hours.
Interesting how stuff like that comes together….
Luis, I am an NRA member and I own several guns(10+) and much ammunition. I have a concealed carry permit, and I practice often. I teach my 10 and 6 year old sons gun safety and how to shoot. I keep loaded guns in the house. We enjoy shooting and hunting as a sport. This being said, I would surrender all of my weapons and ammo if I were guaranteed, that no bad guys had the means to harm my family or I.
In my opinion, no guarantee can be made, not even in the face of strict gun control(GC). In fact throughout history strict GC aides and abets those with violent intent. Those who obey the law are not the problem that GC wishes to contend with; but they are the ones who GC ultimately negatively affects.
In your analogy of automobile registration and licensing, you infer this as an effective way to prevent dangerous drivers from hitting the road. I believe it is true, that drivers education and testing help prevent novices from making simple mistakes, which could have serious consequences; just as firearms education does for novice shooters. Registration is more of a tax issue than anything, it really does not do much for safety.
Now ask yourself, how many licensed and unlicensed drivers, choose to commit crimes in or with their vehicles? Should we ban vehicles which are operated by dangerous drivers? The real problems on the road and with guns, are their operators, not the instruments they operate. What if a bad guy steals my registered gun or my, as you propose serial numbered ammunition, or my registered car and commits a crime with it? How has the registration process prevented or decreased crime? Should I be held liable if my registered gun is and ammunition are stolen and used in a crime? I could be since my name is all over it.
Criminals have no regard for the law, they will not be stopped by more laws, only the law abiding will be burdened. In the USA, it is illegal for felons to own guns, yet they have them.
Now my analogy:
It is a proven fact in nature and in society, that predators, prey on the weak and avoid the strong. A wolf will not attack sheep if sheep dogs are present. The sheep never see wolves so they think the sheep dog is unnecessary and dangerous, after all the dogs have weapons; sharp teeth like wolves, which makes the sheep nervous. The sheep prefer to focus their fear on the sheep dogs and their teeth, since the teeth are so sharp and obviously meant kill. The sheep want to ban or restrict all canines(wolves and sheep dogs) since they have those sharp weapons, which only have one purpose: cutting meat and crushing bones. One problem, the wolves don’t care what the sheep want and disregard the ban and restrictions.
Let the sheep think what they want; ignorance is bliss, is it not? I will continue to remain a sheep dog, with my weapons at the ready, to keep wolves at bey.
Liberal politicians will continue to make feel good legislation on the issue, it does not work in this harsh world of wolves. What wolves understand and obey is cold steel, whether that steel be my gun or a jail cell.
If you want to prevent crime, arm yourself and encourage others to do the same. If sheep get their way, the sheep dogs will be kenneled and with unforeseen circumstance, the sheep will be eaten.
James Siegfried
James:
Registration means that the gun (and possibly ammunition) is traceable, just as with automobile registration. It gives police investigating a crime the ability to trace ownership of the car/gun, giving them a starting point from which they can find a criminal. Better would be the test firing of every gun sold to start a registry of barrel striations, and the tagging of ammunition to follow its sale. Such measures could greatly help police to find those who have committed crimes with a gun, and the cost, when implemented universally, would be negligible. I have suggested this to pro-gun people before, and heard arguments such as, criminals can change barrel striations and can make their own untagged ammo–but then, car drivers can make their own fake license plates and file off serial number on parts, etc. Just because some criminals can evade identification efforts made possible through registration does not mean we should give up on tracking the other 98% (or whatever number) who don’t. But registration is as useful for investigating crimes, and as such, is as much a form of preventive safety as surveillance cameras and other measures that tell criminals, “we can track you if you commit a crime, so think again.” Sure, it doesn’t always work, but nothing works all the time, and it obviously works well enough as prevention to make it worthwhile; it serves a powerful purpose after a crime to find the criminal and therefore prevent more crimes in the future. It is most certainly not just a tax issue.
Oy. Why is it that everyone who responds to my gun control argument invariably tries to turn it into a gun ban argument? Read my lips: I … am … not … suggesting … a … gun … ban. I don’t know why, but almost every pro-gun person does this when responding to my posts which very clearly and definitively outline gun control arguments, regular as clockwork. I am beginning to think that pro-gun people have a mental block that prevents them from discerning the two very different concepts. The alternative is that they use gun bans as a convenient but dishonest straw-man argument.
Which is why I suggest the measures I suggested: licensing to train the users, registration to catch those who use guns for crime, background checks to stop irresponsible users from getting guns easily, closing loopholes to prevent illegal users from bypassing other controls. These are all pointed at stopping people, not the guns themselves. Why do you believe otherwise?
Just like with a car, you report it stolen. What’s the problem?
Are you suggesting we end automobile registration? Ask your local police officers about that. I am certain they will tell you that such registration leads to a great many criminals being caught. As would gun registration.
Since your analogy depends upon my arguing a gun ban (or gun control that would in any way prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring guns), which I do not, it is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. Please find someone who is arguing for a gun ban and see how they react to the argument.
“Now ask yourself, how many licensed and unlicensed drivers, choose to commit crimes in or with their vehicles? Should we ban vehicles which are operated by dangerous drivers?”
“Oy. Why is it that everyone who responds to my gun control argument invariably tries to turn it into a gun ban argument? Read my lips: I … am … not … suggesting … a … gun … ban. I don’t know why, but almost every pro-gun person does this when responding to my posts which very clearly and definitively outline gun control arguments, regular as clockwork. I am beginning to think that pro-gun people have a mental block that prevents them from discerning the two very different concepts. The alternative is that they use gun bans as a convenient but dishonest straw-man argument.”
What I should have said is ban or restrict the use of vehicles. Look as a pro gun guy, I am fearful, that registration will lead to confiscation. Confiscation only of the guns of the law abiding; look what happened in Australia:
OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA (post turn in/buy back/Ban)
# Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.
# Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.
# Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
# In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!
# The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
# The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.
# There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
# At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said “self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm”.
# From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
# The ban has destroyed Australia’s standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
# The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
# Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns”. Their response has been to “wait longer”.
Ref:http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html
The only guns the Australian government could track and hence require to be turned over, were the registered guns, not the stolen guns. This kept the weapons in the hands of the crooks.
Also I argue that, government restriction of anything, whether it be guns, drugs, automobile use, etc… only works with those who choose to obey the law. Since criminals do not and will not willfully obey the law, restrictions, registration etc… do no good.
Let me finish by asking you a question: Where do you think felons get their guns? Remember it is already illegal for felons to poses or buy a firearm in the USA. My answer would be they are stolen, if that is yours too, do you think we should enact some type of law restricting theft?
I don’t mean to be a [smartass], but I am beginning to think that gun control people have a mental block that prevents them from discerning. Tighter restrictions only affect law abider’s and until current laws are enforced and violent criminals are dealt with severely, the anarchy will continue.
Please do not advocate gun registration and tighter restrictions; by doing so, IMHO you are infringing on, my God given and constitutionally guaranteed right to self preservation.
James
James:
This is an unreasoning fear which has no foundation. It is the classic slippery-slope argument. Motor vehicles have been registered probably since soon after they were introduced, and are far more integral to our freedom and security than guns could ever be; their registration has not even come the tiniest bit close to their being banned, nor is their any reasonable expectation that it ever will in the future. Registration is also required for all manner of communication, from telephones to broadcasting–communication being another technology vital to free expression and maintaining liberty–and yet in the exact same manner, there is no fear nor reasonable expectation that such registration will ever lead to a ban of such technology. (Not to mention that it would be far easier to ban cars or phones than it would be to ban guns.) And yet, despite these facts, and despite the fact that a potential dictator would far sooner wish to control your transportation and communication than to take away your personal arms, gun owners like yourself continue to persist in this irrational fear that responsible gun control will lead to jack-booted government thugs breaking into your home and taking away your weapons.
Why? Because the NRA has conditioned you, for a long time, inculcating this fear so you would react in the way that you are against any reasonable gun control.
This is why, in the gun control post I referenced in the post above, I said this:
Ironically enough, it may take the Bush-stacked Supreme Court to do more or less precisely this: they are poised to judge on the Second Amendment and likely decide that an individual right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed, but with the influence of Justice Kennedy, that it does not prevent the state from enacting gun control laws so long as those laws do not prevent law-abiding citizens from accessing firearms.
I have no doubt, however, that the NRA will continue to fight reasonable gun control and that people such as yourself will continue to fear it.
Again, I think you are confusing bans with regulation. Take drugs: A ban on drugs aids criminals, as did the ban on alcohol under the Prohibition; legalization of alcohol ended almost all of the crime problem with that drug, as it would with all other drugs. There still remain all sorts of controls on alcohol for the public safety, however–alcohol may not be purchased by minors, you may not have an open container of it in a vehicle, you cannot sell it without a license, etc. etc.–and yet I do not see a wave of crime where only criminals are selling and using alcohol. Banned drugs, yes, but not regulated drugs available over the counter.
Take automobiles: is there a single law-abiding citizen that you know of who is prevented from driving a car due to government regulation? Seriously? And how are criminals aided by car registration or other government regulation? Can you cite even one imaginable and yet reasonable example of how this could be? And yet I can cite several from the opposite side of your argument: criminals are routinely tracked by police due to license plates being observed, the registration of the vehicle leading to the arrest of the individual. Even if the car is stolen, which it not always is, the registration of the vehicle leads the police to that vehicle where they collect evidence linking it to the person who committed the crime. I am certain that if the government ended vehicle registration, criminals would be very happy that a tool used to track them down and arrest them was eliminated.
As for guns… I have heard this argued before–that gun control only works against those who obey the law, and since criminals don’t obey laws, they don’t affect them. Sorry, but that argument makes zero sense. Look at what you said: “Since criminals do not and will not willfully obey the law, restrictions, registration etc… do no good.” If that were true, then no criminals would ever be in prison because laws would not affect them. Now, maybe you meant to say preventive laws. But that would be just as unreasoning: preventive laws put criminals in jail (or get them in trouble) just as often. Someone breaks a law, preventive or otherwise, they risk being caught and paying the price.
The argument usually made–and I think you’re trying to make it here–is that criminals will simply ignore gun control and maintain unfettered access to guns, while law-abiding citizens will be the only ones restricted.
This again is not reasoned–it is simply a stated fear and has zero evidence to back it up. Take three of the gun control measures I mention in my main post: background checks, limit to the number of guns one can purchase per year, and closing gun show loopholes. None of these will in any way whatsoever prevent law-abiding citizens from arming themselves. And yet, they will restrain or prevent many criminals from doing so. How? Background checks, for example, do not just slow down criminals, they also put them in jail. Think not? Then look at these official numbers:
Now, think about that: 1.5 million criminals and mentally unstable people who were at the very least obstructed in their attempt to buy weapons. Even if just 1% of that number did not go on to buy a weapon from an illegal dealer, that’s 15,000 disarmed criminals out there, probably hundreds if not thousands of murders, tens of thousands of armed robberies stopped cold–just from the denials, not from the arrests! But 11,058 criminals were arrested trying to buy guns, criminals who would, without the checks, be free and armed instead of safely behind bars.
Now, tell me–with certifiable data–how many law-abiding citizens were prevented from buying guns because of background checks. Not rumors, not fears, not could-be or might-be guesses, not NRA propaganda, but actual, hard evidence or data. My guess is, you won’t find any because background checks stop criminals, not the law-abiding.
Nor can you argue that criminals will wise up to these measures and simply avoid background checks; such checks have been in place for nearly two decades (12 years nationwide), and yet in 2006, 125,000 criminal and mentally unstable people were denied purchase, with 1300+ wanted criminals arrested.
Similarly, the limits on how many guns one can purchase per year and closed gun-show loopholes could extend this protection to citizens by severely slowing down illegal access to guns for criminals. You only cite criminals who get weapons by stealing them from law-abiding people, but the truth is, most buy them legally (edit: see this article for evidence): they purchase large numbers of them at gun shows or from stores, transport them to where the criminals need them, and sell them there. Limiting gun purchases to, say, one per month, and closing the loophole of no background checks or other controls at gun shows would snap closed this thoroughfare of illegal weapon sales, and dry up the supply of guns. Not stop it completely, of course–but it would make it much harder for criminals to buy guns. Police would have an easier time catching them doing it, and prices for such weapons would rise as supplies fell.
Under your system, criminals would have unfettered access, with tens of thousands of criminals now unarmed walking around with weapons, thousands more now in jail on the streets with guns. Under my system, tens of thousands of criminals unarmed, thousands more safely in jail, countless more criminals having a hard time finding guns–while the law abiding citizen is virtually unaffected, at most inconvenienced here by a one-time few day’s wait, or bothered there by having to fill out a form. But you have your guns, same as before.
I still, to this day, have not been given a single evidenced and reasonable argument that can overcome these facts. I’m still waiting.