My basic premise is that the gun ownership debate is locked in this paradigm of "All guns should be banned" and "There shouldn't be any ownership laws". I think the common ground is allowing gun ownership to qualified individuals who can pass a criminal and mental health background check. This could be accomplished by:
- Restrictive laws mandating that anyone purchasing a firearm, even in a private sale, be subject to the background check requirement.
- Making the reporting of stolen guns to police by their owners a law.
- Allowing cities access to trace data so they can fiugure out which licensed firearms dealers are selling to strawman buyers. Remember, every gun starts its life as a legal gun.
My original post:
Are we safer? Not really. NRA members like to say things like, "criminals are deterred because they have to think if the house they are going to break into has an armed owner". The reality is that Americans have never owned so many guns and crime is still rampant.
Restrictive firearm laws help reduce crime but the NRA will never admit it. States like New York have gun crime because the guns are imported from states like West Virginia and Texas. Their ridiculous laws allow people to buy firearms without a background check from "gun enthusiats" at gun shows. If every state had the same restrictive laws guns less weapons would be available for criminals.
I have never, ever understood why the NRA doesn't help clean up the image of gun owners by supporting common sense laws that would allow the sale of guns to qualified owners but make it incredibly hard for criminals to buy one. This whole "They want your guns" mentality is why so many weapons are available for unqualified owners and criminals to misuse every year.
A reply from Rick Bin:
Cite some research Mike. Cite some hard data. Anybody can OPINE based on
pie-in-the-sky. How about some DATA about how gun ownership in society affects
crime rates?
Anybody can make up anecdotal data and extrapolate and make claims like that you make regarding New York. For every instance you can show, I can rebut you with two similarly constructed.
For instance: Tell me why Washington DC, with the tightest gun control restrictions in America, has the highest murder rate, and has seen a marked increase in criminal violence corresponding with each and every significant piece of anti-gun
legislation.
Nobody could look at Washington DC's numbers with an objective eye and fail to see a distinct correlation between anti-gun legislation and an increase in violence.
Oh yeah, those pesky FACTS again. Always getting in the way of otherwise perfectly good opinions and arguments.
The data says you're wrong. That's reality. Your accepting it or not doesn't make it more or less true.
Rick BinOwner and President
www.24hourcampfire.com
And the reply that wouldn't post:
Rick,
My opinion was informed by the recent report conducted by the group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns". They used the most recent trace data available from the BATF to study where the guns originated from in areas plagued by crime where gun ownership laws are restrictive. The results proved that while gun crime is high in places like new York City and Washington DC, the guns used in the commission of those crimes were imported from states that had less restrictive laws governing the purchase of firearms.
To set the record very clear, I have no problem with gun ownership and I believe the LA riots and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina both prove why citizens should have the right to own firearms. However, I think the sheer number of weapons currently in the hands of criminals demonstrates that more restrictive purchasing laws are
necessary.
I've sold guns so I know whereof I speak. Absolutely no one should be allowed to purchase or own a firearm without passing the mandatory background check that is conducted when purchasing from a dealer. Enthusiasts at gun shows and private purchases allow guns to go to people who would fail the check. Crooked dealers who sell to strawman purchasers could have their licenses revoked if the Tiahrt amendment allowed mayors to see trace data.
Yes, the laws we have now are ineffective but they are not the only option. I think the NRA is failing its membership by endorsing less restrictive laws and the continuation of the Tiahrt amendment. On my blog I have maps detailing the murders committed in Youngstown, OH and the vast majority involve firearms in the hands of someone who possesses them illegally.
Every person who can pass a background check and wants to own a gun should and
those who can't should find it as difficult as possible to do so.
Posts
4 comments:
Thanks for talking about this. It's a real concern of mine, but as you said one just seems to get shouted down.
Gun ownership is a touchy issue with many people. Instead of dealing with the problem in a reaonsable fashion both sides break down into cliches about the government wanting to ban guns and people who think no one is responsible enough to own guns. Yes, they can be dangerous but properly handled they can be useful and even fun. I believe it is moderate gun owners who will have to step up and acknowledge that with rights come responsibilities and that means putting up with a small amount of regulation, like universal background checks, that keep guns out of criminals hands. hell, we put up with ten times as much regulation to drive a car! Extremists never solved anything.
Despite the thousands of gun laws that have been passed criminals are still able to obtain firearms for crimes. Mandating all firearm transactions use background checks will do exactly what every other gun law does, effect the law abiding citizen and do nothing for the criminal. If I really wanted a gun I could just break into a house and get one, I've got a 50% chance of a house having one. Closing the "gun show loophole" sounds like a fantastic idea, in theory, in reality it just means that two people can't agree to a private transfer of an object. I mean, knifes are deadly instruments, we should probably have mandatory background checks for kitchen wear.
Thanks for your comments. I think it is important to note that the "thousands of gun laws" currently on the books do not include those listed here. I don't believe anything will keep 100% of guns away from criminals but these proposed changes would accomplish two things; make it harder for criminals to get them by eliminating crooked dealers and make it more difficult to get them by closing the gun show loophole. Removing the Tiahrt amendment also gives police access to trace data so they can track a gun through its ownership.
Just because the weak laws on the books haven't had the desired effect of keeping firearms out of criminals hands doesn't mean the goal can't be accomplished.
As for other dangerous objects that can be weapons, well, you can certainly kill someone with a knife but it's much harder to use one to kill two, three or more victims at once. It's also much harder to use on in a drive by shooting like we've seen in Warren and Youngstown this year. And let's face it, you , me and the other thousands of legal owners aren't the problem. It's the homicidal lunatics and gang bangers we have to keep guns away from. I'm willing to pass a background check for that goal.
Post a Comment