Can we talk about Gun Control... Logically?

4 replies [Last post]
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008

There are three camps in the Gun Control debate...

The First one is the 'Can't we come up with sensible Gun Control options" like a Magazine capacity ban?

The Second is we don't need Guns in America at all we have grown past the need to "hunt" so why have guns? WE support a total ban.

The last camp is the "Leave my Guns alone" and I will leave you alone.

First let's talk about Camp #2 the Ban all Guns group...
Guns have been in the hands of Americans for well since we landed here in the 15th Century and since then it has become a lexicon of American life.
Guns "tamed" the West, freed a new Nation guaranteeing Freedom and stop Fascism in it's tracks. So Guns have their own Romanticism and mystic attached to them. So we love our guns they represent our individual expression of Freedom.
Because of this Guns are manufactured at a staggering rate by many Gun Manufacturers. Simple laws of supply and demand. as a result there are literally millions of guns of all types and manufacture.

So here's the question... Would a complete Gun Ban stop incidents of gun violence? No.. and here's why.
First there are simply too many guns in America for a complete gun ban to work. Criminals already have guns and banning guns will simply make those guns already in possession
of others that much more valuable.
Look at Chicago a complete Gun ban has been in place for years has gun violence gone down or up since the ban?
From 1999 to 2005 guns killed 8,018 Illinois residents.
• In 2005, 1,019 people died from firearm-related injuries in Illinois, 569 of which
were homicides.

This from the Huffington Post: "You can argue the merits and legality of a handgun ban in the abstract until you are blue in the face, but what's clear from the 27 years it has been in existence is that Chicago's ban does not work the way it was intended.
It makes it harder for the public to get handguns, but not for criminals to get them. One of the most common refrains heard from gun rights advocates is that bans create a situation where criminals have handguns and law-abiding citizens do not. Surely, that's not the situation policy makers had in mind when they drafted the legislation."

So the only way a Gun ban would work is if the Government added and enforced confiscation to the ban. From there, well let's say, it would be tough to enforce. Yes, there would be Sheriff's departments that would order their Deputies to go door to door but most departments would not, then comes the Military and a whole new aspect of the Ban takes place.

So let's review... A complete Gun ban could only work to decrease gun violence if the Government added Confiscation to the equation and even then it would not really solve the issue but actually create more... Like I said before the Genie is already out of the bottle and there is no going back without insurrection/revolution occurring.

Now let's look at Camp #1 the "Let's be reasonable" crowd. Most of these either want another "Assault" weapons ban or a Hi-Cap Mag ban.
This is actually the easiest position to debunk because we have had both and neither worked. We had the 1994 Weapons ban and the Magazine capacity ban in the Brady Bill.
Between the two bills did they stop any act of violence using guns.. again No they did not. The reasons are many but suffice it to say those that want to commit murder can do so with a shotgun or bolt action rifle just as well. The banning of hi-cap mags again accomplished nothing but make these "Pre-Brady" mags more valuable and the trading/selling of the mags became a cottage industry.

So again let's review... Will a ban on Military style weapons be effective now? Actually it would be less effective today than it was in 1994. With the explosion of these types of rifles already in the hands of Americans both law-abiding and criminal alike the black market would survive if not thrive. So these weapons would still be available long after the ban is in place.
The Hi-cap Mag debate is another “feel” good issue. Unless the State is going to place a restriction on the total number of Mags one can own to one… then no amount of restriction on the capacity of magazines will be effective in curbing multiple homicides.
One has to remember it is the CRIMINAL that will commit the act… It is the CRIMINAL that will not abide by the rules and regulations that the State wishes to impose and it will be the CRIMINAL that does not comply.
Final thoughts on Camp #2… You have to ask yourself and be honest would either ban have stopped the attacker in Aurora and if not why do it? Is it the reaction of needing “to do something” rather it really would make a difference or not? The fact is nothing in either ban would have prevented the deaths..NOTHING. People who are intent on committing mass murder can do so and will do so using what is available.

Now Camp #3 “Leave my Guns alone” and I will leave you alone crowd.
For the purpose of disclosure…Yes, I am in this crowd. I know a shocker right? I am not going into the Constitutional argument we literally could hash and rehash that for days or weeks. Suffice it to say I am a Law abiding citizen.. I have no intent on using my weapons for illegal purposes and I have a Concealed Carry Permit which means I am in the FBI database and they have my prints on file.. So I am as legal as one can get. It is not the “Legal” owner of weapons that causes crimes to be committed it is the CRIMINAL and NO AMOUNT OF REGULATIONS OR BANS IS GOING TO STOP THEM from committing crimes.

Final thoughts.. Any type of a ban rather it is on Mag capacity or “scary” looking guns will solve the issue of Criminals using them to murder one or more people while using a gun. There are simply too many guns available for the Criminal to use.
The only way is a total confiscation of ALL guns and let’s be honest here that is not going to happen well not in my lifetime anyway.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Online
Joined: 05/15/2007
But But But SL...

the "we" crowd only wants to rid us of those "oh so terrible" guns because...well because they will feel so much better and the world would be so much safer and we can all tip-toe through tulips hand-in-hand. ;-)

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
The best argument you can use...CY

is this.

Tell me what in the 1994 Assault weapons ban or the Brady Bill would have prevented Tucson or Aurora?

The fact is nothing would prevent someone from committing mass murder should they decide to do so...

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Lindsey, Cy

Let's face it, an all out gun ban on it's face is an impossible task. The feds already know this and are content with all the posturing from both the left and right. Congress would have to act in order for the military to become involved (posse committatus) which we know won't happen. The President could issue an executive order, but who would actually enforce the ban. Most states would essentially tell the Pres to take a hike.

What is generally missing from the discussions regarding the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms is meant as a stopgap of an over reaching federal government.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Mike exactly correct...

All the posturing aside what is really worrisome is the 5-4 split decision from the Supreme Court on out right bans in certain cities and then Scalia recently spoke out that the courts will hear in the future ownership of weapons.
Should the court flip with a new liberal Justice and they hear and decide that 2A only applies to the Military and LEOs then we will see a crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the Civil War. I can see some time in the near future where all gun owners must register all weapons in their possession and maybe even limitations of number of weapons.

This would just be a regulation not a ban so many would say we should comply.. We shall see depends on if "O" get's re-elected or not...