“Fight Against Stupidity And Bureaucracy”
Time for a bit of a rant today.
First one this year, I don’t know how I held out for so long.
Since the horrible massacre of schoolchildren and their teachers by a mentally deranged moron in Connecticut the real debate has again been sidelined into the convenient ‘to-ban-or-not-to-ban’ guns.
I can’t make up my mind as to what proportion of the gun-banning side of this so-called debate are idiots repeating what other idiots have said, how many are malicious, or how many are people trying to grab a handy headline or two.
The first lot can be easily compared with a flock of sheep. Sheep aren’t noted for their intellectual prowess, nor their debating skills, but when one sheep goes “baaa” you can be sure a lot more will say the same thing.
The second lot, the malicious ones, are deliberately rather than unintentionally refocusing the debate on to their liberal/fascist agenda of increasing bureaucratic interference wherever they see an opening.
And the third group are people, usually politicians or those with a political agenda, using the misery of other people to publicize themselves and their cause, but primarily themselves. Never one to let a band wagon roll past him, President Obama has jumped on this one, all guns blazing as it were!
For all these groups the ‘to-ban-or-not-to-ban’ guns debate is a handy, and a welcome, distraction.
It gives the first group something to say without stopping to analyze the real problem in detail. It gives the second group more ammunition (no pun intended today) to curtail freedom. As for the later group, the politicians love this distraction because it gives the impression that they are compassionate and caring and trying to find a solution, even though they are addressing the wrong problem.
On the face of it, Obama’s proposals can be dressed up as reasonable. If you haven’t seen them on the media (how could you avoid it?) they include:
- asking Congress to reinstate and strengthen a ban on the sale and production of assault weapons that passed in 1994 and expired in 2004;
- a ban on the sale and production of magazines with more than 10 rounds, like those used in Newtown and other mass shootings;
- criminal background checks for all gun sales, closing the longstanding loophole that allows buyers to avoid screening by purchasing weapons from unlicensed sellers at gun shows or in private sales;
- banning the possession or transfer of armor-piercing bullets;
- and cracking down on “straw purchasers,” i.e., those who pass background checks and then forward guns to criminals or others forbidden from purchasing them.
As I said, on the face of it reasonable, but I suspect this is just the first salvo of a much more comprehensive agenda.
However, the question of the moment is simply this – would a gun ban, whether partial or comprehensive, work?
And the answer is categorically, NO!
And the answer is ‘NO’, not because I am a champion of the 2nd Amendment – I’m not, it doesn’t even apply to me! The answer is ‘NO’ because taking guns away from law abiding people won’t stop the criminals or those with criminal intent.
It doesn’t take a genius to work that out, but no one in the gun-ban lobby is even asking that fundamental question. Nor do they want it to be asked!
You see this is how gun bans work. I’ve seen them in operation in numerous countries.
If gun ownership is banned, law-abiding Joe Public won’t be able to go to Walmart and buy a gun as before. And he won’t be able to buy his gun because all that gun-banning legislation does is to make sure that no law-abiding citizen can buy and hold a legal firearm.
Joe Public is buying his gun (99.99 percent of the time) because he uses it for sporting purposes, or because he is a collector, or because he feels he needs it for his protection and the protection of his family.
The criminals, on the other hand, who don’t shop at Walmart, but are more likely to deal out of the trunk of a car in some isolated spot well away from prying eyes, will still be able to buy their guns and use them how they please.
Because they buy illegal guns from illegal dealers. And illegal guns from illegal dealers are not part of these new proposals. As a matter of fact the illegal guns are already banned which in itself proves that banning does not work!
So what has to be the inevitable result of a ban on legally held weapons?
Simply this. When you ban law-abiding decent citizens from buying or owning guns all you can possibly end up with are armed criminals versus unarmed civilians, with the police (who would have been used by the politicians and bureaucrats to subjugate the law-abiding population and remove their protection) now being the only form of defense and they will be grossly inadequate in numbers to ever hope to do so effectively.
As another example of just how far up their own asses some people can stick their heads and still think they are getting a tan, an idiot reporter named Dwight R Worley of the New York Journal News recently published the names and addresses, complete with an interactive map, of people in Westchester and Rockland Counties who owned legally held firearms.
Like all such journalistic crap it was parceled up in ‘caring for the community’ and ‘public interest’ wrappers, but all this article did was to point an accusing finger at law abiding citizens who had done nothing wrong.
Well, when I say “all it achieved” that’s not quite accurate, because it also gave the thieves, the home invaders, the rapists, the thugs, etc., a map of the homes that were protected BUT equally the homes that were not.
Thanks to dickhead Dwight R Worley (who incidently owns a .357 Magnum himself adding the crime of hypocrisy to his stupidity), Mr. Thief and Mr. Mayhem now know which houses in Westchester and Rockland Counties they can attack with impunity and those that they should stay clear of.
As it turns out, the people who should be most upset by this article are the ones who don’t have a gun, not those who do!
Zip this forward to a gun-ban country where all the law abiding people are defenseless targets for the criminals and there can only be one result. Not just an increase in violent crime but also a vast increase in petty crime. The detection rate for the latter is already minuscule, so think for a moment what it will be like when the criminals have little fear of their victims and even less fear of being caught.
The truth is that legally held guns probably save many, many more lives than they harm, and in most cases they do so without ever being used. But there aren’t any statistics for that.
The truth is that banning legal weapons will not stop illegal gangland shootings, which constitute the vast majority of deaths by gunfire in the United States.
The truth is that banning legal weapons won’t decrease the number of illegal weapons in circulation.
And the truth is that banning legally held weapons won’t stop morons or mentally deranged individuals from going on a murder spree – a knife, a bow or a can of gasoline will get the same job done.
The saddest thing of all is that the people and politicians who are calling for these bans know it. It would be nice to see them show a bit of backbone and integrity for once and attack the criminals and leave the law-abiding people alone. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
16 thoughts on “Forget That The Criminals Are The Problem – Let’s Attack The Decent Law-Abiding People”
Good rant. Like you, the 2nd amendment doesn’t affect me either. It is the erosion of constitutional rights that is disturbing. What will be next speech, religion, etc.
My wife’s family lived in the tough side of town. My father-in-law had a revolver (.357) and demonstrated he wasn’t afraid to use it. While all the other neighborhoods experienced drug problems, break-ins, and gang influences my father-in-laws neighborhood was like an oasis in a sea of turmoil. They didn’t mess with George.
Whatever one’s feelings are about legalizing drugs or marijuana, it is amazing how politicians and liberal groups want to ban one and legalize another. Which causes more harm and death? Which is the biggest threat and scourge to a community. I’d rather live in a block full of NRA types than druggies.
Well said. Apart from the hypocrisy, it is very plain to be seen that the ban on drugs has not decreased drug related murders, deaths or other related crime.
You know, even as a gun owner, I’m gonna have to chew on you, but just a little bit. 😉
I will wholeheartedly agree that IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE a gun ban won’t work. Take Chicago (though I’d prefer you take ME to Chicago), with some of the toughest laws in the land. I had to go through an involved background check AND carry a Firearms Owner ID card at all times, just to get a bolt-action rifle. Semi-auto weapons take more work, and don’t even THINK of owning a full-auto weapon – legally. Yet last year, over 500 people died in gun-related deaths. More than 1 person per day, EVERY day, died from a gunshot.
The reason Chicago is bathed in blood is simple, Indiana is right next store. With VERY loose gun laws. So bad guys drive the two hours to Indiana, buy all the stuff they want, and drive 2 hours back to wage mayhem and murder.
First off, any gun laws must be NATIONWIDE – or they’re useless.
Now comes the part where I chew on you. I DO support a banning of assault rifle clones – anything that has a large capacity of bullets, with rapid fire capability. Because any weapon that was once full-auto, can be made full-auto again. Illinois gun shows sold conversion kits two tables down from the AR-15 racks – I saw it first-hand. These weapons were only made to kill people – their ammunition is too small to effectively kill game like deer, and frankly put, if you need more than a shot or two to drop an animal, you need a LOT of time on the range. Ditto large-capacity pistols – an M1911 .45cal pistol, with eight shots, will stop ANYBODY. You don’t need 13 or 20 rounds of 9mm, and the 9mm round is too small to really slow down somebody on crack or somebody with protection.
So I’d like to see a ban on weapons derived from full-auto military weapons. There are ways that re-enactors can have full-auto weapons like WW2 machine guns, in a way that shoots wooden bullets that are shredded by a device welded to the barrel end. These devices keep anything from going out the end of the weapon, but allow full-auto function for loading purposes. This way, even we hard-core re-enactors could have MP40 sub-machine guns, without fear they would be used in mass shootings.
And smaller magazine capacity? Again, hunters and target shooters don’t need them, and if a whack-job is shooting up the place, he has to pause numerous times to reload, giving people a chance to flee or fight.
But my few little points aside, a good rant, my friend. And maybe I’m a Luddite, but I feel far safer with sword than with a gun. I’ve never had a sword jam or run out of ammo, and never had it go off accidentally and stab a friend. 😀
Oh, by the way, do you know what goes “clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop BANG BANG BANG clip-clop clip-clop clip-clop”? An Amish drive-by shooting…..
Chew away my friend. A bit of debate on this subject rather than the garbage in the media is always welcome.
It is a good point that to be effective any kind of control of anything has to be nationwide not piecemeal state by state. Ditto re the types of weapons.
But my post wasn’t about arguing the pros and cons of assault rifles and full auto etc. In fact if I had to choose one weapon to protect my house and family I’d much rather have a good pump action shotgun loaded with 00 than all the fancy assault rifles in the store.
What annoys me are the Obama’s trying to con the people into believing that making life more bureaucratic and difficult for the honest citizen will somehow stop the baddies from doing their thing. What they are doing is dishonest AND they know it.
Take any big city in America, Chicago if you like. I’ve read headlines telling me more people have been killed by gun related crime in that city than in Afghanistan which in itself means nothing. The question is, if you ban all the legally held weapons owned by all the law-abiding citizens who aren’t murdering anyone anyway, will it impact on that figure? It might, but only in an adverse sense in that all you achieve is to make the law-abiding easier prey for the criminals.
Use new legislation and police manpower to actively go after the guns that are already illegal and in the hands of the criminals and enact laws to rid society of those guns and the people who use them.
Once you do that, THEN you can come after the legal guns.
I bring up the assault weapon/large magazine paradigm for only one reason, and oddly enough, it’s a view of driving that I also share. Hang on, let me explain! 😀
In Europe, they tax on engine displacement. They also have (at least in Britain) an “L” license, basically an extended version of our learner’s permit, which limits the driver as to how powerful a car he can drive.
The same goes for my AR/LM argument. While bolt-action Mausers or semi-auto Garands can be used for hunting, all ARs (except maybe M14s or German G3s) are very little use for hunting. Ditto having a large magazine. Those two specific items have one use – killing. Therefore, if you make those illegal, and somebody is caught with one, instant guilty – no checks for sales paperwork, hand-me-downs, or anything else. No, it’s not a cure, and it’s not meant to be. BUT – it takes one weapon, PERFECT for mass killings, out of the public’s hands. Remember, Aurora was not caused by a hardened criminal, and Sandy Hook’s killer’s mom possessed the guns legally. Without the ability to wield such weapons, maybe there’d only be 10 or 15 kids dead in Connecticut. Not ideal, no – but it takes the most dangerous tool out of poorly-equipped hands. And hence the European car comparison – take the Camaros and Mustangs out of teenagers hands, and yes, they’ll still race and crash Civics and Accords, but they’ll do a HECK of a lot less damage to themselves and to others.
I will give you that these are idealistic wishes on my hand. I will DEFINITELY agree that the first step should be tightening up law enforcement, and nationwide laws would be a really good start. My thoughts are just ideas to start a debate, and for someone else, perhaps a younger generation, to consider for implementation.
The problem with banning is black market.
We regular people will always pay the price for whatever it happens. I don’t like to strip down at airports nor be treated like a suspect but it’s the prize we pay for or “freedom” isn’t it?
You’re right that the regular guys will always have to pay a price, but the trend nowadays is that the regular guy is the ONLY one paying the price – and that’s not right. Unfortunately the more we put up with it the more we will have to put up with.
And they don’t even kiss us after they screw us. Sad world we live in.
We’ve seen the effect prohibition on alcohol had, are experiencing the effects of drug prohibition, I, for one, would not want to see the effects of gun prohibition. I imagine it would make the violence and devastating carnage of the previous two prohibitions look pale by comparison.
Exactly right. Thanks for commenting.
For those of us who are affected by the issue and perhaps even have been affected by gun violence, we are neither sheep nor malicious. Most of us, those I know and have been involved in trying to find the middle ground for far more years than this latest incarnation do not want gun bans, we want a safer and saner path forward.
No Right is Absolute, despite the rhetoric of the NRA and those who bleat their right to gun ownership should have no restrictions. Every gun on the street starts out as a legal purchase. As a victim of gun violence I happen to know exactly where the gun came from used in my kidnapping and shooting. Ultimately, most guns can be traced back if the ‘bad guy’ is caught.
Along with reasonable restrictions on the front end we need tougher penalties on the back end. The fact is, this nation is enamored with guns and violence. We must invest some capital in changing this, or we fail future generations. There are reasonable things that can be done without infringing on 2nd Amendment ownership rights.
Background checks are not unreasonable
Waiting periods are not unreasonable
Closing loopholes in private sales and gun shows is not unreasonable
Closing loopholes in internet sales is not unreasonable
Reducing availability of high capacity magazines is not unreasonable
Making certain Mental Health part of the discussion is not unreasonable
Registration is not unreasonable is neither unreasonable nor is it Un-Constitutional
Restricting conversion kits is not unreasonable
Procedures and constraints are not unreasonable. The Supreme Court agreed in Heller the government has a reasonable right to control the types of guns and ammunition while still upholding the 2nd Amendment.
Were it up to me:
I would require the following:
Proof of competency, with regular reproof on 5 year periods
Liability insurance on every gun in the home
Gun Safes in the home where there are children under 18
Thanks for your comment.
I have read some of the things you have written on your blog about your own experiences so I understand where you are coming from.
The things that you say are not unreasonable, are not unreasonable, and I think if introduced properly, as part of a comprehensive strategy, most people could come to accept them.
My gripe is that the current trend of knee jerk reactions to Newtown or whatever is to go for restrictions on law abiding people because quite frankly it’s easy. But it is not and will never be a solution.
The hard fact is that there are millions of illegal guns out there, most of them in the hands of criminals and you won’t solve gun crime by taking away the legal ones.
In fact when you do that you just make it so much easier for the criminals.
Law abiding citizens are at fault for some of the knee jerk reactions. Just to put this in perspective:
Trayvon Martin (17) was murdered by a law abiding citizen
Jordan Russell Davis (17) was murdered by a law abiding citizen
David James, a Iraq war veteran was murdered by a law abiding citizen
The above are just three of the many Stand Your Ground murders in Florida which saw a spike of 8% in murder rates since the passage of their deeply broken law. Texas deeply broken as are all the other states with these terrible laws. Yet the NRA continues to push for them and the Red states continues to pass them.
This nation is turning into Dystopia, to desire a better future should not be frowned upon. The President has not suggested a Gun Prohibition, neither has anyone else. We do however, deserve a sane society.
You created a lively discussion. There are no easy answers.
There certainly aren’t any easy answers, but a bit of healthy debate never hurts.