Gun Control or Not?
April 28th, 2006 | by Paul Merda |Since there has been no national discourse on the merits of gun control, several big city mayors have gotten together to bring this issue to the forefront including NYC Mayor Bloomberg. These guys think that our current laws are ineffective and that too many of their citizens are victims of gun violence. Probably true. However, the problem is, there is no one in Congress willing to even talk about gun violence these days. The GOP never cared about it since most of their constituents are rural gun-owners, while the Dems have dropped it because it definitely hurt them at the polls. These mayors want action because, as E.J. Dione from WaPo puts it:
Yes, there is a cultural difference between big cities and rural areas, but it’s a difference in how guns are used. Rural people treasure their guns mostly for hunting and recreation, and as collectors. In inner cities, guns — especially handguns — are used almost entirely to threaten or kill other human beings.
I hear what he is saying. I just don’t think there is a DAMN thing we can do about it. The fact is that most recreational drugs (except caffeine, nicotine and alcohol) are illegal, and that has NOT stopped the flow; if anything it has only raised the prices of these drugs as the police state seizes some of the supply while demand remains relatively static, which of course forces addicts to rob, cheat and steal more, but I digress. So these mayors think that more laws will keep weapons out of the hands of malefactors. That is bullshit and we all know it. The only way more laws are going to keep guns out people’s hands is if we turn this country into a police state. I have to agree with the NRA on this one; “when guns are illegal only criminals have guns.” Do these mayors really believe that they can stop the criminals in their cities from obtaining guns whether they are illegal or not? If they do, I have some beautiful beachfront property in Ohio I’d like to sell them . . . .
9 Responses to “Gun Control or Not?”
By Steve O on Apr 28, 2006 | Reply
Didn’t towns out west used to have signs that said “no guns inside city limits?”
At least that’s what I remember from watching old westerns. Why can’t these city’s do the same thing?
By LiberPaul on Apr 28, 2006 | Reply
I am sure they will try and it will be a massive failure as people who use guns to ”threaten or kill other human beings” are very unlikely to heed the sign or give a damn about such a law… They’d have to wall off the city and examine every vehicle and every person coming in to enforce it, the costs alone would be prohibitive of such a measure…
By Topeka Satchel on Apr 28, 2006 | Reply
As a former NRA instructor and rifle range director, I support regulation of firearms. Using firearms has the potential for great harm, just like driving a car does. We expect people who drive cars to have some training and knowledge of safety, so why not firearms? This wouldn’t address all the problems that millions of guns create, but it isn’t unreasonable, either.
By LiberPaul on Apr 28, 2006 | Reply
I am not agianst what you are saying at all Topeka. I am not against some sort of control, after all we don’t let citizens own RPG’s and M1 Tanks, but I think the outlawing of small arms is doomed to fail…. While the concept of gun-owners taking safety classes is a great idea, the small-minded criminal element in the cities will still get handguns and use them the way they have been for years; to threaten or kill other human beings….
By Topeka Satchel on Apr 28, 2006 | Reply
I’m not trying to pick a fight here, at least not with you, since you seem like a reasonable person. I would point out that we can’t control marijuana use very well either, but that doesn’t stop the US from spending billions (excuse me, BILLIONS!!!) in a War on Drugs. It is also true that people drive without a license or drive when drunk. So, if though I acknowledge your point about small-minded criminals, I still think licensing is a good idea. And to take it even further, I don’t have a problem restricting the manufacturing, transport, and sale of handguns (especially handguns). As with most things, the trick is to find the right balance for reasonable restrictions vs onerous/unnecessary/oppressive ones.
By LiberPaul on Apr 28, 2006 | Reply
Indeed Topeka, balance is the key….
By Gerald Pallesen on Apr 28, 2006 | Reply
In the 2nd Amendment, just what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you people understand? Forty states now have “shall issue” permits to carry concealed, and FBI stats prove that in every one of those states, there is a marked decrease in violent crime. Those cities/states with the most gun control have the highest violent crime rates. Chicago, New York, Wash. D.C., Los angeles…. most murders in New York are committed by the police, so let the mayor start his confiscation there.
By LiberPaul on May 1, 2006 | Reply
Gerald,
The other part of the 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”…. That is why the NRA fights gin control at the Representative level, because they lose in the courts everytime.
I do think that the more people who carry guns, the less violence will occur. I would be less likely to rob someone if I knew there was an increased chance they might be packin’ heat… So, I agree with what you’re saying to some degree.