There are many questions being asked in the wake of the tragic shootings in Connecticut yesterday. But there is only one relevant question to all the “debate” over gun control that needs to be answered.
Would any gun control law, or regulation, currently in place anywhere, or envisioned by the most strenuous advocates for “sensible” gun laws, have prevented this tragedy from occurring?
Unless you pass a law mandating gun shop owners and gun sellers be soothsayers and diviners of the future, I’m afraid not.
Those who advocate for”sensible gun laws” are not serious people. To many, a “sensible” gun law is concealed-carry. To others, “gun free zones” make a lot of sense. The problem is that the term “sensible” is a political construct, advanced by gun control advocates who don’t want to scare hunters or rile the NRA with talk of their real agenda; banning most handguns. It’s a term that bears no relationship whatsoever to the reality of preventing gun crimes or mass shootings.
The fact is, gun laws and regulations that are designed to keep weapons out of the hands of “dangerous” people — i.e. criminals and the mentally unbalanced — are already on the books in many states and cities and don’t do much at all in preventing gun crime or the sort of tragedy we witnessed yesterday in Connecticut. There are some weeks in Chicago where more people are killed by guns than died at the Newtown elementary school and Chicago has truly draconian gun laws — far more stringent than anything Congress will be capable of passing.
This raises the issue of what measures would be effective in dealing with criminals with guns and the mentally deranged who might get access to guns? Assuming that gun control advocates wish to accomplish more than just annoying law abiding citizens who wish to own guns, there is really only one course of action that would seriously deal with what gun control advocates believe needs to be addressed.
Repeal the Second Amendment.
Time to stop pontificating and get serious if you’re really determined to get a handle on gun crime and prevent mass shootings. Standing on the dead bodies of little children to advocate for “sensible” gun control is specious. There is no such thing. To prevent a deranged person from getting their hands on guns, you would have to disallow sales to the criminal’s and the mentally ill’s family, friends, and acquaintances as well. And what of a sick person’s constitutional rights? If they are on medication that controls their depression or other mental illness, who are we to say they should be denied their rights under the constitution?
The only real solution is to repeal the Second Amendment, make most guns illegal, and give anyone who commits a crime with a gun a life sentence if convicted.. Banning the sale, distribution, and ownership of handguns, assault weapons, large clip handguns, etc. plus locking away the criminal element that uses guns would put a big dent in violent crime — maybe.
But “sensible” gun law advocates are too cowardly to put their money where their mouth is and get serious about gun control. Instead of taking steps to deal with criminals and the insane who might have legal access to guns, their fantasies about new gun laws would only inconvenience law abiding citizens, and not stop a single future school shooting. (If the gun control crowd can play at predicting the future, so can I.)
So instead of doing something about the problem, gun control advocates are perfectly content to use the issue as a political club to gain influence and power. It’s too difficult to amend the Constitution, so why not pretend we are dealing with the problem by passing a slew of laws that criminals laugh at and the mentally deranged simply bypass?
And let’s stop the charade about adopting “sensible” gun laws. It does not give anyone the moral high ground. It only shows how bereft of courage the gun control lobby is when they refuse to bring their agenda out in the open for public debate.
UPDATE
I guess I was too subtle in my post about repealing the Second Amendment. I was only taking the argument of “sensible” gun law advocates to it’s logical conclusion. I in no way advocate the repeal of the Second Amendment nor believe that any gun law could have stopped the tragedy in Connecticut (thought I made that crystal clear).
There is no way that the Second Amendment will ever be repealed nor is there a chance in hell that we would send criminals who commit a crime with a gun to jail for life. I thought my facetiousness was obvious, but apparently not.
I apologize for the confusion.
Gun control or abolishing the Second Amendment will never stop gun violence, period. Look at Mexico where you can buy a gun only from the government after all the requirements are met and yet that country has murder on a scale unimaginable here. The only way to prevent such tragedies as happened yesterday is to have an armed presence to counter the deranged ones who attempt such actions. That has proven itself over and over whereas your plan has resulted in the exact outcomes you want to prevent. Gun-free zones, strict gun control laws (such as in Chicago), etc, do not and will never accomplish their goals; you’re only freeing those that have guns to act even more irresponsibly because they know the chance of being challenged by an equal force would be non-existent. Your intentions may be good, but the road to hell is paved with such.
“I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” –William S. Burroughs (I see he’s been to Mexico.)
So your point is basically that the US is just like Mexico, only without gun control. With that logic, you just have to remove gun control in Mexico and you would have a country like the US, right?
It is time to understand that the number of gun-related deaths in the United States is caused by the misinterpretation of the second amendment, meant to maintain militias to reduce the likelihood of re-colonization in the newly formed Republic… and was passed at a time when there were no automatic guns and assault weapons. THe vendors of death need to be treated in a similar manner to the folk who were lined up in front of Congress when the tobacco industry was responsible for much misinformation on their product. The manufacturers of guns and the NRA need now to be held responsible for their own misinformation and high pressure constant promotion and advertising. Gun death is proportionate to the rate of gun ownership… Period. There is no valid evidence to support the idea that ownership of guns prevents violent crime or improves owner safety… quite the reverse statistically. It is time to ban private ownership of assault weapons specifically designed for killing large number of people. If this takes repeal of the Second Amendment, sobeit. The Constitution was written with a mind to future Amendment, a process that is used too infrequently in the present tim. It is not a Bible, thought for some it seems to have taken the place of a holy book.
ABrummie2,
The first part of your first statement is nonsensical on its face as well as being ahistorical, & the second part continues that trend by using a standard anti-2A ploy which simultaneously implies that the Founders couldn’t foresee technical advances such as those you listed (they were too ignorant &/or uneducated) & that had they been able to anticipate said technical advances they would have disapproved of them. Care to try applying that pseudo-logic to items other than guns, ABrummie2, & are you up for doing that with other parts of the Bill of Rights like the 1st, 4th, & 5th Amendments? And do you also believe that the anti-2A cult should be held to the standard you propose for gun makers & the NRA, because if you do, you & your anti-2A co-cultists are in for a rough time over the hysterical claims & statements about the consequences of reforming concealed carry laws.
“Gun death is proportionate to the rate of gun ownership…Period.”
FBI & BATFE statistics say you’re either an ignorant blatherer, a blatant liar, or maybe both, ABrummie2, you pick which one, & should you &/or another of your anti-2A co-cultists want to try disputing that statement I can furnish proof from sources that aren’t pro-2A. I hope you or one of your anti-2A cult buddies is stupid enough to do that, ABrummie2, really.
“There is no valid evidence to support the idea that ownership of guns prevents violent crime or improves owner safety…quite the reverse statistically.”
And your proof is?
Regarding the rest of your comment, ABrummie2, I repeat the challenge from the first part of my response,: Are you up for doing that with other parts of the Bill of Rights like the 1st, 4th, & 5th Amendments?
Cassandra (of Troy)
It is absurd to invoke Mexico as a comparison. Mexico is (at best) a NIC – newly industrialized country… Not one with much in common with the US economically, technologically or socially.
Try Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Great Britain – wealthy democracies like the US.
People can hunt in those countries and own hunting rifles, but basically ‘people guns’ are banned.
And they have (between them) a tragedy such as this once a decade. We have had five this summer.
When will people realize the second amendment does not give us our rights, it was put in our constitution to protect our rights. God bless America.
Grampa
Maybe I’m being dense but is Moran really adovcating for the repeal of the Second Admendment? In a country that has hugh inventory of guns held by the public, does he really think that is going to stop gun violence. All it will do is further strain the weakened ties that hold this country togather. Unfortunity we live in fallen world with horrible tragedies happening too often. An argument that I must disarm in front of my enemies is unlikely to gain a lot traction from the so-called bitter clingers. Perhaps it would be the for the best, since such an action would instigate the breaking up a union of states that have increasing no common interests. Bitter clinger from Oregon
How about we ban abortion and start creating a culture where it would be inconceivable to take an innocent life with premeditation?
Hey, Adolf, Stalin and Mao thought gun control was good idea.
I sincerely hope , if any fool of a politician tries this, that this will be the act that finally brings forth a true seccession movement. If the POS who wrote this wants to be a slave so badly, that’s his choice; he has no right to try to inflict that status on me.
Fortunately we already have a shining example of what would happen should such a proposal be implemented.
The United Kingdom: Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, have totally banned all handguns and greatly restricted most long arms. Such is the end game and final solution in the minds of all gun control proponents.
The UK has about 60 million citizens. In 2010 they had a total of 1,158,957 violent crimes. In that same period the United States experienced 1,246,248 such crimes while having a population of over 310 million.
Allow me to do the math. In the gun free UK 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. In terrible gun prevalent America 406 violent crimes per 100,000. Simple statistics. Anyone else see a message? Gun control isn’t about safety, crime prevention, or even guns; it’s all about control.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You only compare violent crime, as if the incidence of ALL violence was the issue. We are talking here about the incidence of violent DEATH. The weapon used OBVIOUSLY affects the resulting rate of fatalities. What’s more lethal, a knife or a gun? Be honest! To look at your example, the rate of violent death in the USA is FOUR TIMES greater than that in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
okay based on that specious argument we must immediately ban all cars.
/more lethal? I am pretty sure it’s a human mind since the rest are just tools at best.
I know I am only an Igno Ramus, but guns, knives, axes, shovels, tire irons, hammers, car jacks, pool sticks, arrows, bludgeons, bayonets, swords, rocks, fists, and many many more things have proven to be extremely effective in causing our fellowman to asume room temperature. Most things either are inheirently or can be made to be deadly. Heck, you can even kill a person with a non-poisonous ripe banana if you force it down his throat whole so he can’t breathe.
Michael,
First off, you might review the disclaimer at the top of that article before using it to bolster your position. Secondly, does your definition of ‘violent DEATH’ include suicide, because if it does Japan’s rate is almost twice ours & nearly 3 times Britain’s while Japanese weapons laws make ours & Britain’s look non-existant in comparison which causes problems for your attempt to make America look worse than it is. See the following.:
Japan’s ongoing suicide problem
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120804a1.html
If your criteria for “violent DEATH” refers only to murder & you want to be honest, then you compare the U.K. murder rate to Europe’s & in that case things look pretty bad for Gwayt Bwittin as the following shows.:
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Better luck next time, Michael, & be glad you didn’t tangle with Glenn Reynolds.
Cassandra (of Troy)
That really keeps a lid on gun violence in Norway, huh?
On the SAME DAY, in CHINA, a madman attacked 22 children, only HE was armed with KNIVES. Every single one of those children SURVIVED! Someone is trying to send you people a message! How could CHINA be a safer place for kids than the USA???
‘Cause it wasn’t those evil guns! (At least that’s how left/liberals feel– China already has “social justice” as it’s a communist system so who cares?)
Let’s look at this: 22 children attacked by a knife-wielding ‘madman’. Seems to me that if the ‘madman’ wanted to kill one child or as many as he could, he had the opportunity to do so. But they ALL survived. The guy may have had something else in mind; something that in no way mimics the intent of the Connecticut shooter.
What? Are you retarded? It is way more difficult to kill someone with a knife that a gun. He did stab people, with the intent to kill them, and they were injured, but alive. Are you too stupid to understand that if he had a gun with many rounds many, if not all, of those kids would be dead?
We suffer from the illusion of control. We feel that if we can imagine, say, a world without any homeless people, then there must be some way to make that world a reality. But that goal is simple and static while the real world is complex and dynamic. In order to achieve the goal, you have to grasp and control the real world, simplify it, regulate it, keep it from changing in ways you don’t like. You squeeze and squeeze, but reality slips through your fingers. You achieve a degree of success, but things keep happening that you hadn’t expected. For example, you find that there are homeless people who refuse to go along with your plans for ending homelessness, no matter how much aid and comfort you offer them. Or you find that people whom you’ve forbidden to have guns somehow get hold of them anyway.
So what do you do? Squeeze harder? Lock up all the bums? Confiscate everyone’s guns? How far are you willing to go to “make the world a better place?”
Reality is not a nice place. Freedom and safety are incompatible.
Bugs, you are absolutely right. Freedom amd safety are both relative.
Moran is using sarcasm to illustrate the foolishness of strict gun control advocates.
Just for the record the federal government will have one hell of time taking my guns – as the old saying goes they’ll get my guns by prying them from my cold dead fingers.
We have to go through this stupidity every time some nutbag goes off his/her rocker and kills with a gun. It has already been reported that the Sandy Hook shooter was being treated for some type of personality disorder. Instead of bleating about guns, maybe we should be looking at why people with potentially violent mental disorders are able to run loose on the streets.
While you may have been intending this article as a “modest proposal” I agree with its literal text almost completely. I wouldn’t argue for a mandatory life sentence for crimes committed with a gun, but as for repealing the Second Amendment and “Banning the sale, distribution, and ownership of handguns, assault weapons, large clip handguns…”? Absolutely. 100%.
I’m sick of how our government coddles paranoid lunatics while people are dying in our streets and our schools. Ban handguns. Ban extended clips. Ban assault weapons. Require a background check, a license and insurance (just like cars) to own the rest.
I agree wholeheartedly with repealing the second amendment. I do not see any other way to prevent these continuing rashes of senseless violence.
Moreover, I am beginning to believe that the need to have a gun is a sign of mental illness. The hunters among us will protest. But there is something seriously wrong with those take sport in killing innocent creatures.
Well said.
I like having a gun because I live in a part of town riddled with criminals who dont give a care in the world about any laws. Sometimes those people feel the need to rob and assault me. It has happened before. So unless you would like to pay to get my family and I out of this town, then Id suggest you stop being a judgemental prick and stop saying that I must have a mental defect because I like to be able to protect myself from criminals.
You stupid asshole you recanted repealing the 2nd amendment because you are a weakling .. SMH
Rather than philosophize, how about looking to other parts of the world, where different laws apply, and using their experience to figure out what actually works?
I know, crazy right? Evidence-based policy-making. Far out.
Actually fixing the US laws doesn’t seem all that difficult (at least technically – politically it’s nigh impossible). Just read the second amendment as it was written, and as it was very clearly intended by the people who wrote it (and “regulated” did actually mean “regulated” – go read Madison)
The more difficult problem is how to get the guns off the streets. Decades of bad law have meant that getting the existing guns out of circulation will probably take the best part of a century.
Basically, the US is screwed. Sorry. These events are going to keep happening.
If the Second Amendment is repealed, it will need to be followed by the Fourth Amendment as well so that the State will not be hindered in its search and seizure of all weapons, however well hidden. Come to think of it, the Fifth Amendment will have to go as well, to allow the seizure of so much private property without compensation.
Hate to rain on your parade, Rick, but the Second Amendment is never going to be repealed. Not a chance.
And, if it were….
“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” – U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
There is a petition requesting the administration to initiate the process outlined in article 5 of the constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment at http://wh.gov/QOG9
And another.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-second-amendment-united-states-constitution/zWFh5NQw