Gun Control

By Pete Lucas, a contributing author:

I support peoples’ constitutional right to have guns. And I’m not just talking about my biceps.

I also recently wrote that some real reform was needed if we’re going to slow down the tide of school shootings. And of course, the government has decided that instead, they’d like to make some stupid, totally ineffective restrictions instead.

As Clinton did, the focus is on “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines.” The only difference between an “assault rifle” and a “hunting rifle” is the decorations. Literally, there’s no other difference. The high capacity magazine argument is pointless, because you can still have as many standard magazines as you want, which hold 9-10 rounds each. I have a Beretta .40 that has 8 magazines with it. That’s 80 rounds I can fire without reloading a magazine one single time. Over 70% of gun murders are done using handguns. We aren’t talking about restricting them AT ALL.

We are going at this bass ackwards. The guns / type of guns / capacity of guns arguments are the completely wrong place to attack this problem. The people are the problem, not the guns. Putting guns into the hands of nutbags is the problem. We clearly don’t screen carefully enough, and we allow person-to-person firearm sales with no paper trail. That’s absolutely crazy.

I saw a thing that sarcastically said “Banning guns will reduce crime? Wow, we should outlaw heroin and meth, too!” The point was, prohibition never actually works. It’s very effective at creating a black market – which incidentally increases crime at the same time. People got all the booze they wanted during prohibition, and the bootleggers got rich. None of it was taxed, and the mob did most of the work at filling the demand. In essence, we took the alcohol sales away from bartenders and restaurants and we gave it to outlaws.

Good thinking.

Let’s outlaw weapons that people want to have so that organized crime can fill that demand by illegally acquiring and distributing them on the streets.

Good people will comply with the law (or rise up against it). Bad people will ignore the law. Guess what, folks. It’s already illegal to shoot dozens of elementary children in a school. The shooter didn’t care that it was illegal. He wouldn’t have cared if having a gun was illegal, either.

Hold gun owners accountable for what happens with their guns. Do better background checks. A simple phone call to ANYONE that knew that guy would have raised all the red flags we needed. People knew he was off his nut.

If we had an outbreak of murders being performed using three-tined forks, and we decided that the forks were the issue, would it really solve the problem to outlaw only the three-tined forks and not four tined-forks? Because it’s exactly the same thing.

A sweeping, complete gun ban would be completely unconstitutional, but it’s the only type of gun ban that would make a difference. The government don’t have the power to make that call, nor should they. Hitler’s first move was a sweeping gun ban. Hitler was elected when the German economy sucked and things looked bleak. People were happy to have someone strong and charismatic to lead them. That ended badly.

I’m just saying.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply


four − 3 =