Thoughts from Steve Chapman:
If we were starting out in a country with zero guns, it might be possible to keep such weapons away from bad guys. But that’s not this country, which has more than 200 million firearms in private hands and a large perpetual supply of legal handguns.
Only a tiny percentage of those weapons has to be diverted to the underground trade for crooks to acquire all the firepower they need. While gun bans greatly impede the law-abiding, they pose only a trivial inconvenience to the lawless.
This is especially true at the local level. Banning guns from one city makes about as much sense as banning them on one block.
It’s hard enough to halt the flow of guns over international borders, where governments police traffic. It’s impossible to stop them from crossing municipal boundaries—which are unmonitored, undefended, and practically invisible.
Tens of thousands of cars enter Washington and Chicago each day from places where guns are easily and legally obtainable. Any of those vehicles could be transporting a carton of pistols to sell to willing thugs. If you’re on an island, you’re going to get splashed by the waves.
This is also why gun buybacks are an idiotic waste of money.
Father of a friend stood in line at one of these things. He was there along with a whole bunch of fellow retirees with old pieces whose collector value was below or near what they were paying ($100 gift certificate). Among all the bluehairs was a group of about three gangbangers. A local TV news crew was also there – one guess as to whom they were showcasing.
This is a good argument, but on the other hand it does make it easier to go after criminals if unlicensed possession of guns is itself a crime. Is a licensing scheme a high price to pay for that?
Restrictive gun laws are not the answer, enforcing existing gun laws is:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/10/us/fighting-crime-by-making-federal-case-about-guns.html?pagewanted=all
Martijn Meijering,
I would start with Felon in possession, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, even possession of a firearm in the comission of a crime, no need for steeking liscensces. Plenty of ways to skin that cat.
Among all the bluehairs was a group of about three gangbangers.
Was it a “no questions asked” buy back? If so, the gang bangers were probably just saving the hassle of the pawn shop.
Even if civilians were disarmed from the beginning, cops won’t be, and they have a bad habit of “misplacing” firearms, or leaving them in places they’ll get stolen.
A criminal element willing to commit felonies with guns is willing to commit felonies to get guns… and in any case, as various examples in Pakistan, in the prisons, and in Wartime or Communist Europe show us, it’s not actually difficult to manufacture a basic firearm.
“Licensing” does nothing but provide a convenient way for the state to disarm those who are already not a criminal threat.
You can actually make a gun fairly easily. In a “complete ban” situation, I’d expect the collision between the ‘home fab‘ guys and the metalworkers to fill the void in no time. People have printed functional clocks, springs etc.
The tougher pieces are a good spring and the percussion cap.
This is also why gun buybacks are an idiotic waste of money.
I recall once upon a time Memphis had a gun buyback program. My hairdresser told me she was thinking about participating, because she had a rusty old .22 lying around the house and was not even sure it was functional. The memorable comment she made, though, was “Don’t get me wrong! I’m not giving up my .38!”
BBB
Tons of illegal drugs are smuggled across the border every week. They do it because it is profitable. Smuggling guns is not quite a profitable as drugs but it isn’t any harder. Those criminals who by nature and definition don’t obey the law aren’t going to obey any law against guns, either. It’s foolish to think otherwise.
What gun buybacks do is reduce the cost of owning a gun, by increasing their resale value.
I’m a liberal and I agree, gun buyback programs have an entirely negligible impact on crime reduction. Nice idea, doesn’t work.
Those criminals who by nature and definition don’t obey the law aren’t going to obey any law against guns, either.
Of course not, but it does make it easier to prosecute them or even just to take away their guns if simply owning a gun is illegal. If you think that is too drastic, you could use a licensing scheme instead. You could make that licensing scheme fairly liberal (adult, compos mentis, no criminal record), maybe you could add some mandatory instruction on safe handling and storage. Or you could dispense with the licensing scheme and make it illegal for convicted felons to own a gun or maybe just give a sentencing judge the option of taking away a person’s right to own a gun for certain classes of crimes.
Doesn’t everybody here agree there should be some level of gun control? Anyone think people should be allowed to own heavy machine guns, AAA, artillery guns, nuclear howitzers?
I wasn’t there, but I assume so as that’s the kind they used to have around here: cops pinching homies at the site would defeat the purpose.
Or you could dispense with the licensing scheme and make it illegal for convicted felons to own a gun or maybe just give a sentencing judge the option of taking away a person’s right to own a gun for certain classes of crimes.
That is already the case.
Another consideration is the number of accidental deaths caused by private gun ownership or by ordinary people going berserk. In fairness you should probably only count the number of incidents, not the number of deaths because crazed gunmen in schools could only cause a small number of deaths before they would be shot themselves if many people carried guns.
A data point from where I live, in the Netherlands: it is very rare for people to be shot by criminals, the criminals tend to keep it in the family.
Martijn,
I don’t think you getting it, we already have a slew of laws on the books that allow law enforcement to take criminals guns away and prosecute them. Most felonies have stiffer penalties if you posses a gun while committing the crime, even if nobody gets hurt.
Gun registrations only affects law abiding people, criminals will not register. Now as far as somebody going nuts and picking up a gun and shooting somebody it doesn’t have to be a gun. In England, where guns are harder to come by, murders are committed with knives and swords. They are now trying to pass laws that makes possessing most knives illegal. All of this misses the point, a weapon, any type of weapon, is nothing more then a tool. The user is the one who controls it and decides how it will be used. If I wanted to kill someone I could use a gun , knife, bow, car, etc. All are tools and all can be used to kill.
With that said I am for gun training. I think the best way to prevent accidental shootings (children or adults) is to have them well trained and understand the impact a gun can have. When my son was twelve, I took him to a shooting range to teach him gun safety and what a gun could do. Up to that point the only thing he knew about guns (other then if he touched one I would beat his butt) was what he saw playing video games. I took a half ripe cantaloupe about the size of his head and shot it with a 1944 German Mouser (WWII infantry rifle) at 100 yards. The melon turned to mist. He then understood that you don’t keep going after being shot like in the games or movies, you die. His respect for guns went way up that day.
Training and education are the way to go.
Martijn,
I would rather live with the gun violence here than live in a country that would charge Geert Wilders with a crime for making a movie.