©
Why should anyone be allowed to buy a crate full of rifles at a gun show without submitting to a criminal background check?
Why should someone be allowed to drink alcohol while openly carrying a gun?
Why should a gunowner be allowed to buy a 20-round magazine?
It's hard to come up with rational arguments in favor of any of those positions, but the number and creativity of irrational arguments can't be appreciated without a visit to the legislative subcommittee that blocks common-sense public safety measures every year.
And this year was no different. Consider these:
Representatives for gun rights groups argued that without the convenience of gun shows, criminals will resort to organizing swap meets at McDonald's restaurants.
They noted that without access to firearms, mentally deranged people will resort to making napalm bombs, igniting gasoline and using box cutters and maybe even "the jawbone of an ass" when they go on killing sprees.
They suggested the high-capacity magazine used by the Tucson gunman actually made it easier for a bystander to grab it out of his hands, after he'd already fired all 31 bullets.
Besides, another explained, killers limited to smaller magazines would become more efficient and better shots, leading to even greater bloodshed.
Perhaps the five legislators on the panel recognized how ridiculous those claims are. But if that's the case, why did they kill a bill that would require background checks for all purchasers at gun shows?
Why did they kill a bill prohibiting alcohol consumption for anyone carrying a gun?
Why did they kill a bill banning the sale of magazines that hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition?
Because, as one lawmaker explained, if gun-control advocates get their way just once, they'll keep coming back asking for more and more restrictions.
If they are allowed to take away 20-round magazines, pretty soon they'll come after box cutters, the ingredients used to make napalm and, possibly, even jawbones.
That's a slippery slope too dangerous to contemplate.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
My Rebuttal
I submitted this for publication. I place it here, just in case the Pilot chooses not to print it:
Re: “Reason fails in the gun debate,” editorial Feb. 7: The first five words of your editorial told me everything I needed to know about what was coming: “Why should anyone be allowed …” The writer’s underlying precept seems to be that government “allows” us to engage in activities. He seems dumfounded that government continues to “allow” us to purchase guns and ammunition magazines and to consume alcohol while openly carrying firearms. He cannot conceive of any rational reason to “allow” us to do these things.
Might I suggest that the writer take a moment to reread the Preamble to the Constitution? It is “We The People” who “allow” government to limit our activities within a strict set of rules. If the activity falls outside of that strict set of rules, it is none of government’s business. Government is instituted by The People not to create and confer fundamental rights; it is instituted to protect those rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson understood this with great clarity. Why cannot your editorial writer?
Indeed, reason does fail
The editors fail to give a reason why sale of privately owned firearms to another citizen should carry any requirements other than those for selling a car. Sure, guns CAN be used in a crime, but so can a car.
The law requires firearms DEALERS to conduct background checks, but it makes no such requirement for private sales. So, what is the reason to require background checks for such sales at gun shows, but no where else?
What is the reason for requiring total abstinence from alcohol in order to carry a firearm, either openly or concealed?
Again, we allow far more dangerous machinery, cars, to be operated by those who have used alcohol so long as they do not reach a legal threshold for intoxication. The same requirement is in place for carrying firearms openly, and should be for concealed carry, you can carry a firearm so long as you are not intoxicated. What is the REASON for changing that, other than to correct the inconsistent, absolute prohibition for concealed carry?
Why should I have to give a reason to have a magazine over a certain capacity? If the first shot is justified, it is likely the others will be too. I personally have no need for a large capacity magazine for my handgun, but the rifle I maintain for militia purposes pretty much requires a large capacity magazine to meet its purpose(deterrence.)
What is the REASON for limiting HOW I carry may ammunition as long as how I use it is proper?
So, please do provide some reason beyond institutional paranoia.
You said, "The editors fail
You said, "The editors fail to give a reason why sale of privately owned firearms to another citizen should carry any requirements other than those for selling a car. Sure, guns CAN be used in a crime, but so can a car."
This is a false analogy. Guns are not cars--not even close.
Guns, if used as they are intended, intimidate, harm and sometimes kill. If they are used as intended, cars obviously do not.
How many deaths/injuries are caused by drivers who choose to intimidate, cause harm, or kill with their vehicles?
Much less than those who own/use firearms who choose to intimidate, cause harm, or kill with their firearms.
There are better, more persuasive arguments against gun control than false analogies.
Point of view differences
"Guns, if used as they are intended, intimidate, harm and sometimes kill. If they are used as intended, cars obviously do not."
Staying with issue of the purpose of a gun....
I carry my sidearm openly. As a general contract/handyman I work where and when I can get work. Sometimes I'm in neighborhoods where crime is high. For example, while working in Greenrun a couple of years ago, there were three teens watching me. Once they saw I was armed, they walked away.
Was that intimidation or something else?
"used as intended"
My sidearm is used to keep me safe from aggression, as a side effect, it also protects you from aggression because the fact that some percentage of Virginians are armed at any given time, raises the perceived risk of crimes against persons.
It has never harmed anyone, nor has it been used to intimidate, its intended use is to provide safety from aggression. Guns only kill or harm or intimidate when misused as a tool of criminals. The difference is not in the gun, it is in the person. In my hands, a gun's intended purpose is peace and safety. Only in the hands of a criminal does its purpose become intimidation and harm.
Regardless of intent, cars, used as intended, kill or maim many more people than guns, so, I don't really see your point.
Sir
With all that hang wringing, you're going to get a grunch of caluses or generate enough heat to light a cigarette.
Who you're making statement debating about aren't the ones causing the problems that are making national or local headlines. At least not in the majority. Yeah - there are exceptions...no one is perfect. That's why those who violate the laws go to court and face imprisonment.
If you don't want to own a sidearm or weapon - then don't. That's your choice. Many exercise their right to do so and you have no idea who they are when that right is exercised responsibly.
So then would you agree with
So then would you agree with the editorial writer that criminal background checks should be implemented at gun shows?
They are completed at gun shows
Here are the exceptions:
- private citizens selling their collections;
- firearms dealers selling to another licensed dealer.
Yes, but why should private
Yes, but why should private citizens be exempt from the same regulations that at least make it harder to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
And shouldn't there be penalties for private citizens who do not take proper care of their firearms, to the point that their firearms are stolen out of their homes or out of their vehicles by, guess what, criminals?
The data from major American cities and from other countries suggest that outlawing handguns is not the answer. It sounds appealing in theory, but just hasn't worked, up to this point.
And law abiding citizens are not the problem. Most owners of firearms--including just about every male in my family--are good people who take care of their weapons, as responsible citizens.
How do we keep firearms out of the hands of criminals while maintaining the rights of law-abiding citizens? That is a question with no obvious or easy answer.
- why should private
- why should private citizens be exempt from the same regulations that at least make it harder to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Because the current law doesn't require it. Also, the FBI does not want the general public to have access to or receive direct/indirect information of the background check to prevent identity theft. http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/BackgroundChk.html
-shouldn't there be penalties for private citizens who do not take proper care of their firearms?
That's for the CA and DA to determine.
-How do we keep firearms out of the hands of criminals while maintaining the rights of law-abiding citizens? That is a question with no obvious or easy answer.
It is currently illegal (Federal Law) to knowingly sell a weapon to a felon, to someone living out of the state, etc. As to the rest opf that question - I agree. There is no easy answer.