I’ve listened to portions of the House’s hearing this morning and thought I’d put my two cents in. IMO there’s a classic case of “the politician’s dilemma” in progrss. For those of you not familiar with it the dilemma goes something like this:
- Something must be done!
- X is something.
- Do X
The single most important thing we should do is enforce existing law. There are already laws regulating the sales or gifting of firearms across state lines. They are barely if ever enforced. About a quarter of the states have laws that require gunowners to report the loss or theft of firearms. Illinois is one of them. That law is hardly ever enforced.
I don’t object to laws requiring background checks of the recipient when individuals give or sell a firearm.
I don’t object to raising the legal age for purchase of a firearm or ammunition.
Laws banning the sales of scary-looking firearms don’t bother me, either.
I also think we need to revise how we think of mental illness and its treatment but I doubt that will emerge from this or related hearings.
Finally, I think that many of those advocating laws limiting the possession of handguns are greatly overestimating the effectiveness of those laws. I also think the notion that laws are deterrents to crime whether they are enforced or not is a fantasy. That may have been true 30 years ago but the evidence it’s true now is pretty slim. Most of the firearms used in the commission of crimes are possessed illegally.
“The single most important thing we should do is enforce existing law.”
Sure. But the two examples you cite would be almost impossible to enforce. How about extreme penalties for use of a firearm during commission of a crime.
“I don’t object to laws requiring background checks of the recipient when individuals give or sell a firearm.”
“I don’t object to raising the legal age for purchase of a firearm or ammunition.”
Me neither. I find the arguments against to be unpersuasive, except for one. If you do government background checks you will have an amazing rise in bad backgrounds and rejections. (See: Lerner, Lois) A first step might be simple delay. It took one week for me in FL. Hardly an undue burden.
If you do this the goal posts will immediately be moved and 2A advocates better be ready to howl about the bait and switch duplicity of the anti-gun types.
“Laws banning the sales of scary-looking firearms don’t bother me, either.”
That one’s dubious. All guns will almost immediately be described as scary by the gun banning crowd. People who own firearms are almost universally safety conscious and not scared by the looks of a firearm, but very cognizant of the relative functioning of various firearms. We need to devise a way of dealing with the criminals who use firearms and the mentally ill. We are going in the opposite direction. See Gascon, or Foxx.
“Most of the firearms used in the commission of crimes are possessed illegally.”
Of course, the gangs. Or legally owned by the mentally ill.
We simply are not serious about the problem, because of the highly polarized positions. Age limits or background checks/permit delays seem to be sensible enough to warrant looking past 2A issues.
It will be a total mess after that.
There is no technical definition of “assault weapon”. “Scary-looking” is about as good as it gets. You can make a list but that has the same problems as those you outline.
There is minimal discussion, and almost zero coverage, of the masses crossing over our border and disappearing into parts unknown. Accompanying this invasion is little to no discernment regarding the health or criminal/gang affiliation backgrounds of people stampeding into this country. And yet, here we are calling for more demanding gun regulations, as politicians do nothing about averting overloading states with cartel customers and more drugs, that will mostly negatively effect responsible gun owners, whose gun use is primarily for recreation or self-protection.
Most are aware, however, that anyone with malevolent intentions of using a gun will do so without any hesitation, unless there is a plethora of laws lessening their chances of meeting a competent human deterrent – someone with a concealed carry firearm. So far, though, emotional theatrics, finger-pointing, factual cherry-picking and hauling in a celebrity seem to be the toxic brew implemented to get more gun legislation across the line – a line that will do little to halt the underlying causes of the violence being witnessed today.
Liability, liability, liability.
Manufacturers, retailers, collectors, parents,gun runners all need pressure to make ownership and transactions very serious business for everyone even tangentially in the firearms orbit.
That’s all I can see short of copying Australia and taking the guns as a solution.
Unless as citizens we decide we don’t really want a solution and can live with the status quo.
While the House is enthusiastic about putting together stronger gun control measures, Nancy Pelosi is refusing to even introduce a bill to the House asking for increased security for members of the Supreme Court. Why she is refusing to protect these jurists, especially in lieu of the recent threats towards Kavanaugh, seems like either a double standard or a vendetta against a jurist ruling on Roe vs Wade. Oh yes the Senate readily approved the bill.
Who needs an assault weapon in the first place?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/06/1103177032/gun-violence-mass-shootings-assault-weapons-victims
Wounds from handguns vs. assault weapons
Bullets from weapons such as handguns typically pierce straight through a target, medical experts say. By comparison, weapons such as the AR-15s used in many mass shootings, can liquefy organs because of their much higher projectile speeds.
“Assault weapons … cause a condition called cavitation, meaning that as the projectile passes through tissue, it creates a large cavity,” said Dr. Ian Brown, a trauma surgeon at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California. “And that does a ton of of tissue damage, both initially at the impact, and then even further as that tissue begins to necrose, or die off.”
Grey..I agree!!
Liability, liability, liability.
Manufacturers, retailers, collectors, parents,gun runners all need pressure to make ownership and transactions very serious business for everyone even tangentially in the firearms orbit.
That’s all I can see short of copying Australia and taking the guns as a solution.
Unless as citizens we decide we don’t really want a solution and can live with the status quo.
Until your child is gunned down, no assault weapons, no mass shootings??
Even were it politically possible for the United States to emulate Australia, I doubt it would produce the results here that it might in Australia. If we can’t close our southern border to drugs or individuals entering the country illegally, we can’t close it to guns, either. We’d just be creating a lucrative new business for criminal gangs and you could buy a gun on any street corner.
Evidently, none of the commentators here knows what an assault rifle is: it is a rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire (hold down trigger and gun fires continuously until magazine is empty), and that uses a low power cartridge.
The M16/M4 is an assault rife, because it can fire continuously and uses a small cartridge (5.56 NATO). The AR15 is not, because it can’t fire continuously. The M14 is not an assault rife, because the 7.62 NATO cartridge is too big, and the rifle is uncontrollable in auto fire mode.
This definition has been in common use and well understand since the Germans invented the first assault rifle in WW II: The StG 44 Schmeisser, chambered in the pistol round 7.92×33 Kurz.
It was used on the Eastern Front, and the Russians liked it well enough to develop the AK 47.
Assault rifles are standard issue today, because they are most convenient during the assault, i.e., short range combat. So-called “battle rifles,” like the M14, M1, Springfield ’03 are better suited to long range engagements, like trench warfare.
The anti-gun lobby has deliberately introduced confusion into the discussion in order to advance their goals of eliminating all guns from private ownership. That actually would require a constitutional amendment, but they think court-packing will bypass that legal obstacle.
Also, commentators here don’t seem to grasp the constitutional issue. SCOTUS has held that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The US is the only country in the world and Americans are the only people with such a right. Australia, Canada, UK, New Zealand do NOT have a Bill of Rights, and their citizens never had the rights of freedom of speech and religion, freedom of assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from self incrimination, freedom from warrantless searches and seizures… ad nauseam.
As with all constitution rights, the government must identify some pressing need to put restrictions on them. The long term trend in American jurisprudence has been to expand rights, not restrict them. Or having you been listening to the Roe v. Wade debate? If it is overturned, that would not only be a rejection of stare decisis, it would a restriction (elimination) of a right.
The age of purchase issue is also a constitutional problem, because the age of adulthood is set at 18. In fact, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California law that would keep firearms out of the hands of young adults under age 21. You might remember the Ninth as the most far left court in the country. There is no way SCOTUS will overturn that decision.
Finally, and most importantly, the US does NOT have a gun problem. It does have a young black male problem. About 55% of all gun killings and assaults and 75% of all mass shooting are committed by young black males. And not even all of them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of gang-bangers were as low as 100,000 nationwide.
Again, leftists, and that includes all the news media, all the entertainment media, all Democrats and most Republicans, will not permit a public discussion of black crime. Even though almost all the victims of black crime are black people, and poor black people at that.
You cannot tell me that you wish well for blacks if you will not do anything to help the black victims of black criminals. Help here means that the police suppress the black criminals. If there are only 100,000 or so, as I believe, then this is an eminently solvable problem. We already have 2.5 million people in prison, another 100,000 is trivial.
Again, the conversion on this topic reveals a determination among many people to NOT discuss the problem, to only mouth platitudes and fairy tales.
But the discussion is not about about actual assault weapons, bob sykes.
It’s that confusion that I’m highlighting. True automatic weapons are already illegal for private ownership and altering legal weapons for automatic fire is illegal. But the laws are not enforced.
I always thought the arguments in favor of lowering the voting age to 18 were weak. There are perfectly good psychobiological reasons we should not consider 18 year olds adults. If anything the voting age should have been raised.
“Finally, and most importantly, the US does NOT have a gun problem.”
Which is why people are mostly using clubs to kill people. (Sarcasm off) Guns are the most cost effective, usable force multiplier invented. One person can kill many with little or no training. Just watch a few YouTubes. There are way too many guns around to accomplish much. If it were anything other than guns killing us we probably would have some responsible liability and the gun owners or companies paying but it wont happen. Best we can do is build better memorials or maybe start a national thoughts and prayers department. 20 kids get killed and the Feds send out a T&P team that immediately swoops in to convey thoughts and prayers to the parents.
Steve
But Bob the violent young black male group is a moving target.
They age into it very young, have a short career, die or go to prison and are replaced immediately by another 12 year old.
If we we serious we would go after the culture that rears them, rap video performers promoting violence, venues, game designers, should have swarms of lawyers after their cash. Freedom of speech has limits.