It might be that we don't see eye-to-eye, but how does that make me "jaded"?
The general tone of your response seemed to indicate anti-like
behavior- eg; this seemingly morbid fascination/hangup with an object's
relationship to crime.
I do indeed have a bookshelf stocked with Lott, Kleck, Halbrook, Kates, Poe, Malcolm, etc., so I'm not writing from a void of background.
So you know that, from the research of these individuals, that by and
large, the mere presence of guns do not cause crime? While I can agree
that guns have some side effects WRT crime, eg, stray bullets hitting
uninvolved persons, etc, I think the stats bear out that people legitimately
use guns often enough to defend themselves that it outweighs any of
that.
Then there is a deeper argument- that it's not fair to artificially inhibit
one's god given right to defend themselves. Not sure if any of these
authors get into that.... but people don't like to think/talk about the fact
that a state's "gun control" may have resulted in someone's uneeded
death or suffering.
Do you reject the validity of the Gun Trace Data?
No, I don't reject its validity. I'm sure it's mostly true. The thing is, what
do we do with that data? All it really proves is that more "bad" guns
come from the south. That same region of the country where the
guns/capita ratio is (probably) way higher than it is everywhere else. So,
do we need to further penalize people for exercising their 2nd amendment
rights in greater frequency? I would venture a guess that the increased
numbers represent more stolen guns as well as more "strawed" guns because
whenever you increase overall numbers, you increase the chances of
theft or loss, or tomfoolery at the dealers (eg, strawed guns). I would
say that the stats are more reflective of a "higher density" gun culture in the
south. There are more gun owners there, and there are also more
people that own more than one gun. There are also more dealers, and
probably more guns sold there as well. The gun demographic in the south is
also a lot broader than it is here, in regards to ethnicities and economic classes.
Some of this is a cultural thing. I'd venture a fair guess, for instance, that an
inner city minority in FL is far more likely to buy a gun legitimately than the
same kind of person up here is. They'd rather defend themselves than submit to
being victims. They're also more likely to blame criminals for crime than to
blame inanimate objects. They're more exposed to reality (eg, they know their
neighbor who was a victim of a home invasion last week) as opposed to the sensationalist
crap that TV passes off for reality.
Yes - no more useless gun laws will help. I agree wholeheartedly with you there.
Yes... you seem to realize at least that much- that adding extra regulation
is only going to increase the burden on legal gun owners without resulting
in an attendant reduction in crime.
It's a harder pill to swallow, but I also believe that most of the gun laws
on the books are woefully ineffective as well. If we eliminated the
ones that don't really do anything, and the ones that act as substitutes
for other broken laws, then we wouldn't have many left. The general
impression that I get is that most gun laws are often used as a band-aid
for other problems within the justice system. The feds need felon in
possession, for instance, because many states have shit judges or are
too limp-wristed to incarcerate violent criminals for the appropriate amounts
of time. (feds love FIP because it finally puts the dirtbags away for at least
like 5-10 years... but we have to wonder, why doesnt the system just do
that to begin with, instead of relying on this band aid? )
I struggle with what constitutes the minimum, reasonable gun law set. Do we let recently released felons buy as many guns as they want, and let them give/sell them to anyone they want to, and expect the police to intervene only AFTER the crime? I lose sleep over that, as that might be the pure interpretation of 2ndA rights by some...and I might agree.
Let's put it this way.... getting "pure 2nd amendment" is a pipe
dream. Even I recognize that. I don't think that even with a 75% pro gun
congress w/pro gun president that we would ever be completely devoid of
regulation. I don't have a problem with "reasonable regulation" as is
afforded to other constitutional rights. The problem is, as I've said many
times before, here and elsewhere, that the metric ton and expanse of gun
laws that we have in existence now, hardly constitutes reasonable regulation.
Seriously, when's the last time you had to sign a government form, under penalty of
perjury, to exercise any of your other constitutional rights?
Can we not work within the pro-gun community to, not only maintain our own discipline, but to insist the executive and judicial branches uniformly enforce discipline throughout the country?
We're already doing that. The NRA in general has supported the efforts
of law enforcement in terms of using existing gun laws to put away corrupt
gun dealers and traffickers. The NRA has also supported efforts to increase
mandatory minimums for violent crimes, including those that involve
firearms. (recognizing that a lot of incidents are committed by repeat
offenders... ) The NSSF and other gun/industry orgs have
put out literature, posters and the like to FFLs to distribute information
about preventing gun trafficking. (eg, all the fluff about preventing
straw purchases and the like.)
My point was, is that any/all efforts by the industry or gun owners to
help curb any perceived problems are COMPLETELY ignored by the antis.
They don't care what we do, they just want guns banned, period, end.
Putting on a dog and pony show to make it look like we're "self regulating"
isn't going to make them go away.
At the same time, I can acknowledge that there may be some FFLs
that don't take things seriously and break the law, but ultimately they end
up getting caught and punished by the ATF, so that's mostly a self fixing
problem. The ATF is now operating on a "hair trigger" of sorts for even menial
procedural violations by the dealers. Look at the recent boobberg
incident- the very same dealers that boobberg was targeting were also
under investigation by the ATF. (And of course the ATF got pissed at him
for interfering in an ongoing investigation. ) I guess what I'm getting
at here, is the insinuation that there is no enforcement, and that nobody
is paying attention "down south" is pretty bogus.
Please don't take this to mean that I don't think that we shouldn't do
anything -more-... It's just about the reason and the methods
used. For example, having a campaign to educate more people about gun
safety and storage and the like is hardly a bad thing, but we shouldn't be
doing it with the intent of appeasing the antis. What we want
to do, however, is increase the number of legal gun owners and increase
awareness. The more owners we have, or at least the more informed people
that are out there, the better off we are as a whole... and the net
effect of those kind of programs are far more beneficial... why?
-We get to destroy media stereotypes which hurt us from various
angles. Once someone knows, they won't buy into them anymore.
-We get to foster a safety mindset; get people to learn that gun
accidents can almost completely be eliminated by following simple
procedures.
-We give people a reason to value their gun rights (a lot of people simply
have no remote clue about what it means to own or shoot a gun, even if
it's just in a recreational manner. )
Perhaps we share more in common than first meets the eye, but express our common ground differently?
That probably is more than likely the case. I'll be honest- some of my
response is in the vein of an emotional "red curtain of blood" so to speak-
I just get sick of even the remote insinuation that crime is exclusively
he fault of an inanimate object, or is the fault of gun dealers. I apologize
if I've come off as being overly hostile about it. You do seem
articulate and well read. I think what's happened here is that there are
slightly differing viewpoints on how we need to "fix" the problem. I'd rather
combat the antis through disseminating information, and making new
gun owners, making people more informed in general. The "letters to the
editor" that a lot of folks on this board write are a perfect example of
this. (amongst other things.... I know we have a lot of trainers on the
board too, and they also help, perhaps in an even bigger way. ) I just
personally believe that will bear better fruit in the long run than pretending
we're going to be able to stop criminals by ramping up enforcement; much of
which invariably gets directed at dealers and legal gun owners. (eg for
minor transgressions or false accusations.... ) There are plenty of
horror stories about the abuse of overzealous enforcement, and I'm sure you've
read and are more than familiar with them, and you realize that it's
more than just a tinfoil hat problem. The libertarian in me just says that when there
are too many laws or regs to enforce, things get rapidly out of control.... more laws,
especially dumb laws, also breeds more contempt for the law and a reduced likelihood
of them being obeyed. Absurd laws can also create problems that didn't exist before.
(look at the drug laws, for instance.. and see how wonderful that panned out. )
-Mike
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
This push by the antis should tell you that there is no 
