January 26, 2013

• Gun Control

  Time and again it has been shown that gun control laws do not have the desired effect, yet politicians keep trying the same old ideas to curb violence that have failed in the past.  The Brady Law was allowed to expire because it proved to be ineffective.  The very cities that have historically had the toughest gun laws in the nation (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C.) have also had the highest violent crime rates while the cities with the fewest gun laws have had the lowest homicide rates.

  Now Dianne Feinstein wants to again pass a law similar to the Brady Law.  She wants to make "assault" weapons illegal.  Does she really think that gun laws like the one she wants to pass will actually have any effect?  Why would they!  Murder is already illegal throughout the country, yet between 8,000 and 12,000 people are murdered every year in the United States.  Did the laws against unlawfully killing another person prevent these murders?  Hell no!.  Stealing is also illegal, but does that prevent thousands of bank robberies, burglaries, and break-ins every year?   Nooo.  The only good having a law does is it enables application of penalties if one is caught breaking the law.

  When will they learn that criminals don't care about the law, and crazy people don't think about the law? 

  Now I am aware that there are those who say that civilians have no legitimate need for assault weapons, and with that I agree.  But what exactly is an assault weapon?  Actually, it is a fully automatic weapon that can spit-out 2/3 hundred bullets or more a minute with a single pull of the trigger.  Public ownership of such weapons has been illegal since the mid-1930s.  The only way someone other than the government can even get one is under some very special circumstances approved by the government who will then issue a special permit for said weapon which must then be stored and/or transported under very specific conditions.  They just aren't for sale anywhere to the likes of you and me.  What the proposed law wants to ban is not assault weapons, but assault/military look-a-like weapons that functionally are no different from any other semiautomatic rifle requiring a separate pull of the trigger for each bullet to be fired.

  But let's get back to the argument that there is no real use for lookalike weapons.  Not true.  Take the AR-15 that everyone is so upset about.  It is one of the most accurate rifles ever made out to about 500 yards.  It also has almost no recoil to speak of, making it an ideal choice for serious competition shooters throughout the country.  And its light weight makes it a good choice for hunters who must carry a rifles for many hours in the field.  So don't tell me it has no legitimate value in the hands of a law abiding citizen.  People who say that simply don't know what they are talking about.

  By the way, did you know that the law proposed by Dianne Feinstein would make illegal any handgun that uses a detachable clip or magazine.  That would make all pistols illegal, leaving only revolvers for public consumption.  It would also make illegal any gun that had one or more "military" style functions, whatever that means.  How about expulsion of a bullet from the barrel.  That could be said to be a military style function. 

  And did you know that the Feinstein bill also provides an exemption for federal officials?  (This according to Daniel Halper, The Weekly Standard, "Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Oficials," Jan 25, 2013, also confirmed by The Huffington Post).  How about that.  She's saying that she can continue to have a gun to protect herself, but you and I can not.  What a hypocrite!!

  Finally, I also have to ask who is the greater threat to the public and general welfare -- the law abiding citizen who legally owns a gun, or the criminal element of society that doesn't care about our laws?  Or maybe it's our politicians.

  • 1:29 pm
  • 7 Comments