Add a Comment
Email This
Ammunition should be regulated in a similar manner.
As Chris Rock says, "If a bullet cost $5000, there would be no innocent bystanders."
Brandon,
You make some good points. After reading all the nerdy comments on this subject I can come around to the view that it is not gun ownership per se that is the fundamental problem. Rather, it is the American attitude to using guns. Plenty of other countries have liberal gun laws without having our problems because gun owners don't consider that aiming them at people will ever be a valid option.
We can see even on this nerdy site comments from fanatics who (encouraged by the NRA) are prepared to shoot police at their front door if their guns are threatened. One of them even thought that his military service had somehow earned him the right to have guns at home. More likely, it earned the rest of us the freedom and security to not need to have guns at home.
I am sure that most Americans who think in a paranoid way about guns are delightful people in everyday, life and are no threat at all when everything is going well for them. However, they hold a belief that their firearms empower them to deal with problems from other citizens or even from the government. This creates an instability in our society that every nown and then allows someone to go crazy with a gun.
So, even though gun ownership is not the problem, the invalid beliefs about gun empowerment has to be addressed in such a way that protects gun owners and the rest of us as best we can.
We need to provide strong guidance to these otherwise good people about what their guns can actually do for them, which is not much other than make them killers and land them in prison. Given that there are no real uses for a gun at home or on the street, the best way is to make it extremely difficult to possess one in those situations.
Making fire arms and ammunition extremely expensive would be useful. Licences that permt ownership should be available, but extremely expensive and require extensive background checks. Penalties for breach of the new gun laws should cause financial ruin and bring severe social stigma.
The freedom to own a gun should be as free as the freedom of speech and ownership should be as easy as buying a power drill at the hardware store or selling that same drill on the street.
Bad people who want guns have them or can get them. They didn’t fill out any forms or pass instant background checks. They obtained them the same way they may have gotten the car they are driving or the stereo they listen to steeling or trading stolen or illegal goods.
Thorough background checks carry a cost and a risk. Putting mental health, credit, and nation wide criminal records in one database under government control I believe violates the fourth amendment right to privacy.
Tracking guns does not prevent gun crimes. It does create a lack of freedom of ownership to a lawful person who would like to remain anonymous. It is also costly. Canada has lost billions to an under funded program that ultimately failed (1)
Penalties are already high enough for improper gun use. Like many of our laws crimes are not enforced or cannot be punished due to lack of resources and prison space.
You cannot determine under simple criteria what the purpose is of a gun. They tried with the Brady Bill and it has now passed into the sunset without increase of incidences where any of those weapons labeled “evil” being used. The guns used in crime are mainly pistols not something that costs $3,000.00 to buy and $1.20 a round to shoot.
Ammo should not be regulated or any type of identifier attempted. Could we consider freedom of speech without pen, paper or ink (choose one)? This also keeps many from cheaply reloading their own ammo saving themselves money and denying them a hobby. I have my own bullet press, powder and components would they regulate those.
Gun ownership is not a sport. It is a freedom and a right given to us for our protection under inspired leaders. As any freedom I understand unlawful use could take that right away but until then we cannot prejudge.
(1) http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/
If I understand you correctly, there are three reasons you think gun ownership should be "free as speech:"
- the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights,
- restricting gun use doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals, and
- tracking the information necessary to restrict gun control is too expensive and violates privacy rights.
I think these are valid points, but they certainly aren't unassailable.
In the first case, I agree the Bill of Rights should be protected - but I'm not willing to label it infallible. As long as the possibility exists for circumstances to arise in which it would be best to modify the Bill, we are forced to consider on some level if that time is now.
In the second case, I think the argument falls fairly easily if considered individually. Cocaine, after all, isn't taken out of the hands of criminals by being outlawed, but you wouldn't promote its legalization.
In the third case, I don't think the solution must be so inefficient as to be not worthwhile.
Overall, though, I think the effect of these arguments is greater than the sum of the parts. I agree the bearing of arms should be a right until forfeited, and I think I was hasty in describing it as a privalege. I do, however, still think there is improvement to be made in "the system" - and I'm still hopeful this could be accomplished by growing the list of what may potentially disqualify someone from the right to gun ownership in perhaps creative ways.
Do we trade an "[sic] essential liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety (1)"?
First - What wording could be use to modify or amend the bill of rights? I can only assume by your first argument you would change it from “the right to keep and bear arms” to “the privilege to keep and bear arms”. This to me is as unacceptable as saying we could only enjoy the privilege of having a jury if we deserve one.
Second – Making legal gun owners who have a right to bear arms feel like criminals every time they purchase a new gun is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. Let me illustrate by using the other amendments.
- How would a person who is about to make a speech feel if they had to pass a background check, take a training course and have the government edit out parts deemed too dangerous?
- Could the government take names, decide if things might get too dangerous, and perform psychological evaluations, without affecting the freedom of religion? Or even by the act of listing what religion everyone is and making it a record?
- How long would they keep “no gun” lists? Could you get off those lists if you were on one in error? Would “no gun” lists would be as useful and error free as the “no fly” lists is in present days?
I will also not argue that the sword is mightier than the pen or to say guns kill more people than ideas, religions or a gathering of people.
Third – "the solutions" so far have been proven inefficient and not worthwhile. Canada and Australia have done the proof for us. Adding restrictions to gun ownership does not improve public safety at a reasonable cost.
If someone who purchases a gun worry a tyrannical government is scrutinizing their actions? If that person has a right and not just the privilege to keep and bear arms I answer “NO”.
(1)http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
RSS
RE: Take all the privately own firearms and destroy them
I agree with you on many points, but I think your approach is flawed. Guns are dangerous and have the potential to inflict harm and kill people, but the United States was founded on the right to bear arms; it's an essential part of what makes America great. The solution, in my opinion, isn't in a categorical ban, but making gun ownership a privilege for those who have shown they are capable of dealing with it. The following should take us a long way in that direction:
I'm not concerned with making things convenient so people can continue to participate in gun-related sport or collecting. I realize such activities can be fun and the overwhelming majority of those participating in such activities would never engage in gun violence. (Even gun-related accidents are likely low among these, as they seem to usually be very safety conscientious.) After it's all said and done, however, it's just sport. The important thing to protect here is the right to bear arms, not to participate in convenient gun-related recreation. If the latter must be sacrificed in order to maintain rights and protect U.S. citizens - and it seems such might be the case - so be it.
View Full Discussion