Well, golgi1, I am in complete agreement with you on this. It would make a lot more sense to "ban" handguns, as you call it, or to take some commonsense steps to keep them out of the hands of criminals, as I'd describe it. Politically, however, it seems to be a nonstarter. I think a hell of a lot of those military veterans would prefer that guns be available for people who have a need for them and know how to use them. The vast majority of those vets are not criminals, and probably don't like the idea of criminals having easy access to guns.
In this discussion, I'm trying to stay as real as possible. Give me some credit for that. I say "ban" to keep it real and to be flexible, even though I think that social values overhaul is the only truly socially responsible first step, because I know what they already go through to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I challenge you to describe some realistic steps that could be taken to further keep handguns out of the hands of criminals. What can they do? They already do a background check. If you have any significant criminal history, or mental health history (sometimes as little as anxiety or depression), then no gun. They also have gun task forces (my uncle heads one) that go door to door and check on new gun purchasers that they suspect might be making straw man purchases. They do keep some guns out of the hands of criminals with these steps in place, but the truth is that true criminals will find a way. One of the most common ways that handguns find their way onto the black market is through theft. How can you stop that? You can't unless you want to give out high-security door-locks to all gun owners -oh, and free installation. People lock up their guns, sure, but safes actually aren't much of a challenge for professional home burglars. Many commonly sold small safes can be cracked with a rubber mallet. Besides, most people are stupid and irresponsible, despite not being criminals, and don't properly secure their guns., Guns will always, always, always get stolen and the most determined, murderous criminals will always, always, always obtain a gun if they want one - ban or no ban.
Is it seriously your "value" that criminals should be able to buy and sell guns like candy, and our gun laws be a patchwork quilt that holds water like a sieve? I'm not asking you to give up your guns. You are making that up. Can you produce the huge network of liberal bogeymen that are trying to disarm you? I call bullshit on that. I don't mean find a college professor or a crazy cat lady somewhere who thinks all guns should be banned. Find us the organized, politically powerful group, anywhere in America, who has even a remote chance of bringing laws like that to pass. Find us the anti-NRA. Find us the majority in the Senate, the House, and a President who would sign such a law. I don't think they exist.
C'mon dude, don't make me respond to hyperbole. That's insulting at this point. Let's keep it within the bounds of what I actually said. You know this isn't my value. However, again, I ask what can be done? I'd be for anything that truly had a chance at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. However, I'm dubious. Hell, do you know how many little Johnny criminal murderers have access to their non-criminal father's sock drawer or even his gun safe? Sandy hook is a prime example of someone, who was about to be committed for mental instability, having access to a perfectly normal non-criminal's guns. Not getting him help in time, or removing gun access in time, is what led to his gun access. Time management is what failed, in terms of getting what needed to be done, done. Time will always be a factor. Sometimes, these people will be identified and dealt with, or their environment modified, in time. Sometimes they will not. Granted, insane people are likely harder to identify and predict than are classic sociopath criminals who are less likely to fly under the radar, and therefore mental illness induced snaps will likely never be stopped. Although, marginalized kids should probably be given lots of social help and support in the future, as an institutional priority. Perhaps such intervention can mitigate some of these social pariah facilitated mass slayings. Until the social fabric is overhauled toward more traditional conservative family values, my opinion is that the law of large numbers dictates that the high murder count will continue, especially in urban areas, ban or no ban. However, as far as trying to get handguns out of the hands of murderers, have at it. I'd be interested in reading a proposal that details how you can preserve firearms ownership as well as keep guns out of the hands of criminals or, for the sake or argument, even just the latter with a reasonable measure of effort and within a reasonable time-frame that justifies disarming everyone else and leaving them vulnerable in the interim. In short, lay out your solution - whatever it is.
As far as politics are concerned, of course the power isn't there yet. Otherwise, guns would be controlled or commonly debated to a greater degree than they are. I spoke to the will of the people who introduce irrational, impractical beginning steps like a ban on assault rifles. Such a ban would be political in nature only, leading to little to no real world reduction in the overall small arms homicide rate. Therefore, such an action is strategy. I believe that the ultimate motivation is a complete gun ban. Political strategy is everything in hotly contested long-term debates, and I cannot be faulted for pointing out the political strategy that I predict gun opponents to be using given that their current focus is irrational in light of the nature of small-arms violence statistical reality.
I also spoke to my perception of the appropriateness of this type of political action being relative to the type of society in which we live and will live in the future. So, you can't pigeon hole me, nor what I believe, as being wholly irrational or inflexible. It's not, and I'm not. People like me see a violence obsessed, completely self indulgent individualistic society as breeding individuals who are more likely to not only commit high-profile mass killings, but more significantly who are going to be more likely to walk up and execute you on the street for ten dollars and not think a thing of it. It is these latter people who, statistically speaking, are the real problem. Their family lives, their influences, and their warning signs being consistently ignored or forgiven are the real problems. As I before stated, there are the equivelant of 15.3 Sandy Hooks in my city every year, commited by an amlagam of individuals that mostly fit the long-term criminal sociopath profile that our society is proficient and ever-getting better at incubating. It is offensive to many Americans that you tell us that this liberalization of society (and the necessarily parallel reduction in family values and reduction in emphasis on the traditional family in general) is something that we have to accept, and then turn around and tell us that the obvious effect of an increasing homicide rate is also the fault of the tools that we own that were before never such a problem in the hands of a better formed, more traditional society. We see you as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. It can not be ignored that people who belong to the NRA or identify with those who do, overwhelmingly, are not the source of the violence problem. If guns are the true problem, then why the difference in violence rates between demographics? Guns aren't the problem, people are, and more specifically the culture is. I already laid out my case for the importance of gun (rifle) ownership, and will only follow up by stating that it is well known that once given up, gun rights will never return. Therefore, the plea for an objective, rational assessment of the casue of the real problem.
Edited by golgi1, 25 December 2012 - 05:23 AM.
LongeCity
