Our never ending discussion of gun control is a good example. The Congressional Research Service put the number of civilian firearms ownership in the United States at 310 million back in 2009, and as long as our current administration is in office the number is growing daily.
Let's look at the reality; guns are here to stay. Stop all guns manufacturing, stop the sale of all guns and we still have 310 million plus guns floating around. I can think of no law short of confiscation that will reduce that number, and getting back to reality, how well do you think confiscating 310 million guns would work?
Another element of reality is guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. In fact, many of the horrendous killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and popped the bad guy, or, hopefully, the gunman used a gun on himself. Guns are objects that can be used for good and bad. We reduce the bad, the good is also diminished.
I am asking Liberals, because I really don't know, if a Liberal president were King (notice I'm not making any snarky comment regarding our current situation) what new laws, in addition to the about 300 existing state and Federal laws, would you want implemented? Every time there is multiple shooting, that doesn’t involve black shooting whites, there is a hue and cry to provide some "common sense solutions," to "do something." What is that, "something" Liberals would like done? Seriously. While putting your thoughts together, please try to keep in mind how your solution will keep the guns out of the hands of those folks who are not into obeying laws.
Lately, I've noticed an effort by pro and con gun control folks to liken guns with anything that happens to be laying around; abortion, cars and Nazi Germany. The problem is nothing is really like anything else, but both sides are willing to try anything.
For example, I have seen the chart which states that to own a gun a person should have to do at least what's required to own a car. That would be title and tag, training, written and practical tests, health requirements, liability, renewals, and inspections. (This could be a beginning in preparing the Liberals' wish list). This comparison is, at best, a stretch considering the fact that owning a gun is a second amendment right, and nobody has a "right" to own a car (at least until Bernie Sanders becomes President). Also, if all the car equivalent requirements were placed on a gun, how does that stop the bad guys from doing bad things? All the car laws haven't stopped the multiple DUI crazies from hitting the road and anything on it. Is the car the problem, or is it the driver?
It is interesting when you consider that many on the left would like to apply all the "paperwork" possible to own a gun; a license, maybe even an owner ID to show they have met all the legal requirement for gun ownership. How does that sound to the gun control advocates? Are those requirements on your list? Since gun ownership is being tied to random actions, let's tie it to something not so random, another "right." We as citizens have the right to vote. How can the left want ID cards for one right, gun ownership, but fight fiercely for no ID card requirement for another right, the right to vote? It would seem if an ID was required to own a gun and poor people apparently cannot get ID cards, the left would be engaging in "gun suppression." The poor would be restricted from their constitutional right to own a gun. Could the left be disenfranchising the poor in their ability to protect themselves?
I'm sure more in-depth federal background checks would be high on the left's list. I have no real problem with that, conceptually. Where this is in effect they seem to have made a positive difference in keeping guns out of the hands of people with specific "problems," but here comes that old bug-a-boo reality again. As a Conservative I am concerned over the bureaucratic federal government's ability to effectively and efficiently handle what would be required to conduct background checks on the ten million new guns purchased each year. (While at the same time effectively and efficiently handling our health care.) Also, as I understand, the core reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure the folks always had a recourse to the actions of a tyrannical government and with the requirement to interact with the government for each gun purchased, the government would have records on the location of each weapon. Far-reaching? Maybe, but I've seen things these last few years I would have also considered far-reaching.
Since I have asked the left for their ideas on curtailing gun violence, here are some of my own ideas. Guns are here to stay I'll start from that premise. I don't care if people walk around with bazookas strapped around their shoulder AS LONG AS THEY DON'T USE THEM. To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make," except for a lousy fashion statement. The gun, knife, hammer, sock-o-rocks do not kill people if they are not used, so doesn't it make more sense to control gun violence by severely punishing the misuse? Don't punish the purchase, punish the use.
As a people and as a society we get what we want. We say we want as close to zero gun violence as possible. We say we don't want guns in the hands of those who use them for ill-gotten gains. How about this-- the police stop anyone they think might be up to no good. If they have a gun in their possession, without the proper paperwork, the policeman on the spot cuts off their gun hand. How long do you think the problem of guns in the wrong hands (no pun intended) would last? Punishment would work.
Also, it seems many of the shootings are done by the shooter for notoriety. Why would we ever give deranged scumbags what they want? Don't give out names, go with "Scumbag," then hang them upside down naked from a pole in the town square for a week so people can come by and make a family outing by spitting on them.
"We can't do that, we are a nation of laws, caring and compassion. We are not savages."
OK! While I'm convinced the "hands off" and the "upside down" approach would work the best, I don't hold much hope of that approach being adopted, so let's try it this way. Let's put a full, "Stop and Frisk," on every known gang member, then extend that to every young man in high crime areas. Let's bring in the National Guard if necessary. Everyone with a gun and no paperwork gets mandatory prison time. Committing a crime with a gun tags on an additional 10 years to the sentence. Any doubt this would reduce the number of guns on the street? Any doubt why we don't do it?"
We say we want to reduce gun violence, but the reality is a very vocal segment of society does not wish to hurt anyone's feelings (read-minorities). We get what we really want, no hurt feelings in the minority communities. Of course by achieving the "want" we really want, we leave dead bodies strewn all over the landscape.
To summarize: The gun has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. So what do we do? Both Left and Right want to reduce deaths by gun. (I say reduce. Because with the loon factor in the world, it will never be eliminated.) The Left would reduce gun violence by controlling the gun itself through background checks, licensing, etc. The Right would reduce gun violence by a punishment of the gun user through mandatory sentencing for illegal gun activity. The Right doesn't like the Left's idea because it punishes the good guys. The Left doesn't like the Right's idea because it punishes the bad guys. So here we sit......Waiting for the next one.
