First off: I agree with the need to address ALL of the issues surrounding gun violence, not guns ALONE. Mental health, poverty, family, societal morality, improved enforcement etc. I'm doing my part to raise good people who will not shoot people. But yes, guns are PART of the gun violence problem. If you don't think guns play ANY part in America's gun deaths, then skip this post-you'll be bored.
So, we're all growing accustomed to hearing the argument from the victorious Loophole Protectors that any strengthened or new gun control laws would be pointless because criminals don't follow laws.
In other words, laws are stupid and so is incarceration for breaking them. No one is safer when criminals are apprehended. And no crime is deterred by laws. And no laws are enforced anyway. So no gun sales would hypothetically be stopped-save for those of the honest felons/mentally ill people who got the background checks- and no lives (or not enough anyway to be worth it) would hypothetically be saved by background checks. So why try.
Lots of us lefties admittedly suspect this position is code for "Don't tread on me/the second amendment is sacred for all of eternity no matter who dies".
But if it's a legitimate observation that "laws are totally ineffective", then what is your supporting evidence? Or your opposition to a law for that matter if it will have no effect on gun-buying freedom? Bad guys could still get around the checks, and good guys could pass the checks. Everyone's happy right? If laws are useless?
Let's just say for a minute we all agree that even one innocent person's life (past in-utero age for this particular question) is worth saving.
Do you think that absolutely NO ONE abstains from various behaviors because they are illegal? Do you think our current laws are never enforced? Based on what figures?
And, for those of you who have studied the cause and effect of laws and deemed them useless in fighting crime, what other laws would you remove from our American law books if you were president--sorry, I mean if you were the senate? All of the laws?
Any other background checks you feel are completely ineffective for screening dangerous people?
Dana, I did not mean to disrespect pro-life stance, just trying to keep this question separate.
@Chicago Lots of guns used in Chicago's crimes are purchased over state lines in states with lax gun laws which is why varying state laws is a mess.
Flaming Turnip. I disagree that laws are never enforced and so would most cops, lawyers and judges. Not EVERY law is enforced adequately EVERY time, but that doesn't mean you quit making laws when massacres are routinely happening. Why was an ARMY after the Boston bombers? Because terrorism is illegal so law enforcement is used. Would every major conscienceless law breaker be deterred by a law? No. Maybe just a few. Like just a few people who don't do things because they don't want it on their record even if they see nothing wrong with it. And a few others punished for possession. And a couple of others shut down for selling illegally. And the demand for the manufacture of these weapons decreased just a little of they're not flying out of the gun shows an internet sales in the thousands per month. All in all, it might add up to at least one less death per year.
NYMetromom-so you're saying that because criminals have gotten through loopholes, we should keep the loopholes open? I agree with some of your points, but don't see how they cancel out support for stronger laws. We're not expecting to instantly stop all criminals, just edge things to microscopically slightly less deadly levels. The high profile gunmen in recent cases do not match your description of illegals, and I highly disagree that most gun murderers are left wingers (or right for that matter). In any case there are ALL types of criminals, and stopping even one or two is good.
Gamma G. Intriguing points and some great ideas. I am 100% behind you on health care issue and legalizing some prosperous things too. But no one is coming for any guns-they're asking for certain weapons that USED to be banned until Bush let the ban expire to be banned AGAIN, and they're asking for background checks. That's not trying to disarm a country of their leisure time shooting hobbies.
MNMomofTeens What do you mean you would be grossly affected? And why do you get to have illegal things in your home if I don't? (why are those illegal and what's new in gun laws about "this administration?") My friend's husband has a whole room full of guns and none of them are illegal nor would he have been affected by the proposed bill. But let's say it did affect a couple of guns you had-there was nothing even in the bill about "removing guns". Plus, when people won't sympathize with thousands of shooting victims-many of whom were shot by guns taken from law abiding citizens by relatives or friends, how can you expect sympathy that you won't be able to shoot a few different kinds of species of animals? Is that supposed to be more important? None of those guns sound like high capacity assault rifles and if they were purchased legally by people who would pass a background check, how would you have been affected by the proposed laws?
hahaha, I have not been called an anarchist since last time I listened to the Sex Pistols. Thanks for that :)
Why not have clinics and hospitals report those that are unstable instead of having everyone do a background check? Information is good unless it is put in the wrong hands so the least amount of intrusion is best. How about better care for those that are unstable so that they don't end up committing the crimes to begin with.
The law I would change if I were president would be the killing of all those you don't want to hear about. Who knows, one of those children could have had the answers we are all looking for.
My supporting evidence: Chicago.
Do you really think that criminals (who know very well that they have a record) are going to go through legal channels to purchase a firearm when there's a perfectly good black market that won't track their movements???
I would remove ALL federal legislation that should be delegated to the states according to the 10th amendment. I'm not an anarchist. I just don't think that the federal government needs its fingers in everything. The beauraucracy is out of control and must be reined in.
ETA: "@Chicago Lots of guns used in Chicago's crimes are purchased over state lines in states with lax gun laws which is why varying state laws is a mess."
Citation?
Okay...after reading the article that was posted below (NY Times link)...
I wonder what the violent gun crime rate would be like if law abiding citizens were able to protect themselves from the criminals bringing guns into Chicago. The city with a gun ban has the highest rate of gun violence...why? Not because of other states! It's because it's easy pickings for criminals when only THEY have guns. Just like schools are soft targets for crazies because there's nobody there to shoot back.
ETA2: How the heck did my original post show twice??? Whoa.
criminals do not follow the law. they do not get their guns from legal gun sellers. the defination of "criminal " should give you the clue to that.
One who engages in illegal activities.
More gun laws are not going to effect criminals.
period. I am so sick of hearing well if we just have better back ground checks then we'd have less gun violance, tell me how all those gun laws are working out for Chicago. Its been shown in towns where everyone has a gun, there is less gun violence. criminals don't want to go up against someone that may have a gun. How's that background check gonna go down for the guy selling firearms out of the back of a van in a motel parking lot.
with the mentally ill angle, where do you stop, where do you draw the line what is going to be considered mentally ill? If because I've taken anti depressants in the past is that mentally ill. I also have ADHD , does that mean I'm mentally ill?
ETA:
ok really 90% , just because someone in "charge" says it's 90 does not mean it's true.
The current gallup poll numbers says only 38% want stricter gun laws
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159824/u.s.-dissatisfied-want-...
And it was taken just after the Newtown shooting
Highest numbers put out by the AP say 49% which is lower than what it was just after newtown , with them being at 58%
They never have and never will be legitimately 90%.
ETA2:
Kari,
Citizens aren't armed like the military. Learn a little about guns before you go popping of. It's already illegal for a civilian to own a weapon that fires more than one round per trigger pull. What they are wanting to ban are guns that automatically reload , which is what " semi automatic" means. Most firearms made in the past 60 yrs would be banned under this premise. So yes they are trying to " take our guns away" . all a civilian AK-47 is , is a scary looking hunting rifle. Just cause it looks scary doesn't mean it is. get some education.
I'm not going to respond to the actual question since I belong to the majority of Americans (90% at last count) who believe that our nation's gun laws should be strengthened.
I just want to send you a million flowers for posting this.
I don't think you can equate what you have. Yes, criminals will find a way regardless of the law...but that doesn't mean that I don't think incarceration has it's value! Yeesh! I think what people are trying to convey is that more gun control laws will NOT prevent psychos from obtaining guns or using them. And as we have all learned through tragedy, recently, it doesn't take a gun. Just a bit of ingenuity.
I don't think anyone is calling for anarchy as a way to solve this. More care is needed to look at the roots of the problem, instead of pointless ends to a means. Nope, more gun control won't help. Education? Perhaps. Better mental health care, a call for more responsibility in said field? Absolutely.
And seriously...am I missing something? Who said all laws are ineffective? Where do you get your totality?
Hear hear. Well put.
Okay, I'm in a hurry, so I'm just skimming through the post and the responses, so maybe I'm missing some crucial point. (I do agree, A., that it might be best not to start your persuasive argument by calling your opponents "anarchists," which instantly damages your argument.) But I just can't understand any argument against background checks, despite the fact that there might be ways around them and that criminals may still be able to purchase guns anyway.
Why is everyone so afraid of and offended by background checks? I've had my background checked numerous times in the past couple of decades, for school-related stuff, and I didn't think it was a big deal.
Just because something has flaws and loopholes (like just about everything does), doesn't mean it should be abandoned altogether.
My supporting evidence: Chicago.
Do you really think that criminals (who know very well that they have a record) are going to go through legal channels to purchase a firearm when there's a perfectly good black market that won't track their movements???
I would remove ALL federal legislation that should be delegated to the states according to the 10th amendment. I'm not an anarchist. I just don't think that the federal government needs its fingers in everything. The beauraucracy is out of control and must be reined in.
ETA: Background checks do work. In 2010, over 70,000 people were denied a firearm due to failing a background check. Do the assumption that people that will fail will buy illegally is irrelevant. Do your homework before ASSUMING you "know" how it is.....
A million flowers A..
The logic of doing NOTHING because there will be the fring that doesnt abide by laws is ridiculous, I agree.
All I can say is that there is something wrong with lawmakers that deny this country what NINETY PERCENT if the citizens support.
I wonder when the "patriots" will scream foul about that?
I'm pretty certain if any O. of them were retrieving THEIR child flesh pieces from the sidewalk or classroom floor, their tune would change -- and quick.
When you know better, you do better.
I've about had it with the "they're comin' fer our gunz" MINORITY.
Thing is--you HAVE to start somewhere.
And I can't help but feel that any gun owner (my family included) that wouldn't turn over their non hunting guns if it meant saving O. child probably wouldn't pass a mental stability background check!
Look at how much terrorism has been thwarted since we KNOW better.
Look how breathalyzers and license loss has reduced drunk driving.
Look at how infant restraint seats have reduced child injuries in collisions.
Look at how car manufacturers have increased vehicle crash ratings since they know most crashes are not head on put at the front fenders.
No--let's talk about prohibition, restricting the rights of women and the terrorists down the block.
88 gun deaths per day vs. 3000 terrorism deaths in 3 decades.
Think about those numbers. Even if half are suicides, that's still 16,000 gun deaths per year!
O. word: Bubble
Gravity and consequences.
