The National Rifle Association solution

Advertisement

Heads up, politicos! There’s a new wind blowing across this country. And we can point to the National Rifle Association as the up-wind source. It has devised a principle which, if generously applied to every problem, might easily resolve even the most tenacious tangle.

I call it the Even More Of The Same Solution, or EMOTS (pronounced emotes) for short.

Take the current rage over gunslingers slipping into our schools, offices, theaters and shopping malls. The obvious strategy might involve some well-intended attempt to limit the numbers and types of weapons available for such mischief or (heaven forbid) a naive attempt to identify and inhibit gunslingers before they draw down on any innocent.

This path might encourage studies (shudder!) and blue ribbon commissions to carefully consider where we might find if not a tipping point, at least a tickle point, to begin blunting this threat.

No need for any of that expensive, time-consuming deliberation under the EMOTS strategy. What does the NRA prescribe? Even more guns! Brilliant!

We could probably, applying this same genius insight, resolve the debt crisis by borrowing even more. Global warming? Simply increase greenhouse gas emissions. Unclog freeways by encouraging even more cars. Nobody, and I mean nobody’s ever gonna vote against that!

The beauty of EMOTS centers on the easy popularity it engenders. For a House member or senator who might be sweating some controversial stand, padding the old platform with a healthy fistful of EMOTS pretty much ensures re-election, even against the most otherwise threateningly progressive opponents.

And nobody needs to be a policy wonk or some think-tank egghead to create broadly satisfying solutions to any problem if they simply employ EMOTS.

Illegal immigrants overrunning the border? Encourage even more! Smokers dropping like flies? Just imagine how many fewer smokers we’d have today if our mommy government had just responded to that crisis by implementing an EMOTS strategy.

So remember, whatever the trouble, a moment of mindful reflection might be worth years, even decades of careful consideration and constituency-conditioning. It’s as easy as pulling your uncle’s finger. Just ask yourself, “What would the NRA do?” EMOTS: guaranteed to be the absolutely most conservative response to every situation. Libertarian-friendly, too!

(Note: No sacred cows were harmed in the drafting or final editing of this letter.)

David A. Schmaltz

Takoma Park, Md.

former Walla Walla resident

Comments

wallyworldguy 1 year, 8 months ago

No, he is just a Liberal with an agenda.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

hahahahaha. Good one, David.

0

carcrazy 1 year, 8 months ago

Dumbest thing I've ever read, what a waste of time.

1

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

bj and carcrazy, please make an cogent argument that more guns makes anymore sense than more debt, more smokers, more immigrants.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

I'm not sure more smokers is a good idea under any circumstances, but more debt and more immigrants are not necessarily bad. Wise debt is a good thing, as are most legal immigrants and even some of the illegals. In that, guns ARE much like debt and immigrants. In the hands of law-abiding Americans, they are a positive benefit just like wise debt and hard-working immigrants with needed skills.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

What do you see as the positive benefits of guns in the hands of law abiding Americans? I am under the impression, for example, that England seems to get along without guns and there is less violence.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

Crime is linked with culture, and England's culture has long been very different from ours. Until the last two or three decades, it was much more homogeneous ethnically, more stratified by class, more respectful of authority, etc. All of these traits tend to reduce violence. It was less violent than the U.S. long before they banned guns there. In fact, it has become MORE violent since guns were banned, while the U.S. has become LESS violent as gun laws have become less restrictive. Cause and effect?

Even within our country, the cultures of different urban areas result in dramatically different violent crime rates. Consider two cities of similar size: Detroit, with 2,800 police officers, has a murder rate of 48 per 100,000, while Fort Worth, TX, withonly 1,500 police officers, has a murder rate of 6 per 100,000, despite Texas's notoriously lax gun laws.

I see these benefits to widespread gun ownership among law-abiding citizens:

1) Crime termination. Many crimes every week are interrupted by the victim pulling a gun on the criminal(s). From attempted store robberies, burglaries, home invasions, murders, rapes, aggravated assaults and car-jackings, every day several people prevent the completion of an attempted crime with the help of a firearm. In most cases, no shots are fired, but every year there are about 300 justifiable homicides by civilians who kill a criminal engaging in a violent felony, about 80% of them with guns.

More below.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

2) Crime deterrence. Criminals are aware of point 1 above. The belief that their potential victims might be armed deters criminals or causes them to change their methodology. Thus, in the U.S., most burglars try to avoid occupied homes; it the U.K., since guns were banned, the number of home invasions of occupied homes has skyrocketed. There have been several respected studies of inmate populations that demonstrate that criminals are concerned about and change their behavior based on whether or not they think their prospective victim is armed, as well as scholarly estimates based on the proven deterrent effect of law enforcement shootings and executions. Granted, in some cases criminals simply redirect their attention to a victim they believe to be unarmed, but the uncertainty as to who is and who isn't armed unquestionably reduces the total incidence of crime.

3) Crime prevention. In most cases, crimes that are stopped by civilians result in the capture and conviction of the criminal. For crimes such as rape, robbery, burglary and home invasion, the rate of capture by law enforcement typically modest, so criminals captured by civilians would likely have gone free otherwise. Since the typical criminal engages in multiple crimes over the course of his (or rarely, her) life, the capture and conviction of a criminal prevents all the crimes he would have committed during the years he is incarcerated (or for the rest of his life, if he is one of those 300 killed each year).

4) A more self-reliant citizenry. You may disagree, but it seems to me that the belief that one is incapable of self-defense, that one is not responsible for one's own security, that one is completely dependent upon government agents for one's personal protection, and that this outlook is realistic is not, in my opinion, compatible with full adulthood. It is the mind-set of a child, and infantilizes our society. An adult recognizes that the world contains dangers and acknowledges that he or she is and must always be the first line of defense for him/herself and his/her family, and should be willing and able to defend his/her community as well. It's fine for sheep to look to the shepherd and the dog to guard them and herd them; it's not fine for humans.

5) Shooting is an enjoyable hobby probably no more dangerous than golf and certainly safer than bicycling, skiing or snowboarding. It's good for people to have fun.

6) Guns are impressive and often beautiful machines, which many people enjoy collecting.

0

carcrazy 1 year, 8 months ago

I don't have to, it's an irrelevant attempt at sarcasm by Schmaltz. Not worthy of my time.

1

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

I thought Schmaltz made a good point. Make a better one other than calling his the dumbest thing you've ever read. Why isn't slowing down the acquisition of guns through background checks, eliminating assault rifles and reducing the magazine size, for example, as equally effective as having an armed Sheriff Deputy at WA-hi. Someone with an assault rifle could wipe out part of the school before the armed deputy was in the right spot to do anything?

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

You ask, "Why isn't slowing down the acquisition of guns through background checks, eliminating assault rifles and reducing the magazine size, as equally effective as having an armed Sheriff Deputy at WA-hi." Well, it just isn't.

Making lawful owners of a gun pay for background checks on their own kids, siblings, friends, neighbors or co-workers, before they can transfer a gun to them, or even loan one for a hunting season, isn't effective because that's not how mass shooters or youthful gangbangers get their weapons. They do not get them by buying or borrowing them from lawful gun owners. They steal them, or buy them from others who own them illegally already. Lawful gun owners are sensible people; we are not at all interested in putting guns in the hands of felons or the deranged.

True assault rifles (i.e., automatic rifles) are already subject to extremely restrictive requirements for ownership. Most people when they talk about assault rifles are really talking about SEMI-automatic 'military-style' rifles, like the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza at Newtown. Eliminating all military-style rifles is unrealistic. There are an estimated 3.75 million AR-15s in US private ownership, and millions more of other variants of military-style rifles.

Another reason trying to eliminate military-style rifles won't work at reducing gun violence is that these style rifles are used in an extremely small number of gun crimes. Even if you COULD 'eliminate' them, it would make no real difference.

Reducing magazine size would not be effective because, while there's a tiny amount of greater efficiency in using a larger-capacity magazine, that is likely offset by more frequent jamming. Moreover, especially with pistols, changing a magazine is, with just a little practice, a matter of about one (1) SECOND. Forcing someone to give up their 17-round pistol in favor of a 10-round simply means that they need to purchase a few more magazines to fire nearly the same number of bullets in the same amount of time.

These proposals are feel-good non-solutions.

You could really make a serious dent in gun violence by locking up juvenile gangbangers on their first crime and keep them locked up until they reach an age at which most acquire a modicum of self-control, say 25 or so, instead of waiting until after they've killed someone to do that.

I'm not sure what can be done about the Adam Lanzas out there. Some are perceived by their families as walking time bombs, but even of those, only a small percentage will go on to actually harm anyone, and we can't lock them all up preventively.

The best we can do, I think, is provide armed protection in particularly vulnerable places. Even most would-be mass killers seem to avoid places that have armed guards. Crazy isn't the same as stupid.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

PearlY, the following is how guns get into the hands of people who shouldn't have them:

Virtually every gun starts out as a legally manufactured product, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) points to three common ways guns move from legal distribution channels to the criminal market:

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.
Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check.
Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.”

According to the AFT, spouses, relatives, friends are often responsible for purchasing guns for the irresponsible and probably wouldn't have done so if subjected to a background check.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

PearlY, it is short but read the part "Where do Crime Guns Come from" on http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/ #2. Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check.**

I don't understand why you think laws won't slow things down. Laws will never get rid of all guns from the hands of criminals but given what the AFT says about straw and gun loophole purchases, I'd think that laws closing up both would slow crime down. I tend to think that slowing down the sale of guns is akin to slowing down cars going too fast. It won't eliminate accidents but it helps.

Semi-automatic guns have been involved with too many massacres in this country including Aurora and Sandy Hook. Yes, we can't eliminate AZ-15 altogether but if there had been laws prohibiting their sale, Lanza would not have had one and chances are that more lives would have been spared.

Speaking of Lanza, why do you think that Lanza took high capacity magazine with him instead of 10 rounds? He obviously wasn't concerned about the 20 and 30 round jamming. I would have preferred being confronted by a 10 round magazine than a higher capacity one with the chance he could have fumbled long enough to move in on him.

Banks have armed guards and it doesn't eliminate bank robberies. Wa-Hi is so open that it would need more armed guards than the school district could afford. If some loony stormed the school, I'd expect him or her to take out the guard first thing, with a silencer, but maybe this is the reason I am not Secretary of Defense.

Thanks for engaging me PearlY. I'm really trying to learn.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

blueskies, I'll respond below to as many of the points you raise as possible in the time I have this AM. I'll come back tonight and finish if I can.

0

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

It does seem rather ironic that a large majority of schools all through the US of A are going to the armed security in schools. So to say the least as carcrazy stated that this is really an irrelevant waste of time when this analogy has been disproved by the majority of honest law-abiding citizens.

0

barracuda 1 year, 8 months ago

Our own WA-hi has an armed Sheriff's Deputy..........

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

"Large majority of schools". Where are you getting your stats? I'm not clear as to what are you saying the majority of honest law-abiding citizens have disproved?

0

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

Maybe you should check some websites in the Red States and find that most are hiring armed security. If your looking in Blue States you will find a few schools but most of the gun control advocates would rather disarm the law-abiding citizens and not consider that the criminals are the ones that commit the crimes. I'm also talking small schools.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

Who is talking about disarming law-abiding citizens?No one, including Obama. Background checks and magazine limits would not take away guns away. They would slow down the acquisition and would probably keep them out of the hands of the mentally disturbed.

There are no stats about states hiring armed security. In a Google search there were a few examples of a county here or there but not many. It appears that about 12 states initiated vs. implemented legislation right after Sandy Hook but the reality is that most states can't afford armed security let alone public education. Maybe you can do a better job than I have done.

0

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

blueskies - when you start limiting freedom you are causing the price of the item to inflate. An example - fossil fuels - EPA has so many regulations going in all aspects of drilling and refining that if you notice the price is skyrocketing. The fuel has more than doubled since 2009. You add more background checks and what difference does it make how big the clips are. The only ones that can keep the guns from the mentally challenged are those close to that person and if they are not observant enough to figure out what is going on then there really is a problem. I'm just saying they are looking in the wrong direction to cure the problem.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

Thanks, namvet. I suspect you are right that with background checks, magazine size probably isn't as critical although something in me thinks that limiting magazine size is still a good idea. If Lansa, for example, had taken the smaller magazines to the school instead of the bigger ones, there might have been fewer deaths. Do we really need big magazines? I am really going to get myself into trouble with every male's fantasy for fast cars, but high capacity gun magazines remind me of wanting a high horse powered car. There really isn't a safe place to test the horsepower but that is no deterrent wanting one or to those who can afford them. Remember that 1.1 million $ Ferrari Enzo that crashed around 2008. It happened in the neighborhood where we moved up from. Dumb place to be speeding even with no traffic. The guy was going about 160 mph. Speed limits make some sense. Can magazine size make some sense as well? What purpose do high capacity magazines serve?

I'm not sure I can see your argument that limiting freedom necessarily means price inflation. For example, if monopolies aren't regulated (limiting freedom) we see huge price increases. I tend to think that the EPA has less to do with the increase of gas prices than the OPEC cartel (monopoly) and the demand by developing countries like China and India.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

blueskies, when you make it illegal for anyone to buy a magazine of more than 10 rounds, you don't have to "take away" someone's 17-round pistol. It will simply become unusable when that person's last existing magazine wears out, which they do if its owner goes to the range regularly.

Morever, the Feinstein proposals all would require anyone who wants to keep their adequate-capacity firearms (I consider a 10-round to be low-capacity) to register with the government. A lot of people, based on the examples of what has happened in other countries, rationally worry that is simply a precurser to confiscation.

Given that the people who promise us it isn't are the same people who promised we could keep our health insurance plans if we liked them, which has already been proven a lie, why should Obama be believed on this?

And it is simply deception to say that no one is talking about disarming law-abiding citizens. Maybe not right now, but Senator Feinstein, who's leading the anti-gun owners' proposals in the Senate, and Obama have both talked about taking guns away from law abiding citizens. They both have said, in the past, that that is precisely their long term goal.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

We'll talk about healthcare in another LTE's comments. I see things a bit differently than you do so appreciate the discussion.

As for the gun discussion, I've never heard or read that either Feinstein, who until recently was my California senator, or Obama having ever said anything about taking guns away from law abiding citizens except for assault weapons. I'm open for correction.

I'm not sure I follow you with your first paragraph. I'm not even sure what question to ask to get some clarity but suspect you made a good point. We have a cache of guns around here but I don't use them so am quite ignorant as is probably very apparent.

0

stvsngltn 1 year, 8 months ago

X-ringer (bulls eye for non-shooters), namvet60. Just sent in a letter regarding this and the nonsense from Schmaltz and also that, to me, using an attempt at humorous satire in light of this horrific tragedy is out of line.

0

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

Well we better hang on to our hats because with the stabbing in a Texas College today we may be going back to the stone age and if we want to eat a tough piece of meat we rip it apart. :) Knives are history.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

Time to go vegetarian, namvet :).

No one is asking for either knives and guns to be eliminated so watch your red meat intake since yesterday it was announced that it causes the bacteria in the gut to make TMAO which increases the risk of heart attacks.

0

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

You are right. But the problem is that they don't want you to eat at all. The vegetables are laden with ecoli - all types of meats (doesn't make any difference what kind) are full of steriods and other growth hormones - And last but not least is that all the fish are full of mercury. So since they don't want to log anymore I would guess tree bark and tree pulp is the next alternative but then again they are probably full of toxins and carbons. We can't win :)

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

It would be easy to lose one's appetite if you read too much about our food sources. My boyfriend hunts and fishes so that is what we eat. I keep telling myself that it has to be healthier than meat you buy in the store but I might be kidding myself. I buy organic or free range chicken occasionally. I'm not convinced it is any better than regular chicken. due to imprecise labeling. Vegetables--mostly out of our garden but my neighbor tells me that she wouldn't eat one thing out of our garden because our dogs pee all everything. Pleasant thought.

0

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

Here's one to put in the Gun Control hats - The middle of last month there was a vote in the Senate whether the US of A would allow an entry into the United Nations so called Arms Trade Treaty - consequently allowing the UN to dictate to the US on the 2nd Amendments rights to its citizens. Fortunately the legislation was voted down by a 53-46 vote. GUESS WHAT? All 46 votes to allow our citizens rights to be given to a foreign source was all Democrats and 2 of which were the great illustrous Senators from Washington Cantwell and Murray. You remember the infamous Sen Murray who doesn't know how to formulate a budget. Really?

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

Consider how the nation addresses the tens of thousands of vehicular deaths every year. Did we try to take cars away from as many people as we could, regardless of their safety record? Did we try to limit the number of miles people could drive, or the size of their vehicle, or the cosmetic appearance of it? No, of course not. Everybody understands that the car itself isn't the villain in most vehicular deaths, and that punishing safe drivers isn't a solution.

But then, there's hardly anyone who doesn't drive a car, so almost everyone is equally interested in preserving their liberty to continue to do that. Unfortunately, there's a sizable portion of the population that has been brought up with or acquired a phobia about guns and an ugly prejudice against gun owners; they see no problem with trying to deprive gun owners of their rights.

1

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

It's really sad with the supposed knowledge that supposedly dwells in DC that they would diagnose the problem and start throwing some of that money at the mentally challenged area instead of throwing money into the wind as they are so good at. With the money that has been wasted so far they could have opened multiple hospitals for the mental treatments and care.

0

blueskies 1 year, 8 months ago

No one is trying to take away cars or guns except for assault weapons. I guess one could make the comparison that cars are to guns as tanks are to assault weapons. In other words, there might be useful limits at some point. You wouldn't want people driving tanks down the street any more than you'd want to see an assault weapon in the hunting fields.

There are plenty of vehicle laws and licenses. Maybe there should be a few more for guns. Keep at me. I may get enlightened yet.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

You say, "cars are to guns as tanks are to assault weapons." Civilian-version AR-15s, AK-47s, etc., are not the same as military versions except cosmetically, but they are all being labeled "assault weapons" as if they were the same.

The proper analogy is that cars are to guns as trucks and SUVs are to civilian military-STYLE weapons. The latter are somewhat more powerful and cosmetically more scary, but fundamentally the same thing.

In other posts, you've talked about semi-automatic weapons as if you think that's a key feature of what an assault weapon is. It's not. Except for revolvers, almost every pistol and most rifles sold in the last 50 years are semi-automatic weapons. All that term means is that the weapon holds more than one round, and automatically moves a round into the chamber after a shot is fired, to await the next trigger pull.

An AUTOMATIC weapon is one that fires multiple rounds on one trigger pull. Civilian ownership of these weapons has been heavily regulated since the 1930s, and requires special licenses from the BATFE and high fees. I believe there has been exactly ONE homicide by a civilian using a legally owned automatic weapon in the last 60 years. Yet many people supporting the ban on "assault rifles" mistakenly believe that's what is being talked about.

0

pdywgn 1 year, 8 months ago

Hospitals attempt to avoid the mentally ill as much as possible because they have problems paying their bills. SMMC's Locked unit was closed years ago because it was a major drain on hospital resources. Jails have replaced medical environments.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

blueskies,

If you look at your own postings above, you will see that you have quoted the BATFE as saying that 60% of crime guns come from corrupt dealers.

Obviously, none of the currently proposed laws address that mechanism, which is already highly illegal. Only better enforcement will do that.

Then you quote GunVictimsAction.org for the proposition that straw purchases account for almost 50% of crime guns. Straw purchases are already illegal, and again, none of the currently proposed laws address that mechanism either.

Now we've accounted for 110% of crime guns, before we even get to gun shows, private sales, and thefts.

You have proven my point that the current batch of proposals will do next to nothing to keep guns out of criminals' hands, and will have no appreciable effect on the use of guns in crimes.

The Columbine shooters recruited friends because they were minors, and as such could not buy directly even at gun shows. I believe it is still unknown whether Robyn Anderson bought the guns she turned over to the Columbine shooters from a dealer or a private party. She SAID it was the latter, but admitting she bought from a dealer would have been tantamount to confessing to a crime, so her story is inherently suspect, as is her claim that a background check would have made a difference. I also don't believe there is any factual basis for the claim that "according to the ATF . . . [buyers] wouldn't have [done straw purchases] if subjected to a background check." The whole point of a straw purchase is to send in someone who WILL pass a background check to buy for someone who wouldn't.

See more below.

0

PearlY 1 year, 8 months ago

More for blueskies,

On magazine size, here's a factoid from Columbine. Klebold had a TEC-9 handgun and three high-capacity magazines for it, a 52, a 32, and a 28, for total capacity of 112 rounds. He got off only 55 rounds. Harris had a 10-round 9mm carbine and 13 magazines (130 rounds total). He got off 96 rounds, plus 25 rounds from his pump-action shotgun. Changing a magazine is a matter of a SECOND, or two at most. I hope you are never naive enough to try to "move in" on someone because you think he's going to "fumble" on ejecting a magazine. Here's a video (granted faster than the average, but even I, at 60+ years with arthritic hands can do a 2-second change). Go to YouTube and search for Travis Tomasie and Fast Reload.

Forgotten in the obsession with the Columbine guns is that guns a back-up to the main event; Harris and Klebold placed two propane-canister bombs in the cafeteria during lunch. If they'd been set competently, most of the nearly 500 students in the cafeteria would have been killed or severely injured. Propane canisters can still be purchased without background checks, as can the weapons used in the two highest casualty mass killings in recent history: box-cutters and fertilizer.

Gun shows are not a "loophole." I urge you to visit one; Washington Arms Collectors has them throughout the state often. Most sales at gun shows are by licensed dealers, who DO have to do background checks.

The "loophole" is not about gun shows alone, it's about ALL private gun transfers. The proposed law would have required my sister to do a check on me before she sold me our dad's old .30-.30. It would have required a friend to do a background check on me when I insisted he turn over his handgun during a bout of severe depression out of concern that he was suicidal. It would require me to do a background check on my neighbor if I loan him my rifle for hunting season. And it would make felons out of us if we didn't. This is an extraordinary imposition on individual rights.

And yet, no one I've asked, and I've asked a lot, can point to one single instance where a legal private sale of a firearm from a lawful owner of it has resulted in one of these mass killings for lack of a background check.

These laws are hammers in search of nails to pound, finding none, and landing on fingers instead. You ask why I don't think laws will slow things down. In part, it's because logic tells me you target laws at the true source of the problem, not on satisfying people's prejudices. In part, it's because I'm familiar with a substantial number of instances where gun violence could have been avoided by enforcing existing effective laws, and diverting resources and attention away from that enforcement toward ineffective laws will make things worse, instead of better. And in part because the cost to our freedoms is too high for the trivial return we can expect.

Have to go for now.

0

barracuda 1 year, 8 months ago

Question? How are they going to blame the NRA for todays Boston attacks?

0

namvet60 1 year, 8 months ago

OOOPPPSSS - don't say that - one of the Doctors stated the hardware appeared to be BB's. You know where that will go!

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in