December 18, 2012

What do we do?

Steve Newton at DE Libertarian has, as usual, a thoughtful post up today about what to do regarding guns in America. He highlights the American government's track record of violence as a ... "measure":

The problem with the call that "This. Has. To. Stop." is that much of the underlying culture of violence has been perpetuated by the government -- especially for the past forty years -- and that asking for solutions from the government when violence is the problem is, well, problematic.

We are killing other people's kids around the world every day in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Honduras. There's an important if unlovely and uncomfortable point to be reinforced here: dead Pakistani school children at the hands of US drones no less constitute young lives pointlessly snuffed out, with grieving parents who have emptiness in their souls than the children who will never come back to their bedrooms in Connecticut.

We are the world's largest exporter of weapons. We spend more on weapons for our "defense" than the rest of the world combined. That, "They are coming to get us" mentality within the US is exactly the mentality that politicians of all parties use with reference to the rest of the world, so why should you be surprised to see it echoed internally. It's fractal, I think.

Violence in America is in part so prevalent because, despite our mantra of freedom, the power of the State is as pre-conditioned to the use of violence as those paranoid nuts that pandora believes should not own guns.

pandora being of the LGOMB, of course.

Speaking of the LGOMB, Steve also shreds the execrable Delaware Douche, whose actual appearance is as disgusting as his moronic invective. If you can get past DD's asininity, you might actually find some agreement -- like I did.

  • Banning semi-automatic assault weapons. I've no problem with that. However, "semi-automatic" means to fire the thing, it requires a separate pull of the trigger for each shot. How is this fundamentally different from a handgun?
  • Banning high capacity magazines. I've no hassle with this, either.
  • Gun shows are banned. This doesn't have to happen. What should happen is that the private dealer "loophole" -- dealers which do not have to perform background checks -- should be eliminated.
  • Waiting periods. If background checks can be done in minutes, then why? What purpose do they serve, especially if one is in fear for his/her life?

Douche then says:

Next step, anyone caught with an illegally purchased gun or a banned gun is sentenced to life in prison, or permanent deportation from the United States. Your choice.

This is just a tad of the absurdity in the vast majority of the rest of this idiot's post. Like, yeah -- a battered wife who fears for her life as a last resort purchases and illegal gun to protect herself. She should go to prison for the rest of her life. Right. Yet Douche scoffs and screams when anyone even suggests any sort of criminal penalty for a late term abortion simply for convenience. Not to mention, isn't it the "progressives" who scream loudest about the US having the largest prison population on the planet?

Douche also blames -- wait for it! -- Ronald Reagan for the lack of mental health care. Uh huh. Sorry, Douche, but your kindred spirits bear a lot of blame for that one. And it was in the name of civil liberties that they did what they did. Y'know, civil liberties which the 2nd Amendment is a part of. But we know very well by now that for radical moonbats like Delaware Douche, some liberties are more important than others. And they're the ones that radical moonbats like. It's that simple.

Posted by Hube at December 18, 2012 06:35 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

You'd think that Delaware Douche would be a bit more knowledgeable about the Constitution, considering that he, like you've said in the past is an attorney.

Posted by: Carl at December 18, 2012 08:36 PM

Sorry to differ with you here, Hube, but a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault weapon.

Posted by: W.R. Chandler at December 19, 2012 01:41 AM

Chanman: The definition of "assault weapon" is quite varying. Please elucidate -- what I am missing?

(Wiki link not allowed to be posted due to spam.)

Posted by: Hube at December 19, 2012 07:32 AM

Meanwhile, I wonder what type of gun Delaware Dingbat would use to do this?

Posted by: Hube at December 19, 2012 07:45 AM

(1) Banning assault weapons will change nothing. Connecticut has an assault weapons ban. The Newtown shooters gun was Connecticut legal. Which means it either is not an assault weapon (by legal definition) or your proposed definition for "assault weapon" would have to be ridiculously broad. Columbine also happened in the middle of the federal assault weapons ban and was worse than Newtown.

(2) The US already tried banning hicaps. We have ten years of data showing it didn't work. The numbers of rounds fired in shootings didn't drop. The bad guy just carries more magazines. When you have response times of 20 minutes, shooters have plenty of time to reload. Again, Columbine happened when hicaps were restricted.

(3) All licensed dealers at gunshows have to perform background checks. The real gunshow loophole was actually about excusing them from waiting periods. That loophole disappeared after the FBI instant background check system came online. Private citizens at gunshows are private citizens and can buy and sell without a background check. But they're not dealing in any sort of volume or they'd be committing a felony. Also what do gun shows have to do with anything? Despite the rumor mongering on the left, gun shows are not a meaningful source crime guns.

(4) Waiting periods serve no purpose. They don't reduce crime. Likewise the one-gun-a-month laws don't work either. They come from theft or illegal sales to persons prohibited from straw buyers.

All these proposals are coming straight off the gun control wish list and have nothing to do with stopping another Newtown shooting. They don't work which is why we haven't passed them already or have allowed them to expire.

Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at December 19, 2012 08:05 AM

Jeff: this source says 40% of the guns which change hands in this country do so without background checks. Is it erroneous?

I see your point about hicaps; it's sort of in line with my query about how semi-automatic rifles are essentially any different from a typical hand gun.

Posted by: Hube at December 19, 2012 08:33 AM

I have no doubt that a lot of guns change hands in the US without background checks. I have a rifle that was given to me by my father (no background check), my brother received a pistol (no check), and my wife received a shotgun from her grandfather (no background check). On the sad day that either of our parents pass away, I imagine we will receive even more firearms with no background check.

Statistics like that one include plenty of circumstances beyond what is implied: a criminal buying a gun without a check.

Posted by: Paul at December 19, 2012 10:43 AM

So after the tragedy of 27 people being murdered in Connecticut, Governor Markell looks to new laws to curb access to guns. Years of 30 odd murders a year in Wilmington, not so much?

Posted by: Arthur at December 19, 2012 11:27 AM

Touché, Arthur.

Posted by: Hube at December 19, 2012 11:38 AM

in re: background checks, Delaware police have been caught keeping a list of gun owners. When the tin foil hat crowd keeps talking about confiscating guns things like that give them credibility. I doubt very much they deleted that list as they claim.

Posted by: Duffy at December 19, 2012 01:31 PM

Traditionally, an assault weapon is one with a selector switch that enables one to fire fully automatic, which means that the gun will continue to rapidly fire as long as the trigger is pressed. Automatic rifles like this have been essentially illegal since 1934.

A semi-auto gun fires only one time with each pull of the trigger. The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 did indeed designate some semi-autos as "assault weapons," but only if they had a certain combination of "scary" looking features on them, such as a folding stock, or pistol grip, or bayonet lug in conjuction with a removable magazine. But under that law, just being a semi-auto didn't automatically make the gun an assault weapon. So a "non-scary" looking semi-auto rifle is just as functional; it's all a matter of cosmetics.

I own three semi-auto rifles, one of which has enough features on it to be considered an "assault rifle" under the 1994 ban.

I will not give up these guns, no matter what laws are passed.

Posted by: W.R. Chandler at December 19, 2012 03:12 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?