The Brady camapign like to inform people of exactly how many people that have been prevented from legally buying a gun because of the Brady bills backgrounds check system.
The NRA even put it's alledged 33 million pair of shoulders under legislation that would strenthen and fine-tune the system.
But still, felons are finding guns with which to shoot policemen.
A Miami Dade-police officer was shot by a felon, a person who cannot legally buy or own a gun, but managed to get one anyway. The current laws are not preventing criminals from getting guns illegally. There are several ways to respond to this:
Some people want to strengthen gun legislation, or introduce new laws aimed at traficking. Since the current gun laws don't work perfectly, stronger laws might work better. They value safety over gun rights, and believe that more restrictive legislation might deliver that safety.
Then there are people who look at it differently; the current laws don't work because they are fundamentally ineffective. Criminals do not obey the current laws, and find ways of getting around them. A lot of people think that criminals will break the stronger laws, just like they brake the current laws. Murder can already land you in jail untill the end of your days, how could you make that worse? The death penalty has been observed to be no real deterrent.
These people point to cities like Los Angeles, Baltimore and Washington DC to prove their point that stric gun control will not provide safety.
Personally, I would support anti-trafficing measure, if it weren't for the "slippery slope arguement". What if it doesn't work, and people will keep calling for even more stringent legislation? What if it never ends up providing us with security and safety, will those failed laws be repealed? A lot of "waiting period" laws have proven ineffective, but are yet to be repealed. This makes me, as well as a lot of other people- weary of giving new laws a chance.
There will always be the "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand" crowd. I am not one of them. I oppose gun control because I don't believe it works. I support the right to keep and bear arms because I think it is an important right. That is -after all- the reason why it is on the bill of rights. And I support the rights on the bill of rights, not because they are on the bill of rights, but because they are very important, vital even to living free and secure.
I oppose laws that I believe could really help, because I'm afraid that it will never stop, like it didn't in the UK.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
How about a high (10+) minimum sentence for all fellons caught with a gun?
I oppose mandatory punishments because they do factor in the human element, and because you simply cannot perfectly word a law.
transferring a marital aid is a felony in some places, as is (accidentally) blocking a postal truck.
Post a Comment