Friday, May 9, 2008

A universal standard for weapons?

So, me and that "awalk" character* have been arguing this over, over at Marilyns;
Should we treat all weapons the same? He sais that because I "push guns like a dealer pushing crack cocaine", while at the same time supporting arms controls, I am flip flopping.

Arms controls? I don't know for sure what he means, but I suppose he means nuclear arms and the like.
Is there anybody here that honestly thinks we should treat handguns and nukes the exact same way? ... anyone? nobody at all? Oh wait, there's one, "a walk along mingo creek" apparently does, and if you don't, he'll call you a flip-flopper.

Me, I treat different items differently, because, there's not the same, they're different.
A kitchen knife is not the same as handgun, is not the same as a nuke.
Demanding the very same cotrols on all of them would be rediculous!

Can you imagine being required to be 21 years of age before being able to buy some cutlery? Or how about anybody without any felonies/domestic abuse charges (and some other minor things) to be able to purchase a multi-megaton nuclear warhead?

There's a lot of good and effective laws out there that regulate dangerous items. A lot of people use explosives for their profession. they can be licenced to purchase and use these explosives, storing them requires a mandated, safe storage facility. It strikes me as common sense that explosives must be stored differently from your forks, spoons and knifes, which likely rest very close to your stove, do they not?
Would you store explosives in that same spot?
Common sense dictates that each dangerous item should be assessed in a fitting manner. And while one item may be freely available to the general public, others aren't.

Dinner knives are ok, gravity knifes and switchblades? Illegal in many places.
Lye based drain cleaner? No problem! Methamine and acetic anhydride? Heavely controlled due to their use in the production of illicit drugs.

Guns? Ai, there's a rub.
It is very difficult to define what makes one gun dangerous, and other guns very dangerous ... or rather, what guns have high abuse potential/incidence and which ones don't.
Barrel length, muzzle energy, caliber ... none of these are positive factors by which to say: this must be banned.
The USDOJ's study "guns used in crime" lists a series of low-powered, small caliber handguns with tiny magazines as the weapons most often traced by the ATF (in 1995**), evil black "guns that look like assault weapons" aren't even mentioned in the top-10. While a third of the criminals question claims to have had a "military style, semi-automatic rifle in his poseesion at some time, no mention is made of anybody carrying one on a crime scene, or one being used to kill a policeman***.
I hardly think that mandating all guns have "12 or more rounds" magazines and increased power will cut down on firearms fatalities (nor am I inclined to see 10/22's get outlawed)

Dealing with violent crime is an important task that awaits, and while it is not the best way, regulating weapons in an effective way may be part of the solution. This may include new laws and restrictions, this may be the revocal of others. At any rate, the action taken must fit the situation we're dealing with.

In closing: when Walgreens cards you and records your name when buying a meth-precursor, but doesn't even blink when you pick up a bottle of aspirin ... are they flip-flopping, or just using some plain ole common sense?


* I don't know if he's a great troll, or if he acually believes/means the things he sais
**Anybody got recent figures?
***There is a listing for .22 rifles in the list of policemen getting killed, ranking sixth with 4.4% of the fatalities, no thoer mention is made of rifles in that line-up.

1 comment:

theotherryan said...

The reason more people get killed with a given gun is how available it is not how effective it is. For example those .22 and .25 caliber single stack auto's are cheap as hell and all over the place.