One gun a month, my two cents.

With gun legislation, there are several driving forces behind the laws. Some laws can be rightfully considered aimed at banning guns, or making them otherwise unavailable to the people. California's microstamping law may turn out to be like this, making certain firearms prohibitively expensive.

Other legislation is more cunning, making it a little more difficult to become a gun owner, to buy a "fun gun" for example, it is my belief that the focus on bayonets is a law like this, as I have said before.

But there's also legislation that truly has been thought of -at least in part- to help tackle gun crime. While there's always the "slippery slope" argument, some proposed laws do envision criminal or otherwise questionable activity. I'd like to talk about "gun rationing" laws in that regard.

Ostensibly, the law is supposed to curb gun trafficking, disallowing criminals from buying a large amount of guns (more than one per month) for resale to people who cannot (or rather not) buy their guns from a licensed dealer. By only allowing one gun a month to be purchased, proponents of such legislation hope to decrease the amount of guns that end up on the black market. This of course depends entirely on the idea that an unlicensed gun dealer sells significantly large amounts of guns (or at least more than one per month) and isn't capable of finding somebody else to purchase more guns legally.

It's not the effectiveness that entertains me, it is the manner in which gun control proponents seek to tackle the problem as a whole. They choose to prevent criminals from buying multiple weapons legally, cutting the problem off at the root. This also prevents some honest from buying that .22 when they figure out that a .357 wasn't a good choice for their first handgun, or prevents some people from buying a "his and hers" set in the same month, but the idea is that this generally only affects the criminal element and some "legislative flyers*" are acceptable.

While I personally doubt the actual "need" for a law like this, such legislation has been introduced in a lot of places. I'd like to propose a revision:
Why don't you limit the amount of private sales per month? If Joe Citizen wants to buy an S&W collectors set consisting of 5 wheel guns, why not let him? Don't prevent him from spending money and keeping some local merchant in business, but force him to keep those handguns in his possession for some time. Prohibit selling off bulk purchases. If you limit the amount of private sales to one per month, but still allow sale through FFL's then:

1. Criminals can't legally dump more than one handgun per month on the street.
2. Citizens can still legally buy guns at will.
3. The "guns show loophole" disappears almost entirely
4. Sale through licensed dealers is encouraged.
   

There'd need to be some control mechanism of course, a mandatory checkup by an FFL for example, as to not burden the police with yet another gun law to enforce. He/she'd take note that you still posses the guns that bought in an under one month period.

Again, I'm not arguing that we need rationing laws to begin with, I'm just saying that if you're going to introduce them out of the intention to stop criminals, do so in a manner that doesn't harm the law abiding.

*I henceforth lay claim to this term.

Brittish police cry for judges to enforce the law.

In the UK, they've got issues.

• "... our porous borders allow weapons to simply flow into the country while the Government's failure to combat the scourge of drugs also fuels so much violent crime."

Gangs, of course, gangs and other criminals are thriving in an atmosphere of prohibition. A large market for illicit drugs has spawned forth a large amount of people willing to break the law in order to meet the demand. But the gangs of today, aren't those of years past:

• There will always be gangs and criminals but today it is the fact that they carry guns which makes them truly intimidating.

One would suspect that guns would be less available then during the period when they were still legally available, no? Unfortunately, the prohibition of guns has also led to a large black market dealing with this £500 (pounds) a pop commodity.

And now, much like in the USA, the flaw in handling this situation lies not in the lack of strong anti-gun laws, but in the failure toact on them. The illegal posessio of a firearm carries a mandatory 5 year sentence. Though it's not really mandatory, because a lot of judges are refusing to hand them out, to the great dismay of certain law enforement officials.

I personally dislike mandatory sentences, as I believe in a case-by-case review of individual crimes, and before anything I believe in rehabilitation. So here's the problem I'm concerned with: the cops and courts aren't on the same wavelength! This is a much bigger issue, a far more important and dangerous one, than the sentencing of individual criminals.

Unless you can get all bodies and branches of the government to move in the same direction, you're in for a lot of trouble.
Don't say I didn't warn you!

New Hampshire decriminalises pot.

Those in posession of a quarter ounce of po or less willnow face only a $200 fine, rather than a $2000 fine and the possibilit of a year in jail.

I personally encourage the decriminalisation of cannabis, it has worked rather well in the Netherlands, and in my homecoutry, Belgium. I don't personally smoke pot, but from a liberal point of view, I do believe people should have the right to.

Anyway, I hope NH does well with this new piece of legislation.

Why I oppose gun control

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.

Reflecting upon the Brady standards.

The Brady campaign to prevent gun violence recently released score cards, awarding points to states that passed certain gun laws.
From the Brady campaigns blog over at the huffington post comes this little obseration by 1will:

• While looking at the Brady State Scoreboard I couldn't help but notice a few trends.
  It seems like all of the catagories are aimed at law abiding citizens. There are restrictions on what kind of gun you can buy, how many, how big, where you can carry and whether or not you have to register it.
  Not one catagory is based on laws aimed at criminals. There are no manadatory sentencing laws for gun trafficking. There are no Project Exile type laws or Repeat Offender laws aimed at gun using felons. There aren't even catagories regarding how well my state tracks violent offenders or gang members. All of the catagories on the Brady State Scoreboardl target law abiding citizens, their rights and gun manufacturers.

Emphasis mine.

Gangs are bad

Spare me the "yeah, and water is wet" remarks on this one.

I think it's a very important evolution to go from "guns are the leading cause of death, and must be banned which will result in increased safety across the union" to: "Organised violent criminals are a danger to society"

Last year there were 37 teenage fatalities by teenage attackers, this came from 12 in 2005. This tripling is being blamed on "youths getting sucked into the knife and gun world", a.k.a. gang culture. (yes, a gun shop with a knife stand now qualifies as a gang congregating spot, but I digress)

The article by the telegraph is exhaustive enough to give you a good idea on the failing of this administration, I suggest you read it if you want some debating ammo for stateside discussion.
One interesting claim is that a quarter of all gun crime is committed by minors. Interesting to say at least, with gun crime on the rise one could extrapolate that gang culture has wrought that increase, unstopped by a bunch of teens.

That's right, teenagers are bypassing some of the most draconian and restrictive gun legislation the continent has seen since the second world war!

Juvenile crime soaring!

The telegraph reports that juvenile crime is up by (over) a third, and that's just counting convictions. Robbery is up 43 percent, knife law violations (carrying) have nore than doubled in the under 18 category!
Dealing with juvenile crime is turning out to be the biggest failure yet in the history of the United Kingdoms legal system.

What I find most disturbing is that over 75% of all arrested juvenile thugs are released immediately before trial. This policy has reulted in additional damage to society, such as the murder of this father of three by a criminal who was out on bail.

I do beleive it's time to reinstate the right of self defence in the UK, and that my friends accross the pond start telling people what will happen if you allow your rights that secure your safety get eroded. It is not going to make the world a better place, it is not a pretty picture, and if anything, it is not for the greater good!

Early release inmate assaults, blinds elderly woman.

A man who has previously been convicted and sentenced to serve 18 months after being indicted in an assault where somebody was kicked to death was released early from prison. He "helped the assault" but had spent enough time behind bars prior to his conviction to be released shortly afterwards.

So now, back on the streets again (no reference to saxon), he demands that a 60 year old woman give him a cigarette. She refused, and he beats/kicks the living daylights out of her, stomping her face repeadedly. She suffered severe trauma to her face, needed surgery to release pressure from her brain, got multiple metal plates inserted into her head, and lost the full use of her sight: she has been blinded on one side.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

Seriously, if you can bring yourself to savaging a poor old lady like this, you do not deserve to walk the streets. Lock him up and keep him fed with water and bread untill he himself is 60.
Used to be a time when scum like this "fell overboard" while getting shipped of to Australia, these days he'll probably ... og srew it, I'll get upset after I hear the final sentencing, which will almost certainly be far too light. The current sentence? "at least" three and a half years. The judge didn't think early release would be likely this time ...

And you still haven't run off to prey to the white porcelain idol, here's some words from the victim:

"I've had kids breaking my nose, making fun, trying to set fire to my house..."

Oh yes, guns and fake swords are obviously the problem ...
Read all about it here.

Closing the blackpowder loophole

A new bill proposed in New York would subject muzzle loaded blackpowder guns to the same regulations as modern (cartridge) firearms.
(via guntalk)

No it's not just machine guns, assault weapons, junk-guns, and alike. Some people will not back down untill every single firearm is a felony.

"Prohibition doesn't work"

Richard Brunstrom, the chief Constable of North Wales has released another controversial statement:
Finding that prohibition doesn't work, he believes that recreational drugs will be decriminalized or even legalized withing ten years. Doing so would keep people safer than they are today.

"The government wants evidence-based policy; the evidence is very clear that prohibition doesn't work, it can't work, an enforcement-led strategy is making things worse, not better."

I agree with him that the current policy concerning drugs does not work, not in the US, not in the UK, not even in the Netherlands which has a highly progressive set of laws wich has been hailed as a shining example by human rights activists and potheads alike.
If anything, the idea that a failing policy should be altered, or abandoned altoghether should be applauded.

Now please, somebody to take the same stance on guns after a year of growing gun crime and homicide?

A mutual victory

The NRA and the Brady camapaign agree: it's a good thing that the NICS improvement act has passed!

Hopefully, this will stop at least some mentally ill people from buying guns, and it will allow people who aren't mentally ill, to *do* be able to buy them. That and the proper authorities have been told to stop dragging their feeth.

As the NRA sais: "The end product is a win for American gun owners."

The VPC seems bent on being pessimistic, as always I suppose.
CHEER UP! It is a happy day when legislation is improved!

unprecedented trend of knife crime

Tackling knife crime, the highlights:

"laws are pointless if they are not enforced. Without the constant vigilance of police on the streets to apprehend the carriers, purveyors and wielders of knives (or guns, for that matter), no number of Bills before Parliament is likely to have any impact on our increasingly violent streets."
(emphasis mine)


Well, at least they get it

The beautiful gun free California

California? Yup
Beautiful? Check
Gun free ... well they've got about the strictest gun legislation in the country, the Brady campaign gives it an A- Rating, so gun crime must be near non-existent right!? ... right?


If only ...

here's the LA Homicide map, from the LA homicide report, one of the blogs I've "subscribed" to to forever serve as a memento that gun laws do not protect the general public.

Right now, the highly adjustable map reports 679 homicides (starting this years January first, up to and including the 13th of October), 537 of those were perpetrated by people abusing firearms.
So, that A- rating, did they get it for having 79% of their criminal killings carried out with firearms, or for sporting one of the nations top homicide per capita ratings?

Gun legislation I support

Just like motor vehicles and dangerous chemicals, firearms can be abused or used accidentally, that's why they should be subject to "some" legislation, here's a quick review of what I believe could and should be done to help curb both gun violence, and violent crime as a whole.


Come down on straw purchases:
Limit new guns to five per month. Few legitimate firearms owners will be affected by this, straw buyers on the other hand will. Limit it to one gun per month if the buyer has had many (I'd cut of at five) firearms unaccounted for in the past, even if he wasn't doing anything illegal, he's not responsible enough to be handling guns.
Make an anonymous registry for checking serial numbers, which will allow the buyer in a private sale to verify if the gun has not been reported stolen. A single federally funded website could do this, could be set up as to not be a back door registration program. Coincidentally, it could also be used to report a gun as having passed a private sale. This would mean that any guns gone from a legal gun owners safe have not been stolen or lost, the sales can be considered lawful, and the ATF can keep track of how many guns said owner has sold privately.

Introduce the castle doctrine, abolish the duty to retreat.
Restore law abiding gun owners the right to defend themselves in their homes and all other places where they ca legally carry a concealed weapon. These "shoot first" laws have for so far not resulted in an increase in homicide, so if they safe even one life ...

Introduce/reform safe storage laws.
Firearms should be stored safe from theft and out of the reach of children. a defensive weapon can be kept within arms reach throughout the day, and in a nightstand during the night.
Trigger locks don't work, gun safes do, maybe when police officers start carrying trigger locks on their guns, I'll consider putting one on mine. A lock which runs from breech to the muzzle on the other hand does work, maybe these could be made partially tax-deductible to provide gun owners even greater incentive to lock their firearms up effectively.

Make firearms safety courses available in schools.
Children should be thought as early as possible that guns can be dangerous. Parents can do their share, but it's important that all children are thought uniformly. Several large groups of both sides of the gun debate have had programs like this, some of which have already made it's way into our schools. (example: the NRA's eddie eagle)

And should somebody commit a crime, punish him!

Crime and punishment.
In my opinion, prisons and jails should produce something; good citizens. Inmates should not be idle for more than an hour a day, they should be studying, learning a profession, preparing their rehabilitation, or working within the confines of their jail/prison to repay their debt to society.
Prison farms where inmates cultivate their own food seem like a good idea to me. They could preform other labor intensive work, the benefits of which could be diverted into a tax break for whichever part of the economy is affected by it.
I'm against the death penalty because it's counterproductive, you're eliminating workforce in an extremely expensive process. The constitution allows for slave labor as a punishment for crime, why is it that we are willing to put a man to death, bu refuse to force him to work?
A sentence should be shorter and harsher than the ones being issued today, reducing the prison population while maintaining a high scare-profile.