An interesting analysis of the facts of the case. Why Gun Control Laws Fail Posted on August 10, 2017 by DRGO (from rotnews.com) Cities such as Chicago and New York apparently have a gun control problem. Their extensive array of gun control laws continues to fail to prevent violent gun crime. However, there is a constant drone from lawmakers in such states to enact even more restrictive laws and make guns harder to acquire. The laws in place do just that but, sadly, the law-abiding citizenry are encumbered, and not criminal. The Brady Campaign announced “[t]hat eight states . . . have enacted major gun reforms to reduce gun violence since the tragic events in Newtown Connecticut, according to a [2013] state analysis.” This analysis rated New York “A-“and Illinois with a “B”. For 2016, data available from the Brady Campaign’s Center to Prevent Gun Violence showed no net change. After four years, it is worth considering how progressive legislation has gone afoul with gun control. It begins with politicians taking the path of least resistance. Poorly constructed legislation is easily passed which has the appearance of “doing something” about crime. Studying the problem and enacting laws that might successfully address it takes time and effort, and may not be so politically correct. The usual response is just to pass more laws, regardless of efficacy. Cases have come to light recently which highlight the folly of such an approach. Creating effective legislative solutions is hampered by: the public’s inaccurate knowledge of criminals and crime. misunderstanding how criminals make economic decisions regarding crime. adherence to anti-gun propaganda focusing on “feel good” solutions for gun crime. A recent example of poor legislation can be found in this case from Chicago, where a felon on early release, whose history included gun related crimes, sold two banned “assault rifles” to gang members. The gang members then ambushed and injured two police officers. After his arrest, a progressive Federal judge released the man on $4,500 bond. The actual shooter fled to Mexico. This occurred despite Chicago’s extensive Brady campaign approved “assault” weapons ban, waiting periods, requirements to obtain a Firearm Owners ID card, magazine limits of 10 rounds, no “stand your ground” laws, mandatory gun locks, and the very illegality of felons possessing firearms under federal and state laws. None of these laws prevented a single instance of felons dealing guns to other felons. Yet, as of July 19, Chicago has 2,066 shooting victims and 390 homicides. One must ask, “How this is possible?” The Chicago Sun-Times article went on to report: “Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said in an emailed statement Thursday. “If we are going to reduce gun violence, we have to hold criminals accountable for breaking laws, because our police officers simply can’t do it alone. In 2013, the state of New York enacted the omnibus SAFE ACT which Governor Cuomo described as “the toughest gun control law in the United States.” Then, four years later, a convicted felon was apprehended while stealing ammunition (a federal crime), which led investigators to discover a cache of 8 so-called “assault” rifles, 2 high powered rifles, a shotgun, 4 loaded handguns, thousands of rounds of ammunition and 64 high capacity magazines. Each instance was a federal crime because he was a prohibited possessor According to the article: “At the time, police searched Abdullah’s home and discovered enough material to build 50 bombs. Even so, the charges against Abdullah were ultimately reduced.” The felon, also on the terrorist watch list, went unnoticed as he acquired the cache of weapons and explosives he intended to build bombs with. New York and federal firearm laws did not prevent his acquiring such weapons despite the presumed extra level of surveillance.) It is easy to see how judicial progressivism fails to uphold laws intended to protect its citizenry, and in doing so, exposes the hypocrisy of reliance on such gun laws. Releasing offenders back to the street breeds contempt for the law and causes increased crime as recidivist criminals are the gun suppliers and killers. Not the National Rifle Association, not law-abiding gun owners, nor “lax gun control laws.” Banning guns fails consistently. Violent criminals and those who provide crime guns must be banned from society by incarcerating them for a long time. In doing so, laws protect society. Remove the criminal, prevent the crime. Also inflaming the issue are recent calls for open borders with Mexico. Recall the Chicago shooting when the shooter fled to Mexico. Recall Obama’s progressive administration refused to enforce controlled entry and exit. Progressive dogma insists on open borders, which allows violent criminals to return to the U.S. at their leisure to reoffend. These policies have made it easier for criminals by allowing them safe space where they needn’t fear apprehension. The justice system is intended to establish guilt or innocence and to set sentencing. In too many cases, progressive courts have elected to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. Ask yourself and your lawmakers “What is the purpose of gun control or criminal law if not enforced?” Criminals take risks based on perceptions of reward for committing crime versus the possibility of getting caught and the severity of punishment. Criminals see neither the courts nor progressive administrations enforcing the laws of our country. We should not be surprised when they do not respect gun laws, either. —Wesley Horton, RN was given his first firearm at age 8 and has been agitated by infringements ever since. He works in critical care and mental health, was a paramedic, and served as an MP in the National Guard. He’s carried concealed for years and has a Curio and Relic FFL. https://drgo.us/?p=5944
Gun control laws fail for one simple reason: It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law. Any law that attempts to do so only serves to needlessly restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Oh, that's silly. They know full well the truth of what I posted. As their true objective is to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms, they don't care if these laws fail to prevent criminals from getting guns -- indeed, failure of these laws is just an excuse for more.
Actually, there is good reason to consider this option. Prohibition laws simply DO NOT WORK. Look at the Prohibition of alcohol and how well THAT worked. Prohibition was repealed due to its disastrous outcomes: alcohol consumption actually increased, organized crime was empowered and had its power expanded dramatically, and violent crime rates exploded. And what did we learn? We enacted the exact same policies in the name of fighting a drug "war" that has been an abject failure. We would be much better served putting the billions of dollars we waste in enforcement into drug treatment and education programs. The existing laws aren't equitably enforced either; resulting in large numbers of minorities being thrown into prison for long periods for non-violent offenses. They come out hardened, and tend to get involved in ever more violent cycles of crime. In the end, a law is only about defining the values of a society and giving that society the tools to penalize those who violate the law. It does nothing to physically prevent anyone from choosing to violate that law. In a society dedicated to the preservation of personal freedom and political liberty, arbitrary and capricious restrictions upon the rights of the people do nothing to improve public safety and everything to empower criminal enterprise.
BUT.... note the difference here and why the attempt to draw the parallel between gun laws and drug laws fails: Drugs: We punish people that break the law, after they break it Guns: In addition to the above, we try to prevent people from breaking the laws with regard to guns, before they actually break them, Arguing against the latter is in no way an argument against the former.
https://home.nra.org/ I'm a card carrying endowed member if the NRA by the way. I agree with some things they stand for, but not everything. They are against any additional gun control measures.
Allow me to repeat myself: Note the difference here and why the attempt to draw the parallel between gun laws and drug laws fails: Drugs: We punish people that break the law, after they break it Guns: In addition to the above, we try to prevent people from breaking the laws with regard to guns, before they actually break them, Arguing against the latter is in no way an argument against the former, and nowhere do I argue that we should get rid of guns laws that lead to punishment after someone breaks them. Thus, your claim of hypocrisy derives form your failure to understand the argument in front of you.
"They are against any additional gun control measures" <> "Because most gun enthusiasts are against ALL gun control."
You said: Because most gun enthusiasts are against ALL gun control. This is different than being against any additional gun control measures. Try not to move the goalposts, and feel free to again try to prove your statement.
No... you fail to understand the difference. I'll put it more simply: - I support drug laws that punish people after they break the law. - I support gun laws that punish people after they break the law. - I OPPOSE gun laws that try to prevent people from breaking the law by restricting the rights of the law abiding. I shall now accept your admission of error and your apology for your claim of hypocrisy.
You're losing the plot here man. Simple possession laws? Need to go the way of the dodo. Under the influence as aggravating factor, or making it illegal to do certain things while under the influence? Perfectly reasonable. If you want laws that only punish those who have wronged others, only the latter is acceptable. This is true for guns, or drugs, or cars, or fists, or speech etc.
