All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Monday, May 07, 2018

Time to reform gun control

Written in response to the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. that April and Robert F. Kennedy that June, the Gun Control Act of 1968 will celebrate its 50th anniversary on October 22.

The immediate impact was a spike in murders, which went from 6.2 per 100,000 in 1967 to 9.8 in 1974.

But eventually states responded with tougher sentencing and the easing of concealed weapons restrictions. After 31 years, the homicide rate finally fell below the 1967 rate in 1999.

After 50 years, the time has come to review the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Every legal gun purchase in America must go through a licensed dealer, and every licensed dealer must get a background check on the buyer.

We upgraded who we restrict from gun purchases 25 years ago. The restrictions include all felons, and mentally ill people, as well as those dishonorably discharged.

But this raises the question of how we treat the mentally ill. Do we deny them the right to vote? No, as evidenced by some of the members of Congress. Why then are we denying them the right to protect themselves?

And what about felons? While some states want to restore their voting rights, no state seems in a hurry to restore their gun rights.

But why should we take the guns from a non-violent felon? I do not understand why we would want to disarm embezzler. And not allowing someone who washed out of the military to own a gun is just plain mean.

Not being able to defend themselves puts at risk the lives of ex-cons who are trying to walk the straight and narrow. Driving a taxi or working at a convenience store late at night without having a gun for protection is dangerous and unsafe.

If restoring voting rights is part of the rehabilitation effort for criminals, then why not restoration of gun rights? What better way is there to welcome someone back to society?

I look forward to this being part of any prison reform proposal. If we are going to trust ex-cons with something as important determining who runs the country with their vote, then we should trust them to protect themselves with a gun.

16 comments:

  1. This is common sense gun control.

    Put the argument in a place where the libs have to feel uncomfortable defending their positions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. this is simply not true. The "gun show loophole" is real. In some states private sales do NOT have to go through a licensed dealer and a background check is NOT required. The only thing absolutely required in every sale is the completion of form 4473 and that form merely has to be filled out -- it does not have to be submitted to any authority! https://www.atf.gov/.../4473-part-1-firearms.../download

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Private sales do not require a gun show. individuals meet at shows and trade or buy. They are not dealers. Requiring individuals to meet the requirements of dealers is ridiculous. Do you have to meet dealership requirements to trade or sell your car? No. Because doing so would end any private trading or selling. Ending the "gun show loophole" end private trades/sales entirely. But that's only a step on the road to eliminating all of it, isn't it?

      Delete
    2. 'the loophole' was agreed to by Dems to pass the Brady Bill. Let's dispense with the idea that this is a 'loophole.' They couldn't pass their gun control bill with checks on private sellers. The entire debate on this is stupid. What criminal who robs steals kills or rapes would do such a thing?

      Delete
    3. it's a foot in the door to end private sales across the country and I will never support any such thing. I won't live in a state that requires them either.

      Delete
    4. these points may be true, but it doesn't convert the statement that "Every legal gun purchase in America must go through a licensed dealer, and every licensed dealer must get a background check on the buyer." into a true statement.

      Delete
  3. A 4473 need not be completed for private face to face sale here in Florida. Only requirements are that both parties be state residents and that the seller must not sell to a person they know to be prohibited. It is on the prohibited person to not purchase when they know they are prohibited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it may not be a Florida State requirement, but i believe it is a Federal requirement.

      Delete
  4. That said... Here in Fl if you don't have your CCW to show the seller, good luck finding a member of the gun community to sell to you privately. Most will not unless they know the buyer well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a Captain's yeoman, I am personally aware of two cases where the men were dishonestly discharged. Both were 18, cute as a button, as somewhat effeminate. Both were ridden constantly by the leadership of their division until they snapped. This took over 6 months, so it wasn't some sudden reaction. Then they were brought up on charges and eventually given dishonorable discharges to the delight of the petty Petty Officers that did it to them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/

    Get rid of those Gramscian measures, if we really want the 2nd Amendment to have its intended meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would rather reform our congress and courts and get rid of the liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Someone under 21 no longer has the right to buy a gun here in FL now. I say if we're going to allow that, then they shouldn't vote, and we shouldn't have to listen to them either (1st Amendment).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can anyone cite me a gun law that doesn't ultimately benefit the criminal at the expense of the law-abiding citizen?

    ReplyDelete