A nation without gun control
2/13/05
Let’s start with a simple proposition – one that has been supported by legal scholars and civil rights advocates for decades – and see where we end up.
The proposition is that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that governmental agencies in the United States will make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
First off, any and all “gun control” laws on the federal, state, or local books are unconstitutional, and will be stricken.
What will be the result of this?
A very noticeable first result will be the need for the federal government to lay off thousands of employees of the Treasury Department, whose only job is enforcing the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that relate to weapons of any type. Many, if not all, of these people can be absorbed into other federal agencies dealing with terrorist threats, for instance. This would prevent the hiring of thousands of new people for these positions. This is a definite plus for a government running on a year-to-year deficit.
The next result will be a proliferation of new gun industry business startups, to satisfy the needs of a public who has suffered under illegal regulations ever since the middle of the 19th Century. New gun shops, manufacturers, ammunition makers, and firearms accessory producers will proliferate, regulated only by local zoning laws that govern all businesses. What then?
Immediately, the price of firearms will plummet, since manufacturers and dealers no longer need to make toll calls to check on the worthiness of customers to purchase items, no longer need to buy and maintain records systems to record transfers and inventories of weapons, and no longer need to take time away from business to accommodate inspections from ATF agents.
People in need of a weapon for personal defense will be able to get one without waiting, without having to prove “need” to any bureaucrat, and without having to explain a thirty-year-old conviction for some youthful indiscretion.
There is a downside to this – ANYONE would be able to get hold of a weapon if the dealer is willing to sell him or her one. I don’t see this as being a problem, seeing that all the myriads of “gun control” laws now in existence have not ever stopped one criminal from obtaining a weapon, even weapons prohibited to the general public. A possible upside that may completely wipe out this detriment is that a burgeoning black market in illegal weapons will dry up, and with it, much corruption and violence.
A personal result, affecting everyone directly, will be that anyone who desires to carry a weapon will now be allowed to do so in any manner that they desire – openly or concealed. Let’s take a moment to consider this.
States that presently have the least restrictions on carrying weapons also have the lowest rates of armed violence and other violent crime. Criminals in such states operate with the knowledge that their next victim may well be able to defend themselves with deadly force, or that an onlooker may be able to step in and stop the criminal’s activities. Presently, in the United States, over two million instances occur every year where an armed citizen stops a crime from occurring. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, simply demonstrating that one has the means to defend oneself is sufficient to end the threat, without a shot being fired. The end of all gun laws will bring these benefits to blighted areas like Chicago, Illinois and Washington, D.C., areas in particular that suffer under the yoke of massive illegal regulation of weapons that are universally ignored by the bad people in society.
Along with all these new freedoms comes new responsibility. People now cannot sit back and expect the government to keep them safe, and they will know it. The big difference will be in that knowledge, since right now the police legally have no responsibility to stop a crime or protect anyone.
Parents will have to teach their children how to be safe around weapons. There are numerous safety courses out there now, and knowing how to be safe with a gun is much better than not ever being taught except by TV and the movies.
People will have to accept the raw fact that the police and federal agencies exist only to solve crimes and enforce regulations after a crime has occurred. Rarely can any of these entities stop a violent crime before it happens, and when they do, it’s almost always with the aid of private citizens.
Other side effects of the end of all “gun-control”
Devices that lessen the loud “BANG” of a firearm will cease being regulated by the federal government at $200 per transfer, and years in prison if the tax stamp is not purchased. Gun manufacturers will offer weapons so equipped off the shelf to anyone who desires one. This alone will cause the rate of deafness in shooters to plummet, and will make shooting ranges “good neighbors” in many areas once again. In Europe, many shooting ranges are now required to use “silenced” guns for this reason.
Contrary to popular belief, a “silencer” does not make a gunshot undetectable any more than a muffler on a Mack truck makes the truck invisible. The device simply takes away the dangerous and annoying part of the gun’s report, which is still very distinctive.
Anyone who wants one will be able to purchase an automatic weapon. In the years following the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act, thousands of gun collectors have had to spend $200, and submit dozens of sets of fingerprints and identification per transfer to obtain automatic weapons. Not once has any of these weapons been used in a crime.
On the other hand, there have been hundreds of instances where an ILLEGAL automatic weapon was obtained on the black market and used in street crime by persons who could not legally purchase any kind of firearm. Almost all of these instances involve drug dealers or street gangs. One that I know of that did not involve street criminals was the case of a disgruntled police officer who used an issued submachine gun in a crime of violence.
Anyone who wants one, and can afford to purchase one, can have artillery, tanks, flamethrowers, bazookas, or missile launchers. Good luck finding the ammunition, though. Today it is fairly simple for street gangs to obtain LAW rockets and Stinger missiles off the black market, so the criminal’s access to such devices won’t change. Legal access to these items by the everyday citizen will not make much of a change in daily life since most folks are not interested in these items, and the high price will scare off most other people, leaving only the wealthy able to obtain them. I do have to shudder at the thought of people like Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, and Warren Buffet being in control of heavy artillery. Who knows what evil they might do?
Unintended consequences of gun control
The siege at Ruby Ridge was instigated over an unpaid $200 tax on a sawed-off shotgun that was planted on Randy Weaver by federal agents intent on infiltrating white-power groups in Idaho. The deaths of Weaver’s wife and child are direct results of the 1934 NFA as interpreted by overzealous tax collectors.
The siege at Waco which resulted in the poisoning and burning deaths of dozens of innocent people was caused by the allegation of an unpaid $200 tax on a machine gun, which was never found, and the possibility of unpaid taxes on “hand grenades”, also never found or proven.
Masked “ninja” agents have broken into homes, pets have been stomped to death, and businesses have been looted, all in the quest for perfect bookkeeping and attention to
bureaucratic detail.
Perceived problems with ending ”gun control”
What about school safety, you say?
Well, the shooters in every school shooting incident on the books violated dozens or hundreds of laws ranging from prohibitions against young people obtaining handguns and ammunition to federal laws prohibiting firearms on school property or within a certain distance thereof. If only one teacher or other faculty member had had access to a concealed weapon, many of these incidents could have been ended with little or no loss of life or injury. In at least two cases, in fact, citizens with legal weapons stood down the shooter and ended the threat.
For years before the current mentality about guns came into being, students routinely brought weapons to class and stored them in the cloakroom or their lockers in anticipation of some fun after school, hunting or plinking. School gun violence was unheard of. The difference today is certainly not the guns!
What about people carrying firearms into bars?
Well, people do that already, and there are laws on the books concerning assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, and acting while intoxicated. A responsible person leaves his gun home if he intends to get plastered – and, for that matter, a truly responsible person knows when to stop drinking in the first place. We can rely on old-fashioned personal responsibility, coupled with enforcement of century-old laws to handle these cases.
Horrors! People will be carrying guns into churches and hospitals!
Again, those people intent on violence do so now, regardless of the law. At least there would be a chance for the people in the church or hospital to stand up to the threat.
What about the threat to police making traffic stops?
Well, if someone is going to react violently to an officer of the law, again, they will do so regardless of the laws on the books. Normal people do not reach for a gun every time they are angry or frustrated. People who do react in this way are called criminals or mentally ill, and society has had effective ways of dealing with them for a long time before “gun control” became the rage.
What about domestic violence? We all know that a gun in the home is 40 times more likely to be used on family members than to stop a criminal.
This lie has been debunked dozens of times. Again, normal people do not react with violence to their children or spouses, and for those that do, the availability of a firearm may just as well be the thing that ends the violent behavior as the cause of death or injury. If you would not beat your spouse or child with hands or clubs, why would you attack them with a gun? The idea that the very presence of a firearm increases tensions or violence is a myth, and attributes mystical powers to the weapon.
But – people will be able to mail order guns again! Don’t you remember that JFK was shot with a mail order gun? (This was one reason for the 1968 Gun Control Act)
Well, until 1968, people could order any kind of gun they wanted from the Sears Catalog and have it delivered to their door. Before 1968, anyone with $150 could have a World War II vintage anti-tank cannon and ammunition dropped off at their house without even a check to see if the recipient was over the age of 6 years. There were no instances of mass shootings, or hostage takings, or even street violence that could be traced to any other cause than a criminal or mentally ill personality. A benefit of mail order was that people, handicapped individuals in particular, who could not get to a licensed gun dealer could obtain defensive weapons in their homes. How many people have been beaten or killed in their residences by criminals who broke in, since the law was changed to prevent the good citizen from easily getting a gun?
People will be carrying gun on trains, buses, and airplanes! We will have a huge increase in hijackings and terrorist acts!
Let me put it this way – all the “gun control” on the books, all 20,000-plus laws of it, did not stop one of the 9/11 hijackers from taking over an airplane and crashing it. One passenger legally carrying a pistol on each plane, or the presence of one armed flight attendant could have stopped every one of these attempts with little or no loss of life except to the perpetrators. Our Congress has recognized this by voting to allow cockpit crew to be armed in the future.
Oh, no! People will be able to buy “sniper rifles” and those horribly destructive .50 caliber cannons!
Any hunting rifle worthy of the name is by definition a “sniper rifle”. There have been no instances recorded where a crime was committed with a .50 caliber weapon of any kind. Besides, .50 caliber rifles are real good at punching ½” diameter holes in things – they are NOT rocket launchers!
Assault rifles! Don’t tell me you approve of legalizing “assault rifles”!
As a matter of fact, the term “assault rifle” is hugely misused. The term properly means a fully automatic or “select fire” weapon with a short barrel designed for close-in combat use. These guns are no more deadly than any other except for the fact that they can fire more rapidly. The biggest concern about “assault” weapons seems to be the fact that these guns are perceived as “ugly” by those people passing gun laws, not that they have ever been used widely in crimes. Before the 1994 “ban” on “assault rifles”, very few criminals interviewed had owned this kind of weapon, and even fewer had used on in a crime.
What about “junk guns’ and “Saturday Night Specials”?
Bad quality in a product is a concern for civil suits, not criminal law. Manufacturers who make a shoddy product that injures the user or others because of a malfunction can be dealt with in the same manner that car manufacturers or drug makers are handled when they release defective, dangerous merchandise.
The term “Saturday Night Special’ comes from a racially insensitive song from the 1920’s. The same people who urge more restrictions on legal guns should henceforth consider using this term “politically incorrect” and quit doing so.
Some guns are designed to be easily concealed. This makes it easy for criminals to carry weapons!
Those same guns were designed to meet state laws on concealed carry. In the states now issuing concealed carry permits, the weapon must not be readily identifiable to passers-by. These guns are also ideal for a woman's purse. Banning them just leaves another segment of the population unable to defend themselves. Criminals will keep right on finding ways to do their crimes regardless.
Inescapable facts
One armed passenger could have stopped the terrorists who took over the Achille Lauro cruise ship years back.
One armed passenger could have prevented the throat cutting of a bus driver recently, resulting in the crash of a fully loaded bus.
One armed member of a church congregation could have stopped a shooter before he killed several worshipers in another recent incident.
One armed faculty member could have stopped the shooters at Columbine before the police arrived and shot innocent bystanders in an effort to end the standoff.
Thousands of women who work nights and in dangerous areas could have defended themselves from attack and not been raped or murdered.
Thousands of people on the streets of our most heavily regulated cities could have stopped thousands of violent acts every year.
Thousands of people in the poor areas of our large cities were not able to afford to buy and possess a weapon to ward off street criminals and break-ins. These are the people most hurt by present day gun laws.
Many, if not all, of the state and local “gun control” laws passed before the 1934 National Firearms Act were designed to prevent immigrants and minorities from obtaining defensive weapons. These laws are all immoral in their face, and illegal under several present federal laws prohibiting discrimination.
Gun laws do not stop violence. Only being able to resist with force can do so. This is why the police and the military are armed. Preventing the good people of our nation from exercising their Constitutional rights to do the same has resulted in uncountable misery.
It’s long past time to start repealing.
No comments:
Post a Comment