NOTE: The first six posts in this thread were copied from another that addressed race as a central component of the discussion. As Fenway does not permit those discussions here, I've copied these posts so the discussion can continue about the effect of "gun control" laws, irrespective of race. Please confine all discussions herein to the laws themselves and their effect on the populations (generally) under them. Thank you.
Well, according to the comments, the author is well-known for his "progressive" views and apparently envisions any failure of a Black man to succeed in life as someone else's fault. Regardless of these points, I have to say he was doing fine... right up until he got to the part about "reasonable gun control", which he seems to think includes "ban(ning) gun show sales, straw purchases, interstate gun trafficking, and other loopholes that enable handguns to get into the hands of criminals."
He goes on to decry the private ownership of what he calls WMDs "that have no sporting or self-defense purpose"...presumably, he refers to those evil black rifles, along with AK-pattern rifles and any of several other long guns that look like military firearms.
Obviously, I need not detail amongst the members of this board why what he views as "reasonable gun control" is a fallacy; control the criminals and there is no need to control the guns, and I probably don't need to explain the idiocy he embraces with the rest of that, either, however, for those new to INGO or those reading who may not be as familiar with the issues, I will anyway.
Banning gun show sales: The much-discussed "gun show loophole" that in truth, is a phantom. There is no such animal- the "loophole" is the fact that private citizens may buy and sell their property to other private citizens at their leisure, without involving someone who's paid a fee to obtain a title. To put it in perspective, if the "loophole" was "closed", it would mean that to sell a gun, you must do so at or through a retailer who handles them. To some, this makes sense because so many people die as a result of gun violence, however, many, many more people die in car accidents, and we don't have to buy and sell cars only at car dealers. People have been killed with various workshop tools as well, but if I have a hammer or screwdriver or chainsaw that my neighbor likes and wants to buy from me, I don't have to return to a hardware store and pay a fee to the proprietor to make the sale legal. Ah, but cars and tools have other purposes and after all, a gun is only useful for killing. Disagree. A gun is useful for many things; hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-defense among them. Most of the defensive gun uses, and there are about 2.5 million of these in any given year, do not involve a single shot being fired.
Straw purchases, that is, the purchase of a firearm by one who is not prevented by law from doing so for the purpose of delivering it to someone who is so prevented, is already unlawful, leading, in some cases, to fear on the part of a wife who wants to buy a gun for her husband. The intent of the law may be sound, but the execution of it is far less so.
"Interstate gun trafficking" sounds so ominous and frightening... it must be a terrible crime, right? Only... it's not. If I live in one state and want to buy a gun for someone in another (for example, my great-nephew, who lives several states away,) I cannot purchase a single-shot, .22LR rifle known as a "Davey Crickett" and put it in a box to send to his father to hold for him until he is of an age to learn about it's safe use. I cannot purchase it and take it to him, either. Nor can I go to the state where he lives, make the purchase, and deliver it there. No, I must purchase it here in my state, have it shipped from a gun dealer here to a gun dealer in his state, pay a fee to both dealers, and then, his father can go to that dealer, fill out paperwork, pay any state fees, wait out any state-mandated waiting periods, and only then may this small, "trainer"-type rifle go home with him to be held for his son's maturing. Yes, we are SO much safer when a man cannot purchase a rifle to be held in safekeeping for its eventual owner, who is two years old, to grow up a little bit.
As should be obvious, none of these laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns; they are criminals, which means they do not obey laws! Besides, if your intent is to commit robbery, rape, or murder, all of which are against the law and with far greater penalties, will a bunch of words on a piece of paper telling you that it is illegal for you to possess a firearm really stop you from doing so?
As for the point about the "weapons of mass destruction", and again, I can only guess that the author refers to specific rifles with a military origin and basic appearance, I invite his attention to the well-publicized riots in Los Angeles around the time of the Rodney King verdict. News broadcasts showed Korean shopkeepers standing on their rooftops with AK-pattern rifles, near other shops without the owners being armed. Guess which shops didn't get robbed. One further note of interest, around the same time, many of the celebrities who had come out in support of such things as waiting periods, law-enforcement checks, etc., found in their time of fear and yes, need, they went to gun stores to purchase pistols for their own defense. The dealers were all too happy to take their money, but alas, the laws they had embraced now prevented them from leaving the stores with the guns for which they'd just paid. They were told to come back in 7-14 days to pick up their guns, in compliance with state law, fame, fortune, and name-recognition notwithstanding.
I hope that this has been educational for those who have not heard it before. The facts backing up statements within the text can be found readily from sources such as Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths, a compilation of various of these facts, exhaustively researched and painstakingly footnoted.
Blessings,
Bill
Well, according to the comments, the author is well-known for his "progressive" views and apparently envisions any failure of a Black man to succeed in life as someone else's fault. Regardless of these points, I have to say he was doing fine... right up until he got to the part about "reasonable gun control", which he seems to think includes "ban(ning) gun show sales, straw purchases, interstate gun trafficking, and other loopholes that enable handguns to get into the hands of criminals."
He goes on to decry the private ownership of what he calls WMDs "that have no sporting or self-defense purpose"...presumably, he refers to those evil black rifles, along with AK-pattern rifles and any of several other long guns that look like military firearms.
Obviously, I need not detail amongst the members of this board why what he views as "reasonable gun control" is a fallacy; control the criminals and there is no need to control the guns, and I probably don't need to explain the idiocy he embraces with the rest of that, either, however, for those new to INGO or those reading who may not be as familiar with the issues, I will anyway.
Banning gun show sales: The much-discussed "gun show loophole" that in truth, is a phantom. There is no such animal- the "loophole" is the fact that private citizens may buy and sell their property to other private citizens at their leisure, without involving someone who's paid a fee to obtain a title. To put it in perspective, if the "loophole" was "closed", it would mean that to sell a gun, you must do so at or through a retailer who handles them. To some, this makes sense because so many people die as a result of gun violence, however, many, many more people die in car accidents, and we don't have to buy and sell cars only at car dealers. People have been killed with various workshop tools as well, but if I have a hammer or screwdriver or chainsaw that my neighbor likes and wants to buy from me, I don't have to return to a hardware store and pay a fee to the proprietor to make the sale legal. Ah, but cars and tools have other purposes and after all, a gun is only useful for killing. Disagree. A gun is useful for many things; hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-defense among them. Most of the defensive gun uses, and there are about 2.5 million of these in any given year, do not involve a single shot being fired.
Straw purchases, that is, the purchase of a firearm by one who is not prevented by law from doing so for the purpose of delivering it to someone who is so prevented, is already unlawful, leading, in some cases, to fear on the part of a wife who wants to buy a gun for her husband. The intent of the law may be sound, but the execution of it is far less so.
"Interstate gun trafficking" sounds so ominous and frightening... it must be a terrible crime, right? Only... it's not. If I live in one state and want to buy a gun for someone in another (for example, my great-nephew, who lives several states away,) I cannot purchase a single-shot, .22LR rifle known as a "Davey Crickett" and put it in a box to send to his father to hold for him until he is of an age to learn about it's safe use. I cannot purchase it and take it to him, either. Nor can I go to the state where he lives, make the purchase, and deliver it there. No, I must purchase it here in my state, have it shipped from a gun dealer here to a gun dealer in his state, pay a fee to both dealers, and then, his father can go to that dealer, fill out paperwork, pay any state fees, wait out any state-mandated waiting periods, and only then may this small, "trainer"-type rifle go home with him to be held for his son's maturing. Yes, we are SO much safer when a man cannot purchase a rifle to be held in safekeeping for its eventual owner, who is two years old, to grow up a little bit.
As should be obvious, none of these laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns; they are criminals, which means they do not obey laws! Besides, if your intent is to commit robbery, rape, or murder, all of which are against the law and with far greater penalties, will a bunch of words on a piece of paper telling you that it is illegal for you to possess a firearm really stop you from doing so?
As for the point about the "weapons of mass destruction", and again, I can only guess that the author refers to specific rifles with a military origin and basic appearance, I invite his attention to the well-publicized riots in Los Angeles around the time of the Rodney King verdict. News broadcasts showed Korean shopkeepers standing on their rooftops with AK-pattern rifles, near other shops without the owners being armed. Guess which shops didn't get robbed. One further note of interest, around the same time, many of the celebrities who had come out in support of such things as waiting periods, law-enforcement checks, etc., found in their time of fear and yes, need, they went to gun stores to purchase pistols for their own defense. The dealers were all too happy to take their money, but alas, the laws they had embraced now prevented them from leaving the stores with the guns for which they'd just paid. They were told to come back in 7-14 days to pick up their guns, in compliance with state law, fame, fortune, and name-recognition notwithstanding.
I hope that this has been educational for those who have not heard it before. The facts backing up statements within the text can be found readily from sources such as Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths, a compilation of various of these facts, exhaustively researched and painstakingly footnoted.
Blessings,
Bill
Last edited:
Excellent writing and logical, powerful argumentation! Adequate documentation. Thanks for your work. Out of rep, so five thumbs up is the best I can do now. 
