|
"Yes, and that's why there should be LOCAL gun control laws..."
And given that
- the purpose of rational gun control laws is to prevent harm from occurring, and that the existence of laws that punish those who break them is plainly inadequate to deter them from causing that harm
- the coastal/urban areas of the US are not surrounded by alligator-filled moats and checkpoints where searches for firearms are conducted
exactly how do you imagine that laws which, for instance, prohibit the transfer and possession of certain firearms in certain jurisdictions are actually going to prevent such firearms from being transferred and possessed there?? And if they don't, why bother?
A firearm bought in a private sale, for instance, in one jurisdiction, is a mere interstate drive away from being transferred and possessed in another jurisdiction. And the existence of laws prohibiting such transfers simply do not deter the people who engage in them from engaging in them, and using the firearms to cause harm.
REAL "gun control" actually has an effect on the behaviour of people who do not obey laws.
A few features of such gun control are:
- everyone who possesses a firearm must demonstrate that s/he meets the criteria for possession firearms (e.g. no criminal record), which is done by obtaining a licence to possess firearms;
- no transfers of firearms may be made to anyone not in possession of a licence;
- all transfers of firearms must be registered;
- all firearms must be stored securely to deter theft.
THIS kind of law is directed to people who DO obey laws -- those "law-abiding gun owners". A much larger proportion of THOSE people can be expected to obey this kind of law than the proportion of non-law-abiding people -- the ones we all want not to have firearms -- who can be expected to obey laws directed to them.
The foreseeable effect will therefore be that FEWER firearms will be transferred (through sale or theft) into the hands of the people you don't want to have them.
ALL firearms (that are not illegally imported into a country) start out being owned by a "law-abiding gun owner". Whether that owner be the manufacturer or the end purchaser, s/he/it has a much greater incentive to obey the law, be it the incentive of personal morality or of what s/he/it stands to lose if caught.
... it isn't fair to force people living in rural MT or VT to live under the same gun control laws as NYC, when they are NOT needed.
What isn't fair about it? What isn't fair about requiring everyone who wants to have firearms to be licensed for the purpose, and to register all transfers of his/her firearms, and to store his/her firearms securely?
When the firearms used to cause harm in the eastern/urban jurisdictions come from the places where you say gun control laws are not needed, as they too obviously do, how can you say those laws are not needed in the places where they are acquired?? "Not needed" by some of the people where those firearms are being acquired, perhaps; why are their needs the only ones that matter?
Why can they not be expected to give enough of a damn about victims of harm elsewhere in their society, in the country of which they are all citizens -- and a very little bit of a damn it would be -- to agree to the extremely minor inconvenience of licensing and registration?
If they don't give even that much of a damn about the people they share their country with, what makes them any different from opponents of GLBT rights and welfare-bashers and the anti-choice brigade? Why should they be pandered to any more than those others? Why is this the issue on which the rest of the country should abandon their legitimate concerns, and their legitimate interest in having measures that combat a real and serious problem they live with, in favour of the petty selfishness of their country cousins and the grossly exaggerated inconvenience they might have to endure?
I won't be interested in anyone's cries of slippery slope, or second amendment, or inalienable rights.
I'm addressing three very specific points: - the effectiveness of jurisdiction-specific laws governing the circulation of goods, within a large and diverse society with no internal barriers to the circulation of people and goods; - the alleged unfairness of adopting rational, uniform gun control laws; and - the choice of this issue as the "losing" issue when there are so many other principles and policies that could be abandoned to much greater effect.
|