|
You know, in theory I could even agree with items 1 and 3.
I think it would be good if all gun purchases were to be processed through FFLs. Except, to make that a reality, the process has to become much more convenient. Reduce the current 3-page form to a few lines. After all, there is no need to spend a whole page asking you dumb questions, when everyone knows what the correct answers should be (why ask people whether they are a felon, that is perfectly obvious from the database). Get rid of waiting periods. Make the FFL transfer free. Make it so any police station or city hall or county office has to act as a FFL, so it is easy to find one.
It would be wonderful if the police had the tools to fight gun crimes. Gun crimes give law-abiding gun owners a bad name. I would love it if we could take places like Oakland, Comptom, or Detroit, and get all the illegal guns off the street. That would require house-to-house searches, checkpoints, the suspension of all probably cause and criminal process, and would leave the constitution and civil rights in tatters. Somebody recently suggested that it would be a good thing if all of Compton were napalm'ed, because it would greatly reduce the crime rate in LA. That ridiculous example shows that his suggestions for "tools and resources" would probably not be acceptable. Where I do agree with him: Funding for law enforcement should be greatly increased, so law enforcement actually has a chance to go after criminals. If I remember correctly, Oakland has about 100 murders a year; of those, only a few dozen get seriously investigated (the others are ab initio hopeless to follow up on), and the conviction rate is in the single digits per year.
He claims that our gun policies are insane. I agree. They do very little or nothing to reduce violence and crime. Instead, they are a placebo, which makes politicians and anti-gun voters think that they have "accomplished something". To the typical Brady campaigner or democratic politician, a sense of accomplishment means getting the republicans or the NRA mad at you. In the US society, with its deep socio-economic rift, there is little one can do to reduce violent crime, without first fixing the problem of an underclass that lives in slums.
I'm sure I would totally disagree with his idea of which weapons are designed for sport or self-defense. On several levels. First off, this is supposed to be a free country. Meaning that as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights, I don't need to justify why I want a particular gun, so the notion that it needs to be justified by sport or defense. Second, his idea of "sport" is probably highly restrictive. In my book, the AR-15 is excellent for service rifle competition. As would be the H&K G36. In Sweden and Germany, sport shooters can get automatic weapons (meaning machine guns), why not in the US? For IPSC competition, normal-capacity magazines (not the restricted 10-rounders) are just about a must. And the .50BMG makes a fine round for long-range (mile or so) rifle shooting; it is the most cost-effective round that has good accuracy at these distances.
So, of all his speech, I think there is one minor point I agree on, and that is closing the "gun show loophole" (which is NOT a loophole, it was explicitly designed to be there, because today's FFL transfers are too heavy-weight to be used for person-to-person transfers).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
