Thursday, January 13, 2011


Oh Darn, I Agree with a Proposed Gun Law

There is some fallacious thinking in this article by Louis Klarevas over at the New Republic. He thinks the ten years of the assault weapon and large magazine ban would have prevented ownership of a 30 plus round Glock extended clip. Nope, the law merely prohibited the manufacture of large capacity detachable magazines while giving the manufacturers a 7 month heads up about the law during which time magazine manufacturers produced thousands of extra magazines. There were plenty around to buy (at inflated prices) during the ban period, there will be plenty to buy if a stricter ban were to be enacted, as the criminal types tend to ignore the law. There are plenty of reasons to have extended clips other than a desire to murder as many as possible. But when the rubber meets the road, the internationalist has a reasonable idea:

When Congress returns, one of the legislative changes it should consider is passing a law that would require all public entities, as well as all organizations that receive public funds, to file a report on any affiliated individuals (e.g., employees or students) that they deem to be public mental health concerns. These confidential reports (which would be provided to the person in question) would then be entered into the Brady database,
called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and serve as grounds to prohibit immediate firearms purchases. People would ultimately have the opportunity to prove their mental stability and have the reports revoked in a timely manner—but, until then, or if unable to prove stability, they could not walk into a gun store and buy a weapon. Period.

The "period" is a little hopeful--a would be mass murder could still obtain weapons from criminals, or by stealing them--and the idea reverses the innocent until proven guilty meme, but it seems workable, if the person is given a reasonable and reasonably priced ability to prove he or she is not crazy.

Even a super defender of the Second Amendment like me doesn't want dangerous crazy people easily and legally obtaining deadly weapons. No sane person does.


I have a problem with "if the person is given a reasonable and reasonably priced ability to prove he or she is not crazy." Kind of puts the lie to "Innocent until proven guilty."

As an addition, I've seen the way you leer at women and that one joke you made was a bit of color so I'm going to suggest you go on the sex offender registry. No problems, though, you can just take time off of work and pony up $200 and we might take your name off.

I'm troubled by that too, but we're talking about preventing violent and crazy getting a weapon easily. We could add a one way award of attorney fees for putting a person on the list groundlessly. It's not without problems and I'd rather attack the problem by getting crazy people real, effective help and leave the gun aspect alone, but I can't see that happening. Thanks for the comments. You made your points brilliantly.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?