Increased Regulations Could Help Prevent Gun Violence

A big long one I hope you will take the time to read.


After the latest mass shootings in Oregon Obama addressed the nation calling for the crafting of new laws addressing gun violence. Predictably gun advocates jumped all over his remarks within minutes.

(1) Mikey said we don't know how he got his guns. Well here's a clue for ya.. "Even if Mercer could not have passed a background check, a loophole in the law means he could have purchased the weapons from an unlicensed vendor, such as a private individual at a gun show, or on the internet. Until very recently such sales, which are estimated to make up around 40 per cent of all gun trade in the U.S. according to Smart Gun Laws, were not subject to background checks in Oregon."

Oregon legislators this past August 9th attempted to plug those loopholes. Guess who came out the most vocal against them? According to the New York Post, "The sheriff whose department responded to Thursday’s massacre once sent an open letter to Vice President Joe Biden in which he insisted gun laws would not stop mass murders and vowed not to enforce federal gun-control legislation."

(2) Mike also stated the president was too quick not knowing the shooters mental condition. If we had stronger background checks in place they might have revealed he "idolized the Nazis and the IRA, despised organized religion — and talked of how killing could bring a person fame... He also showed interest in the Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook school shootings, having recently shared documentaries about the massacres with people online..

If we had a gun waiting period a Google search could have turned up these details. Waiting periods are good things. They can prevent angry impulse purchases. Anyone looking to buy a weapon for self protection, hunting or target shooting probably isn't in great need of a weapon in the next half hour

(3) Mikey none of the above is"destroying the second amendment". There's no reason why we can't close these gaps and still adhere to the 2nd amendment. That is unless Huckabee wants to go full tilt and strictly apply the 2nd amendment to everyone including felons and the crazies (since there's nothing specifically addressing them in the amendment).

The first thing coming out of opponents mouths against Obama is the huge amount of shootings in the city of Chicago where his career began. This even though Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws. This is another case of picking and choosing to focus in on certain cities rather then the nation as a whole. Critics fail to point out "Illinois is surrounded by a sea of states whose highest rating is a C-." when it comes to regulations on gun purchases. The cities of New York City, Detroit and several others complain about this as well.

The problem is each state is on a different page. There's no uniformity because the heavily lobbied cowardly congress members refuse to even talk about developing one. The constant excuse they use is citing states rights. They're not doing anyone any favors. In fact they are hurting more innocent gun owners then they are helping. If someone flies into JFK from Texas with a gun they're subject to arrest. If someone drives from Pennsylvania into New Jersey with their gun in the car they are subject arrest. Some states you can carry concealed weapons and not in others.


There's no excuse for not setting at least some sort of national policy so even innocent gun owners don't end up with a arrest record.

Another shallow argument is the one that states the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Oh if it were only that simple. Just who are these "good guys"? Everybody's a good guy, that is until they fire their weapon killing someone unnecessarily. Take for example the guy who shot and killed his wife, her boyfriend and critically wounded a Good Samaritan. Unfortunately no one knows when a "good guy" may lash out in a fit of road rage or act out becoming a jealous lover.

While I'm at it let me put to rest another bullshit argument that shooters target gun free zones. 'Mother Jones' in 2013 published, "Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns."


Some New Gun Regulation Suggestions
(A) Opponents of increased gun legislation claim bad guys will always get their hands on guns no matter what we do. First off with nationally increased regulations they wouldn't be getting their hands on them at gun shows and through various loopholes as they presently are able to do as laws vary from state to state.

(B) According to a PBS 'Frontline' report "stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes.". The vast majority of criminals and gang bangers get them through "Straw Purchasers" or corrupt store owners. It may not be a perfect solution but dramatically increasing federal penalties against these two type of transactions would be helpful. Perhaps in addition making it federally mandatory they be charged with accessory to whatever crime was committed by the gun.

(C) Requiring gun owners to report their stolen weapons would be useful. These weapons then could listed on a database. If then a bad guy got a hold of a gun his/her penalty would be increased over having acquired it through a straw purchaser or corrupt vender. The logic in this should be obvious. Not only would he/she be charged for whatever crime was committed but so too the theft of the weapon. In others words an additional count would be added to the charges.

(D) No one needs high powered metal/vest piercing or hollow tipped bullets to either hunt, target shoot nor defend themselves. The second amendment applies to weapons. No mention is made to the type of ammo allowed or not allowed. At the time of the amendment this kind of ammo wasn't even thought of. Therefore regulating ammo should stand up in court over the question of constitutional legality.


CONCLUDING REMARKSI know this was lengthily. If you made it this far I thank you.

I've given just four suggestions that congress could consider. BUT THEY WON'T because they're too damned worried abut campaigning finances. I don't realistically believe anything will ever change even if Americans support some of these changes.

There are those who profit and others who will always believe government is out to get them. Even if it were, does anyone really believe the guns in their possession would stand a chance!

Either we can go on as we always have done and accept these shootings as a part of the way things will always be in our neighborhoods, churches and schools forever and ever.
OR
At the very least be willing to make changes to keep both none gun owners and gun owners just a little bit safer and free from arrests crossing state boundaries?

The question boils down to this. Are we "The United States of America" or similar to European nations just a collection of states who cannot agree on most anything?