Last week another mass shooting took place (using the four victims in one incident counting method--which I find questionable, but hey we need a means of categorizing). I detest violence and criminal behavior and have genuine empathy for those who lost loved ones and friends, or had loved ones and friends injured in this incident. I agree with the general premise that the number of violent deaths in this country is awful and that the number of people killed by people using guns is awful. Of course the awful fact is that most of the people who die as a result of the use of a gun are caused by self-infliction/suicide and we should work harder as a population to deal with the underlying causes of suicide attempts.
What I do not understand is the rationality of those who argue that more laws restricting ability to legally own and use firearms are necessary. We have laws regarding who can and cannot purchase firearms already. For instance Hillary Clinton is saying if elected president she would work to use executive authority to keep people guilty of domestic violence from purchasing firearms--guess what this already happens if people purchase from a dealer or live in states that require background checks on private (person to person, non-dealer) sales. If the question is the laws regarding person to person sales, many states require background checks be completed to make those transfers of firearms legal already. Primarily, I guess my question is what makes anyone think that those who are intent on criminal behavior or are mentally irrational (due to illness, depression, whatever reason) would be so concerned about the law? You cannot take back things that are already in existence, guns already exist and even if outlawed would still exist and still have a marketplace. People who are going to engage in criminal behavior are not those who care what the law says about behaviors, much less about ownership/usage of firearms. People who are mentally irrational may care about the law but are at a place in their life that they either care less about the law or are incapable of caring about the law. For my two cents, this renders arguments in favor of more laws restricting ownership/access to the laws less rational and points out that perhaps we simply need to bolster application of existing laws.
What I do not understand is the rationality of those who argue that more laws restricting ability to legally own and use firearms are necessary. We have laws regarding who can and cannot purchase firearms already. For instance Hillary Clinton is saying if elected president she would work to use executive authority to keep people guilty of domestic violence from purchasing firearms--guess what this already happens if people purchase from a dealer or live in states that require background checks on private (person to person, non-dealer) sales. If the question is the laws regarding person to person sales, many states require background checks be completed to make those transfers of firearms legal already. Primarily, I guess my question is what makes anyone think that those who are intent on criminal behavior or are mentally irrational (due to illness, depression, whatever reason) would be so concerned about the law? You cannot take back things that are already in existence, guns already exist and even if outlawed would still exist and still have a marketplace. People who are going to engage in criminal behavior are not those who care what the law says about behaviors, much less about ownership/usage of firearms. People who are mentally irrational may care about the law but are at a place in their life that they either care less about the law or are incapable of caring about the law. For my two cents, this renders arguments in favor of more laws restricting ownership/access to the laws less rational and points out that perhaps we simply need to bolster application of existing laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment