The Great Debate: Impotence in the Face of Tragedy, Part 2

1.  Bar sales to all violent criminals
2.  Assault weapons ban
3.  Semiautomatic gun ban
4.  High-capacity magazine ban
5.  Universal checks for gun buyers
6.  Universal checks for ammo buyers
7.  Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider
8.  Bar sales to convicted stalkers
9.  Require gun licenses
10. Ammo purchase limit
11. Centralized record of gun sales
12. Report lost or stolen guns
13. 3-day waiting period
14. Gun purchase limit
15. Workplace weapons ban
16. School weapons ban
17. Guns that microstamp bullets
18. Require gun safes
19. Require safety training
20. Fingerprint gun owners

Let's pick up where we left off, with #11.  This is a gun registry.  To record gun sales, and have a "centralized" record is a registry.  Does this person suppose that government would have no access to this record?  And if government has access, how can this not be a registry by which government can also find gun owners for the purpose of confiscation?  Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other countries.

 http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/kopel-catastrophic-consequences.htm

12.  This sounds good in theory, and any good gun owner would likely report a missing weapon out of a sense of responsibility.  But there are problems with making this a mandatory thing.   Let's say the gun owner isn't particularly zealous about training.  He owns a weapon but the novelty has faded and he simply is content to have it "just in case".  This is fine.  No reason he must feel obliged to meet anyone's standards for ownership other than his own.  If the gun is stolen and used in a crime, particularly a murder, he may not be aware that it is even missing.  How can one be mandated to report what he doesn't even realize has happened? 

Depending upon just how draconian his area might be with regard to gun control laws, the mere reporting could lead to charges against him, particularly if awareness of the missing weapon came after a crime was committed with his gun.  What's more, mandatory reporting is not likely to work very well without some kind of registering of one's weapons, which only burdens the law-abiding and only puts the law-abiding at risk of confiscation.

13.  This sounds good in theory.  The usual argument revolves around a "cooling off period" for those who are pissed now at someone and wants to kill them.  The idea that such a person would cool off and not feel as strongly about killing whomever pissed him off.  However, in three days, he also might be three times as pissed and simply more intent than ever to kill whomever pissed him off. 

But what about the victim of a stalker or murderer?  Why should that person have to wait three or more days to obtain a weapon to defend him/herself?  There are way too many stories of women who have been murdered by their husbands, boyfriends, ex-husband/boyfriend because they had to wait to buy a gun.  It's absurd and a clear infringement of one's right to bear arms.

A school shooter would have no problem waiting another three days to carry out his desire to shoot up a school.  A P-O'd former employee would have no problem waiting to shoot up his former workplace.  It's absurd to think a waiting period would make much difference.

Then there's the issue of suicides.  While I do not wish to see anyone take his/her own life, I'm afraid my concern for such people can't take precedence over my concern for people who wish to defend their lives.  If such a person is only seeking to take his/her own life, so be it.  If such a person is wishing to take the lives of others as well, such a person would likely have no problem waiting out the waiting period.

14.  This doesn't even sound good in theory.  Take the Vegas shooter.  Did he need all the weapons he brought with him, or could he have done the same damage with one or two and multiple magazines?  Guns are expensive.  One is not likely to find another purchasing too many at one time, or even over a period of a couple of months.  And whatever limit one faces, one can simply wait out whatever period is in place and then buy again until the desired amount is acquired.  If the limit is on total quantity one can possess, that would require a registry which is immoral and puts the law-abiding at risk.  One can only shoot one gun at any given moment, so the owner of multiple weapons is no more dangerous than the own of one with multiple magazines or reload capability.

15.  Any employer who wishes to ban weapons from his private property (his business) is free to do so.  Any employee who wishes to risk his own life by abiding his employer's ban is free to do so.   Any employee who wishes to risk his position by ignoring his employer's ban is free to do so.  Anyone who thinks the government can dictate such a mandate upon the private sector is no American, as this is clearly and plainly unconstitutional.  Anyone who thinks this will protect employees from those who wish to enter to shoot up the place is an idiot.

16.  We've seen too often the idiocy of this suggestion and indeed, this series of posts is about protecting students.  "Gun free zones" in schools, as in other places, do not work.  Never have and never will.  Only abject idiots continue to push this stupidity.

17.  I'll just leave this to and expert who will certainly be assailed for appearing in an NRA-related site.  Or, just know this is a really stupid idea that won't protect anybody from murderers.

18.  Gun safes are a good idea for those who believe they have a purpose in their own lives.  For example, if one doesn't trust one's friends or family members to respect the deadly potential of a firearm, one might want to lock up their guns.  But for those who believe that locking up one's weapons puts one's own life at risk should that weapon be needed, they should not be told their situation is of no significance.  If the buffoon who suggested this wishes to try getting his assailant to wait while he retrieves his weapon from the safe, good luck to him with that.  This same advice goes to those who like the idea of trigger locks (try fumbling around with that while your daughter is getting raped!), or keeping the weapon unloaded.  All the best to you.

19.  Really.   Mandating just about anything regarding guns is a form of infringement.  As this piece suggests, imagine other rights having training mandates imposed in order to engage in those rights.  And still, how does it protect anyone?  This same article goes on to express that there is no data (as of its writing) that proves a connection between training and accidents, but shows that accidents have been falling.  No doubt they'll ebb and flow up and down over time, but still, is it a matter of training, not enough training, poor training, poor listening and learning?  Responsible gun owners train.  They don't need to be told.  The rest won't train more than any mandate requires and likely not put their total hearts into it if they don't wish to abide the mandates in the first place.  Another impotent suggestion.

20.  This is for registry purposes and thus is unconstitutional as well as completely stupid.  The 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from government, and idiots who suggest this type of law give the fox power over the hen house.  It's imbecilic.

The biggest problem with the lot of these 20 suggestions is that it focuses on the laws regulating the law-abiding, assuming that among them are those who take up arms for criminal purposes.  Rational people enact laws and regulations that impede the ability of the criminal...not the law-abiding.  If you wish to protect the innocent, you don't handcuff the innocent.  You leave their liberty intact while doing all possible to confound the criminal.  None of these suggestions fall under any heading of "common sense" suggestions because the focus is in the wrong direction. 

This list came from a dolt who claims that his "real" plan involved these suggestions and were backed by studies and such that bear out his claim.  But as he's under strict limitations here, and is too cowardly to open up his own blog for serious discussion under his own goof terms means that we'll never know his "plan".  I've no doubt it would be time we'd be sorry to have lost from our limited lives were we to peruse it.