Posted on 08/12/2016 10:46:27 AM PDT by PROCON
How much gun control would be enough? This is a question that I pose to advocates of control, trying to find out where they would draw the line. What requirement, what level of strictness would reach the point that something more would be unacceptable?
The history of firearms laws in the United States is well known to members of the gun community. In the twentieth century, the waves of control rise first with the Sullivan Act in New York State in 1911 and ebb and flow over the next hundred years, peaking with the Brady Act and the Assault Weapons Ban in the early 90s. Since that time, the only major federal changes in gun laws have been the two Supreme Court rulings that affirmed the right to own firearms throughout the country.
The states have led the way in the modern trend of gun laws, generally loosening them with the exception of New York and California, among a few others. One illustration of this is the progress in the legal carry of handguns, starting with Florida becoming a shall-issue state in 1987. Since then, some provision for carry has been created in every state, and forty-two either allow residents to be armed without a license or issue a license to anyone who can pass a background check and basic test.
The fluctuations of the homicide numbers over the same period calls the effectiveness of gun laws into question. Murders occurred a rate of some six per hundred thousand in 1900, rising to bounce between eight and ten in the 20s and 30s and then again from the 60s to early 90s. In the 40s and 50s, the rate was between four and six, and we’ve dropped back to that low since the mid 90s.
If we’re going to seek answers on the basis of this history, we’ll have to accept that the conclusions will be tentative, thanks to the messy nature of the data. A first approximation suggests that letting people own and carry what and where they wish, so long as they have passed a check of criminal and mental health records, achieves good results. This risks charges of confusing correlation with causation, but it’s safe to say that what we’ve done over the last three decades hasn’t made things worse.
So the question remains—what would be enough, from the perspective of gun control advocates? What would be the last law they’d insist on enacting?
This question stymies advocates of greater control. I’ve asked it many times, only to get hemming and hawing in response. And I suspect that what’s going on here is an unwillingness to admit that the desire for gun laws has little if anything to do with saving lives. The practical reality of law is that there is a maximal level of effect beyond which any new restrictions will achieve no better results.
And then there’s the matter of rights. If we take rights into account, there are lines that we must not cross. And the coyness of gun control advocates shows their disdain for the essential liberties of their fellow human beings.
They just won't come right out and say it.
A lot of good info at link of the history of American gun laws.
Absolute prohibition on possession of firearms of any sort by anyone except police and military, of course.
Just like in Schindler’s List.
Looks like my garage before that tragic flood which washed everything into the river.
Agree. And don’t ever expect an honest answer to the question. Their goal is couched in the usual marketing phrases like “common sense,” “gun safety,” “reducing gun violence.” That last one is curious in that it isn’t “eliminating” gun violence. Implicitly, they expect an acceptable amount of gun violence from the government following confiscation. But to them, that’s a good thing.
It does little good to remind them that there was plenty of bloodshed before firearms came around - Genghis Khan comes to mind. It doesn't do any good because it isn't a position they've reached by reason and they're not going to be reasoned out of it.
What they want is a 100% ban and door-to-door confiscation.
At gunpoint.
I wonder how they’re going to enforce it.
With guns, of course.
As usual, they assume they’ll be in charge and duly exempt themselves.
Hildebeeste wants to disarm us. There's just no two ways about it.
We cannot permit this to happen.
Being a member of the Gun of the Month Club does have its disadvantages, chief of which is its ability to drive one out of one’s own home through gun proliferation. Sadly, there really is no cure.
The liberal vision is not one of a gun free society. They never say that but leave it to be implied. The reality is theyre only interested in taking your guns. Theyll keep theirs. Liberals understand guns are necessary to keep the general populace in line and to cull those groups they view as ‘’defective’.
Never enough!
How? We’ve gotten some previews: LE and military. Those are the groups liberals will use to enforce their plans. Both LE and military seem happy to help.
The goal is to totally disarm the citizens.
“shall not be infringed” is very clear language.
There are far too many infringements already.
I ask myself that all the time.
RE “Question for gun control advocates: ...”
Answer for Gun Control Advocates:
GFyourselves. Molon Labe.
They want only the criminals be armed.
Guns being crushed ...
By government employees, wearing government uniforms, and carrying government guns.
Leftists want to hold a monopoly on the use of lethal force, so they can force YOU to do their bidding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.