If we serialize all ammunition then it will be another better tool to catch criminals. I happen to agree, in the short term at least, but I am more interested in stopping crime than catching those that commit crime. Plus one easy way around this is for the criminal to steal someone else’s ammunition and then commit their crime.
We are being told again and again by lawmakers that another new gun control law is absolutely necessary to reduce crime. Do not kid yourself; the serialization of ammunition is another gun control law. Plus there are already over tens of thousands of State and Federal gun control laws that apparently have not produced these desired results, so why would you or anyone think criminals will finally retire when yet another gun control law is passed?
In spite of all the gun control laws that have been passed to reduce crime, criminals are still living and working and prospering. This is because gun control laws have been proven to have no deterrent effect at all on a criminal who is intent on breaking the law. Criminals ignore laws they do not like. An even scarier thought is that some just plan do not care.
When it comes to gun control laws, lawmakers obviously disagree with me and more recently the majority of the American public. They need to provide us with independently verifiable proof that their next proposed gun control law will actually convince criminals to quit their criminality and become law abiding citizens. Then I will support it, until such time though, I cannot support any gun control law that is passed. One thing that is a proven fact is that citizens with guns that confront criminals reduce crime.
The nation does need fewer criminals, but there is a much better way to achieve that. Look at criminals as businessmen, because that is what they are. They do this business of crime because there is greater personal profit in crime than personal risk. When a businessman’s profits are less than its costs of do business, they eventually quit or go out of business.
Rather than pass more gun control laws, the lawmakers should pass more open and concealed carry laws in all states or federally. The problem here is the criminals can openly carry guns just like the average citizen, but like I said before laws are no deterrent at all on a criminal who is intent on breaking the law. By allowing more people to carry guns the cost of being a criminal goes up significantly and the majority will quit (become law abiding citizens) or go out of business (i.e. get shoot). For this to work it must be immediately applied to the criminal by their intended victim at the time of the attack. The police can not and do not arrive in time to stop a criminal attack (or they would be no attacks at all). Therefore, several hundred thousand random citizens can begin putting criminals out of business right at the source of the crime. Criminals will decide to change jobs only when the consequences are immediate, personal, and so very costly. Plus we already know thousands of gun control laws do not, and can not do that.
The next proposed gun control law will meet a similar fate. Lawmakers, who are truly concerned with the public’s safety and stopping violent criminal businesses should loosen restrictive gun carry laws, so going armed in public is less cumbersome for those of us who can or do carry.
Now I will say there will be one downside to this. With more law abiding citizens carrying guns, when they choose to use them they will do so in the open. Criminals do their best to operator their business in private and behind closed doors so their transactions are rarely seen openly. Do not be surprised to see more acts of violence to stop the criminals who are willing to risk everything to stay in business. Especially in the short run, as criminals have had free rein for so long they will not see the consequences of continuing their business practices at first. Then you have the few that just plan do not care, (society has coined a statement about them, suicide by cop) we will always have them around.
More to follow.
13 December 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can't agree more.
ReplyDeleteToday is Bill or Rights Day a real holiday that happens every December 15th. Your post hit many points, but I would like to add the following on this day that is suppose to honor the Bill of rights.
ReplyDeleteThe second item on the bill of rights. The right to form militias and the right to own and carry arms. It was violated by the National Forearms Act of 1934 and by the Gun Control Act of 1968 plus any other reasonable gun law on the books.
You can see this linked below, and all the items listed on the bill of rights have been violated at one time or other in our past by following this link.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5723-Albuquerque-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m12d15-For-what-its-worth-Bill-of-Rights-Day
So what about the second bill of right.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second bill of rights. Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges. Roosevelt's stated justification was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to create an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:
* A job with a living wage
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
* A home
* Medical care
* Education
* Recreation
Thanks for you comments. I really appreciate them as it gives me feedback and assures me someone is reading my posts.
ReplyDeleteMy question is to Karen. How does the second bill of rights, purposed by FDR have anything to do with gun control (the subject of the post)? You even said "Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution."
Now that is not to say FDR did not change the constitution. He was the one who signed the National Forearms Act of 1934. Ironically I believe he is also the one who made December 15th Bill or Rights Day. Thank you for that information John.
Now I do have an opinion about the second bill of rights, but I do not wish to go into that here. I deviated a little from my topic talking about gun control. I may pick it up at a later date. Keep the comments coming, and I'll keep the posts coming.
I just found your blog. You have some good posts here, hope you post again soon. Just a quick comment on this post.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that the “hot burglary” (hot burglary is when the victims are present when the burglar enters) rate in Great Britain is 59%, in Canada is 44%, and in the Netherlands is 46% while it is only 13% in the USA (BTW Great Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have some of the strictest gun laws in the world which means its citizens are the least armed.) Clear proof that criminals fear armed victims, especially those armed with guns.
Also the first very restrictive gun control to be enacted in England was the Firearms Act of 1920 and it was adopted because the upper ruling class feared an armed uprising by the Bolsheviks? These items are all well documented.
One last thing the anti-gun people toot, that in Great Britain’s homicide rates are very low compared to the USA because of their gun control laws. At the turn of the century the homicide rate in England was 1.1 per 100,000 and it is now 1.4 per 100,000 of the population, thus England had a very low rate of murder before any restrictive gun control was ever enacted? The low homicide rate in England is clearly due to their something like their culture and not due to gun control.