Why we don't need new gun control laws

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Because what's the point of adding new laws when the ones on the books aren't being followed?

https://freebeacon.com/issues/dod-i...orce-not-share-shooters-criminal-records-fbi/

Air Force Department of Defense IG investigation shows that the Sutherland Springs shooter's criminal records were not submitted to the FBI, so he didn't fail background checks when buying firearms. We knew that. But ... the investigation shows that this wasn't a one-time failure. It happened SIX times -- and then supervisors, who were charged with ensuring that the proper steps had been followed, signed off without verifying.

SIX TIMES.

Heads should roll ... but I'm sure they won't.
 
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca said:
Because what's the point of adding new laws when the ones on the books aren't being followed?

https://freebeacon.com/issues/dod-i...orce-not-share-shooters-criminal-records-fbi/

Air Force IG investigation shows that the Sutherland Springs shooters criminal records were not submitted to the FBI, so he didn't fail background checks when buying firearms. We knew that. But ... the investigation shows that this wasn't a one-time failure. It happened SIX times -- and then supervisors, who were charged with ensuring that the proper steps had been followed, signed off without verifying.

SIX TIMES.

Heads should roll ... but I'm sure they won't.
Click to expand...
When a 'superviser' fails to do his/her job that results in this sort of thing..'heads should roll' should equal, criminal charges..not some Art 15 type slap on the wrist..
 
The idea of implementing new laws that impact millions of faceless citizens is much easier for politicians to handle than doing things that impact specific individuals. It is much easier to attack millions of law abiding NRA members who may not vote for you anyway than the local teen who uses a stolen gun to shoot a Police Officer.
 
And of course laws only affect law abiding citizens, and they are not the problem.

With over 300 millions firearms in circulation in the USA and thousands of firearm related laws on the books, it's time to start looking for alternate solutions to reduce the misuse of firearms. But defining, identifying, and apprehending sick people before they act is too difficult for our lawmakers to tackle within the confines of our constitution, and doing nothing makes them look bad, so more laws it is.

I am actually surprised there are not more mass shootings in the USA. Many years ago I predicted this trend would accelerate due to the increasing stress in our society, pushing more and more people to the edge. With a population of some 330 million people, if only 0.01% were sick enough to want to go out with a bang that would mean some 33,000 potential shooters running around, and I'm sure the percentage is higher than 0.01%. Again it comes back to finding and treating sick people, not more gun laws that only restrict the sane people.
 
Proposing whacky gun laws gets our political leaders campaign contributions to be used in political campaigns... you know to get elected and re-elected... and also the politicians’ favorite charitable foundations get donations as well. The elected leaders then somehow walk away multimillionaires while receiving a paultry government salary. This is preferable to actually doing some work to lower crime.
 
The single most asked question of politicians during election years is “what did you do?” , and that is in reference to passing legislation.
“I passed no legislation!” isn’t a good way to get re-elected, and guns are easy targets.
 
But defining, identifying, and apprehending sick people before they act is too difficult ...
Click to expand...


Generally speaking its not only too difficult, its not LEGAL!

Defining? already done, in law, and has been for generations.

Identifying?? again, already done, at least as far as there being a system to report threats to. Identifying a specific individual as a threat? The system is there, one calls the police.

Apprehending????? Now there we ALSO have a system. The "flaw" is that the system requires an actual CRIME to have been committed.

That's the "problem" unless, and until a crime is committed, those "defined and identified" people have done no wrong. They have NOT broken the law, and they have the SAME rights as you and I.

if there is one spot where we, as a people have turned a blind eye to reality, it is the idea that a law can prevent crime. They don't, and never have. One can make a case that certainty of severe punishment MIGHT prevent crime, (and there is a very good case that capital punishment prevents repeat offences :rolleyes:) but generally speaking, no one commits a crime believing that they will be caught and punished.

Of course, you can "identify" people who are potential mass murders, depending on where you set your standards, but what then? Until/unless they DO something (not say, do) that breaks the law, they are law abiding citizens just like we are.

To take it to ridiculous extremes, do you want it to be the law that you can be identified and apprehended because you might vote Republican???
(or Democrat, or whatever, depending on who is making the rules today?)

I don't. Nor do I want you in a position of authority if you do!
 
The idea of implementing new laws that impact millions of faceless citizens is much easier for politicians to handle than doing things that impact specific individuals.
Click to expand...

Here, the thing is that they don't just do this with gun laws. Back in the 90s when people were burning churches (arson already being illegal in every state where it occurred), Congress and the President needed to appear to doing something to rectify the problem and so they made it a federal crime (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996). Then Clinton formed the Church Arson Task Force.

We now have two classes of crimes, those that are not "hate crimes" and those that are. You can murder somebody and as long as you have not openly expressed some sort of revulsion for their skin color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., then it is just a normal murder, but get witnessed calling them a bad name while you kill them and it is now a hate crime murder...because words matter.
 
TomNJVA said:
But defining, identifying, and apprehending sick people before they act is too difficult for our lawmakers to tackle within the confines of our constitution, and doing nothing makes them look bad, so more laws it is.
Click to expand...

actually, thats exactly what they are doing with ERPO laws and recently a proposal to demand your social media passwords for review in order to buy a firearm. While these laws are controversial pushing the limits of due process, they are doing something just as always in the wrong direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top