More Gun Control, Really?

The Newtown shootings have brought out the hysterical anti-gun lobby again.  In fact, their response to the tragedy came even before the facts of the shooting had been released.  Everyone mourns the loss of life in the Newtown school shootings.  Few things could be less tragic.  Still, the demands of people for additional gun control are no more rational now than they were before Newtown.

I waited to publish anything on this subject for two reasons.  At first, it seemed inappropriate because of the mourning of the victims although that did not stop the anti-gun lobby.  Then I examined what I had written and concluded that I had no new ideas on opposing gun control.  The piece I wrote sounded like hundreds of others.  I am writing now because perhaps I see a different dynamic than has been published elsewhere and because many people are not examining the arguments for gun control in sufficient depth as far as how it would affect the average citizen.

First, rather than diminish the gun control zealots as illogical, fuzzy-brained fools, let me say that most of them are well intentioned, not unintelligent, and truly believe in what they are saying.  The bulk of the gun control argument, however, is confined to sound bites that mostly is accurate.  The anti-gun activists are truly convinced that fewer guns would result in less crime.  Truly, if there were zero guns in the United States, there could be no gun violence.  The fact that it would be impossible to get to the point that there were zero guns in the US does not diminish their faith in restricting the rights of others. 

What the activists seem unable to comprehend is that none of the communities in the United States that have extreme gun control have any lower firearms-related crime rates than similar cities with less restrictions.  I would also note that Illinois, which currently bans concealed carry, is under federal court order to change their laws because of a citizen’s lawsuit ( see http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-11/news/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211_1_court-strikes-appeals-court-david-sigale).  It was alleged and affirmed that the Illinois law unnecessarily put citizens at risk because they could not defend themselves.  Anti-gunners take note!

Let’s look at how the Newtown disaster could have been prevented.  Banning the rifle used would not have stopped the tragedy as the shooter was already in violation of the existing gun possession laws in Connecticut and would still have had two illegally possessed handguns were the rifle unavailable.  More logically, there should have been armored and alarmed doors and windows.  Also, an armed presence in the school, either police or specially-permitted administrators, should also have been in place and would have prevented the attack.  In terms of efficacy, armored schools with some form of armed presence would deter the kind of tragedy that transpired in Newtown.

The NRA has advocated placing armed police in all schools as a federal initiative.  While I agree with the idea, I disagree that it should be a federally-mandated measure.  Let the local authorities decide this for themselves.

Since the gun control activists are advocating the same old laws that expired a few years ago, let’s examine the impact of those laws on citizens of New Mexico.  Given an assault rifle ban, the value of existing assault rifles would rise.  Also, once the law is in place, a design can be altered to get a similar firearm into legal status.  Finally, and perhaps of most importance to New Mexicans, the Brady Bill permitting and waiting periods would significantly inconvenience firearms purchasers.  In New Mexico, no permit is required to own any legal firearm.  There is also no waiting period.  You take your money to the gun store, find what you want, pass the federal background check, and walk out with your gun.  

It should also be noted that in New Mexico, possession of a loaded firearm in your vehicle is perfectly legal; your vehicle is considered an extension of your home.  Restrictive federal laws would most likely restrict New Mexicans based upon policies in the northeast and west coast.

If the true goal is less gun violence, we will need to first make the country safer.  We can improve things with a greater police presence.  With greater police presence, people would feel safer.  As they felt safer, we would see less need to arm ourselves.  It is a long-term trend.  More police would require additional tax revenues.  This is not likely to happen throughout the US for any number of reasons.