Thursday, January 31, 2013

Responding to Dawn, the post that won't go there.

At this article at Clareified, Dawn talks about gun control.

I posted two comments earlier that I'd posted there successfully. This one was unsuccessful.
Lets look at the NY Times article you quote. It's already a crime to transport a gun into Chicago from the rest of the state. If you don't have an FOID in Illinois, thats also a state crime. It's already a federal crime to buy a pistol in one state when you live in another state, and it's nearly impossible to buy a long gun in one state and take it to another. It's already a federal crime to buy a gun for a person who is themselves ineligible to buy a gun (a "straw man" purchase), or for a gun dealer to sell a firearm when he knows it's a strawman purchase or that the buyer is ineligible to purchase a firearm. It's also a felony for an individual to sell a gun to a person when you know they're ineligible to own a firearm legally.

Basically, the article boils down to: "criminals are acting criminally to get guns". Wow, who would have thunk it?

Real strawmen purchases are fairly easy to prosecute, because they're part of a pattern. The problem isn't the law, it's the prosecution. The federal government has cut back drastically on prosecuting under current gun laws, and that's not the laws' fault.

Your Georgia example, Phillip Sailors, is worse. He is in jail facing murder charges, which is exactly where he should be. However, he's also a veteran and former missionary. Absent some obvious signs of dementia or desire to kill, I'm selling a gun to him any time he wants to buy. If there's someone cleaner than a whistle legally, I want to meet him. There is no reasonable way that a gun seller could know that Phillip Sailors intended to be a murderer (barring unknown information), yet you're using it as an example of a bad gun sale.

Based on this standard, you would effectively be criminalizing gun sales. No person could sell a gun, because they could never be safe from prosecution for other people's actions outside of their own control.

I’m sure there are many drugs and treatments that would on balance save 100x lives, but we don’t have a governmental guaranteed “right” to them.

You have the analogy backwards. You are arguing that penicillin kills some kids through allergies, so we should ban penicillin for their sake. This is of course absurd; penicillin saves many multiples of lives compared to those it harms.

If the laws you propose would hurt more people than it helps, then "doing something" is worse than doing nothing.

No comments: