Brewha wrote:Actually it was only some tongue in cheek sarcasm, not so much a premise.
However, the idea that laws and regulations cannot reduce gun violence is fallacious. Dynamite is rather heavily regulated and few people commit crimes with it. But dynamite is not the point.
You're a LEO, do you feel we are all safer if, as today, most any one can be armed?
Should the gun show loop hole that permits felons to buy guns be closed?
Should court rooms be disallowed from being gun free zones because the people, jurors and magistrate are safer knowing the general assembly is armed?
Self protection is a good thing. But too much of anything is not a good thing. People who are armed should have a valid reason, be properly background checked, and not permitted to carry them anywhere.
I don't want anyone to take your gun. You're a pro.
It is the amateurs that worry me....
The dynamite comparison is apples to oranges. There is a big picture which people fail to see. I'll readily admit that if there were not close to 400 million privately owned firearms in the US then more restrictive gun regulations might be more effective. The reason a highly regulated dynamite industry is effective is twofold. First off, you can't walk into damn near every house in the Us and find at least one stick of dynamite. But, you can walk into the average household in the US and find a firearm. If a person intent on acquiring is unable to legally purchase a firearm that same person will more likely than not purchase a stolen one off the books.
If one were trying to stem the loss of human life by restricting firearm sales then that too fails. Ask any LEO and they will tell you that at least 80% of firearm related deaths are committed with firearms aquired from off the book transactions, most of which have been stolen.
At the end of the day, with the numbers of privately owned firearms at the level it is the only person being inconvenienced by tighter regulations are people like you and me.
As far as whether or not as a LEO would I feel safer if the gun show loophole was closed the answer is no. Keep in mind I have to interact with the very people you seek to prevent gun ownership from. From experience I can tell you they are an enterprising lot. If the can't aquire firearms legally they will aquire them illegally. Besides, the background checks absolutely do not stop a convicted felon from acquiring a legally registered firearm. The simple alternative to that is to get a girlfriend, boyfriend, relative or otherwise to purchase it for them. It's done everyday in just about every locality in the US.
As far as the waiting period, be it 10 minutes or 10 days does absolutely nothing to make a meaningful dent in gun related homocides. All but a handful are committed with firearms that were possessed by the perpetrator in advance of the incident. Of the other handful, the majority of those are committed by persons who aquired said firearm from the guy selling them from his car in the parking lot or one of his "boys" while enroute to the incident.
As far as people who are armed must be so for a valid reason, people in hell would love to be given a cup of ice water, but doing so is much easier said than done.
Notice is didn't disagree with your logic. I merely pointed out why its impractical. What you suggest is nothing less than feel good legislation which will not even marginally make society a safer place. But, it does provide a mechinism to divide voters.
Carry on.
