Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Dec
18
Does this Plain Dealer editorial, “Gun laws need to be strengthened and enforced to keep criminals disarmed,”
mean that only people who’ve already committed crimes are dangerous gun owners?
That doesn’t sound right. For one thing, it implies that we’re not properly sentencing and managing people who are already known to the criminal justice system. I’d like to see recommendations in the editorial that address that population.
Then there is the population of people who own guns legally and eventually commit crimes – this group includes several of the mass killers in 2007.
So, what about them?
Again, we see a focus on the act and not on the breeding ground that moved the actor to act. Until we figure out how to eliminate, mitigate or otherwise neutralize the societal factors that create the desire to use guns irresponsibly and lethally, don’t expect too many huge changes in gun violence.
Last note on the editorial: there’s some support for home rule in there. I’d love to see an editorial, column or article that reviews the status of Ohio’s constitutional provision for home rule – across all of the legislation passed in the last five to ten years because the PD’s editorial argues in favor of it without naming it as having been a target of the Ohio legislator. Just putting that suggestion in the hopper.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:43 am December 18th, 2007 in Culture, Government, Ohio, Politics, Social Issues, Statehouse
Comments
20 Responses to ““Keep criminals disarmed” misses one group: gun owners who aren’t criminals until they misuse the gun”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
We need more gun laws. I’m sure any additional law changes would have prevented the mall and church shootings.
The article that the editorial referenced was very enlightening. Transparency needs to be restored:
“The information began to dry up after the ATF reported in 2002 that 57 percent of all guns used in crimes were purchased from about 1,000 federally licensed gun dealers – a little more than 1 percent of all dealers.”
That says it all.
If a man can go to prison for life when he lends his car to a man that subsequently kills someone with a gun, then why can gun dealers and “straw purchasers” not face the same accountability?
Gordon, What additional laws do you have in mind that you believe, if simply enacted – as opposed to also being enforced – would have prevented the mall and church shootings?
Craig – I absolutely agree. On a similar note, illegal immigration: business are very unwilling right now to accept enforcement of laws on the books or the creation of new laws to bolster what’s on the books. Money buys free speech? Well, maybe – but it also suppresses action.
The most dangerous object in the hands of the public is the automobile, not the gun.
Thousands and thousands of people are killed every year by other people with valid driver’s licenses. Sometimes people who are not competent to drive get in a car anyway, and then kill people. I suspect more people drive cars while intoxicated than carry guns while intoxicated. Cars are used in the commission of crimes, e.g. the guys who ram their pickup trucks through a store front to commit burglery, or the folks who use cars to transport illegal drugs.
So let’s ban cars, or at least make it much harder to get one.
But if owning a car is criminal, only criminals will have cars.
Besides, the Constitution says I can have a gun. It doesn’t say anything about a car.
And while you sometimes, rightfully, accuse me of hyperbole – this should not be one of those times.
Another “money suppressing action” example:
Antidepressant use and mass killings:
Omaha
Virginia Tech
Columbine
Paul,
True, cars can inflict serious harm and are used to commit crimes. But, unlike guns, cars have multiple beneficial uses as well.
Guns have no beneficial uses? I can think of several, including the one contemplated by the 2nd Amendment.
If we really want to get to the root of crime in our society, maybe it’s poverty, injustice, and a breakdown of the nuclear family. Maybe it’s letting our kids get immersed in violence on TV, in their videogames, and in the music. And maybe it’s that the most lucrative vocation for a poor young man without a job is being a drug dealer.
I’m pretty sure it’s not the gun that’s the problem.
And until those other problems get fixed, you can’t have mine.
Gee, Paul, I never would have guessed you are a gun owner.
Did you read the article that the editorial referenced? Did you read how the NRA was so “embarrassed” by the stats the ATF had compiled they paid to have laws passed to hinder law enforcement from collecting the data they need to track down those who provide criminals with guns?
You can pass judgement on society all you want, but when 60% of the guns used to commit crimes are provided by 1% of the gun dealers something needs to be done.
Shutting off the flow of data was not the correct response.
Did I ever mention how, when I lived in New Haven, and I was in my mid-20s, I dated a guy in his mid to late 30s (he never did tell me) and we went to a small chamber orchestra concert once with my parents and my mom saw a gun on his ankle?
He was an ATF agent. But he’d never told me about the gun.
Just thought I would throw in that anecdote.
Carry on.
Does that mean your perception of my IQ just dropped too (said with a smile)?
I grew up around guns, went hunting as a kid with my dad, granddad and uncles, got a Marksmanship merit badge as a Boy Scout and qualified on several weapons when I was in Navy ROTC.
But I didn’t have a gun in my own home until my Dad passed away last year, and I took possession of his. I’m considering taking the training to get a Conceal/Carry License.
I’m not finished thinking about licensing, registration and tracking. If the 2nd Amendment is about being able to prevent the rising of an oppressive government, then I certainly don’t want the government to know I have weapons. I might even start stockpiling some ammo – buying it with cash of course.
As far a crime goes, I’m of the belief that while guns increase the violence of crime, they aren’t the cause of it – all those other things I listed above are.
You could even argue that from the perspective of an oppressed minority, the 2nd Amendment gives them a way to limit their oppression. Taking bounty from a rich white family who is part of the oppressing class is no different than dumping a wealthy British merchant’s tea into Boston Harbor. Whether a person is a patriot and freedom fighter or terrorist depends on which side of the conflict one sits.
A good friend of mine is a Swiss citizen, and therefore a member of the Swiss army. He has an assault rifle and a few hundred rounds of ammo in his bedroom closet. So do all of his neighbors. But their society lacks the extreme stratification present in ours. The only reason they have those weapons is to defend Switzerland. You sure don’t hear about people getting mowed down in Swiss shopping malls.
I don’t know who might threaten my family – the government or criminals. But I think I’ll keep my guns for either case.
Well, part of the problem is labeling and pigeonholing and stereotyping gun owners. I grew up thinking that anyone who thought they “needed” a gun was a little off. I did not grow up around anyone who owned a firearm for protection. My older brother had a rifle in our house from when he was probably 12 or 13 or so – I don’t remember exactly, because he was a sharpshooter – competed at targets etc. That was it. I’m an archer – I used to teach archery. I loved it. Still do.
But I take responsibility for feeling this way. And I admit that it has a hand in how I view people’s desires and, in my opinion, obsessions with guns and gun ownership.
I imagine if I knew more people who kept caches the size of your Swiss friend, maybe I would think differently. The spouses of a few friends of mine have gun cabinets. They freak me out. I just don’t like them.
But none of that has much to do with people who, in their minds, decide to use guns to inflict harm on others and themselves. We separate them, and we don’t, from the rest of the gun population. I just don’t know how you do that and still cut down on if not eliminate the dangers that can be eliminated.
Keep the debate going, being honest. That’s what we have to do when we talk about this – not only ourselves.
Paul,
I am not against gun ownership, either. If you can honestly sat that every single person you know or have met should be trusted with a gun, go ahead and fight for repealing all the gun licensing, registration and tracking procedures you want.
It’s interesting that you believe guns keep the government from oppressing its citizenry. This government has been actively seeking to shred to the Constitution you are so fond of, yet I don’t see the NRA calling on its members to arm themselves and take to the streets.
The Swiss Army is not organized the same way as the U.S. Army. It has more of a militia style organization with a few thousand “professional” soldiers and the remainder consists of local conscripts that can be called upon when needed. Historically, the Swiss Army has been called upon on more than one occasion to put down worker’s strikes and anti-fascist demonstrations. There is an active political movement underway there that has dramatically reduced the size of the army and is actively seeking to abolish it all together.
Jill: An archer huh? Me too. Even made my own strings and arrows for a while – I still have the fletching jig around here somewhere.
I’ll also admit to having never shot an animal while hunting – just couldn’t do it. I did put an arrow through a neighborhood cat that was fond of clawing baby bluebirds out of the birdhouses I built and put around our property. Left him stuck to the tree right under one of the birdhouses in fact. His owner said the cat did it out of instinct. I think he did it for sport. Either way, evolution is a bitch if you don’t end up the top predator.
Craig: I’m not sure why you used the phrase ‘you are so fond of.’ Do you not consider the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land? Is it not the filter through which every other law must pass? If this Government is weakening the Constitution, then let’s vote the bums out of office. If what they’re doing is sufficiently egregious, let them be impeached and immediately removed from office. The Constitution needs to be like steel, strong but with some flexibility. A little bending goes on now and then, but it has never become so distorted that our social contract is broken.
My point about the Swiss was the fact that they keep their assault rifles and ammo at home. Whether they are like our inactive reserve, National Guard, or whatever, they have the weapon and ammo in their closet. No way does the US military let our active duty people, much less reservists people bring their M4s home.
Okay, let me offer a compromise: I am willing to put exactly the same amount of controls on guns that we put on cars. I’ll register my gun. But if you want to take away my gun, and all guns in the hands of private citizens, you have to ban cars as well.
As I said above, compared to guns, more people are killed in and by cars, and cars cause much more damage to the environment, directly and indirectly. Cars are not necessary, just convenient. There are plenty of people, rich and poor, who live just fine in this country without cars.
And that ‘every single’ standard is pretty hard to meet, in the case for guns and for just about any other situation one could imagine. Should we outlaw narcotics because we can’t be sure ‘every single’ person makes, sells, and uses them legally?
I think one could make an argument that if we got rid of illegal drugs, which are already, well, illegal, we might have much less crime involving guns.
Paul,
As I said, I have no problem with gun ownership. I don’t want to ban guns at all. Please, tell the NRA to put the same restrictions on guns as there on cars.
In order to own a car:
1. You have to pass a test and carry a license.
2. You have to register every car you own every year or two.
3. In most states your car has to pass an inspection and emission check annually.
4. You are legally required to have car insurance.
Also, the government has hundreds of environmental and safety standards that car manufacturers must comply with. Gun manufacturers do not. Consumer product safety tests are not required or conducted on guns.
I said the phrase “you are so fond of” because you think the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies are protecting your constitutional right to bear arms and they are laughing all the way to the bank. They could care less about the abuse our Constitution is currently undergoing. They just want to ensure gun makers have a steady supply of customers. Recently, they lobbied that suspected terrorists currently on the no-fly list should not be barred from owning a gun.
Craig:
I’m not a member of the NRA nor do I plan to join. It, like many such organizations, started out as a noble cause, but have become grotesque distortions of their original purpose by becoming a political player. No thanks.
Note that all those requirements of car ownership you list come into play only if you want to drive a car on a public highway. I can own a car, keep it in my barn, and drive it around on my property without any permission from the government.
So I’m willing to get a license if I take my gun off my property. To take it hunting, I need a hunting license. To carry in my car, I need a conceal/carry permit.
But if I keep it secured in my house in a location I won’t disclose – it’s none of the government’s business.
Yes. I did forget to mention you have a title for your car even if you don’t drive it. A title which is trackable.
Craig: I just reread ORC 4505.03. Interesting that it says you can’t sell a motor vehicle without a title, nor can you acquire a motor vehicle without a title. But it doesn’t say you can’t OWN a motor vehicle without a title.
It is entirely legal to build a motor vehicle from parts and not have a title. You just can’t license it for use on the public highways, nor sell it as a motor vehicle (although you could presumably disassemble it back into parts or subassemblies and sell it as such).
Uncle Sam taught me how to tear down and reassemble my weapon. I’m happy to buy one as a box of parts and put it together…
Paul,
What exactly is it that you are trying to say? That guns are somehow regulated as much or more than automobiles?
You said “I am willing to put exactly the same amount of controls on guns that we put on cars.” OK, then let’s do it!
But that not only means that gun owners are subjected to the same rules as car owners. That also means gun makers and gun dealers are subjected to the same controls as car makers and car dealers. Something the NRA will never allow.
Craig: Nope. I’m saying that I’m willing to accept as much regulation of guns as we do cars, and visa versa, even though cars clearly contribute to more deaths than guns, and do far more harm to the environment.
I tried to say that I’m willing to register/license my gun when I take it to public areas, but I reserve the right to possess a car or a gun for exclusive use on my own property, for my own utility, and not have it titled/registered with the government.
You said that in the case of a car, it has to be titled anyway. My reading of the law says that’s not true. I can build a car and never have to title it if I neither sell it nor operate it off my property.
I am willing to accept the same conditions to possess a gun.
Whether or not the “NRA will allow it” is a different discussion.
If you want to go down that road, then I would ban all professional lobbyists, and limit every candidate for U.S. Representative to $25,000 or less each in campaign spending, Senatorial candidates to $100,000, and the Presidential candidates to $10,000,000.
We should let the Fourth Estate perform its role to independently question, investigate and report what the public needs to know about candidates for office. A few public debates would be a good thing.
Maybe if we got the roar of the special interests out of their ears, they could hear us common folk.