In my last diary I responded to a common question regarding how RKBA members’ views differ from the policies of the NRA. The sum and substance of my response was twofold: First, since I am not a member of the NRA I don’t know what their policies are, but more importantly I don’t care what their policies are. Second, NRA policies do not play a role in how I form my opinions or what my opinions are in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Of course this won’t be sufficient for some people who will insist on equating the RKBA group here, which is made of liberals and progressives, with the NRA, c’est la vie.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion. If you're just here to disrupt or troll, expect to get a Do Not Respond (DNR) comment and then be ignored. Insults, lies, and willful ignorance will be dealt with by normal community moderation. Disagreement by itself is not considered trolling.
As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.
What I didn’t do in that diary, which was my intent, was address another question the RKBA group is frequently asked, that being, why we aren’t in favor of “reasonable” and “common sense” solutions to address America’s “gun violence” problem? Some of the “reasonable” and “common sense” solutions that get regularly suggested are;
• Registration of all firearms
• License requirements to own a firearm
• Liability insurance for firearm owners
• Micro-stamping of ammunition
• Banning certain types of magazines
• Banning of firearms/certain types of firearms
• Waiting periods
• Mandatory trigger locks
• Mandatory standards for firearm storage (gun safes)
• Closing the “gun show loophole”
So what is the purpose of each of these “solutions” and what would they accomplish? All I can provide is my perspective but based on the discussions I have been involved in, some of the arguments I have heard in favor of such limitations are as follows;
"All firearms need to be registered, that way if they are used in a crime they can be traced back to the owner."
"Anyone who wants to own a firearm needs to be licensed because licensing would ensure people are qualified to own a firearm."
"If you own a firearm you should have to carry liability insurance just in case you hurt someone with your gun."
"All ammunition needs to be micro-stamped, that way if a firearm is discharged in the commission of a crime we can track the rounds and spent casings back to the buyer."
"We need to ban high capacity magazines because nobody needs one and we need to reduce the number of people killed and injured in mass shootings."
"We need to ban certain types of firearms there are types of firearms that nobody needs."
"We need to ban all firearms because we have the police to protect us, grocery stores to buy food and overthrowing our government, should it become tyrannical, is impossible in this day and age."
We need waiting periods for firearm purchases so people can “cool off” thereby reducing crimes of passion.
"Trigger locks are necessary in order to prevent negligent discharges and unauthorized persons from using the weapon."
"Everyone one who owns a firearm needs to store it in a safe that way if someone breaks into their house they can’t steal their guns."
"We need to close the gun show loop hole that allows gun dealers at gun shows to sell their firearms without an NICS background check."
Are there variations and subtle differences in the positions people have in regards to firearm legislation? Sure, but I think these statements have captured the essence of what many gun control proponents would like to see enacted.
I think it’s safe to say that the goal of most of these measures would be to bring crime rates down, which is a worthy goal. The difficulty I have with most of the measures is that I am not convinced they will have a significant impact in reducing crime rates.
Registration, insurance, and mirco-stamping are all mitigation controls, in other words; they don’t prevent crime rather they are tools to be employed after a crime has been committed.
Gun safes don’t prevent criminal activity but they can make it difficult for the owner of the firearm to access the weapon. Keeping your firearm in a safe isn't necessarily a bad idea, I simply don’t believe there should be laws mandating how a firearm should be stored in a home. What would I prefer is some sort of system that would discourage criminals from wanting to break into a house in the first place.
Trigger locks don’t prevent criminal activity but they do have the potential to reduce negligent discharges in the home, I just believe firearm safety training in our schools would do a better job. Now if you have children in the house a trigger lock may not be a bad idea but for me that is up to the gun owner to decide, not the state.
Licensing is a bit more complicated for me. I am not in favor of licensing requirements to own a firearm just like I am not in favor of licensing requirements to practice religion, but I am ok with licensing requirements for people who want to obtain a permit to carry their firearm concealed. Weird huh?
Banning high capacity magazines is an effort to prevent statistical anomalies. Endeavoring to prevent the acts of madmen is noble and enacting laws focusing on the insane acts of people like Loughner is little more than a knee jerk reaction that will do little or nothing to prevent future mass shootings.
Waiting periods sound “reasonable” but have proven to be at best inconclusive in effectiveness. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports in regards to the Brady Act;
“Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.”
Based on available data, the waiting period (and background checks evidently) in the Brady Act did nothing to reduce criminal activity but it might have reduced suicides in a particular cohort. As a crime prevention tool waiting periods don’t appear to work and I am not in favor of the state prohibiting an adult from taking their own life if they so choose.
As I see it, the desire to ban firearms has two camps, one looks to a ban as an effort to limit criminal access to specific types of firearms, while the other looks to a ban in order to remove weapons from the hands of the civilian population. In the case of the former, they want a ban that is directed at machine guns/select fire weapons/assault weapons. The thing is that machine guns or fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and it is just dumb to ban anything based on looks which is all the Assault Weapons Ban did. In the case of the latter, they are of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism and no longer serves a purpose. Since we have a police force for protection and grocery stores for food there is no need for weapons to be in the hands of the citizenry. Of course there are some that would allow ownership for sporting purposes but only long rifles and shot guns and only if the owner is a member of a shooting club, the owner is licensed, the firearms are registered and kept in a safe or at the shooting club. If the owner needs to move the weapon they must obtain a permit that is valid for a specific period of time and the weapon must be disassembled in order to transport and must be locked in a state approved container. As for the tyrannical government thing, I don't see the private ownership of firearms as a means to overthrow a government should it become tyrannical. Rather one of the things private ownership of firearms does is function as a check and balance, that helps to dissuade a government from becoming tyrannical in the first place.
Regarding the gun show loop hole, if there was a loop hole that allowed FFL dealers to legally sell a weapon at a gun show without performing a background check, I would be in favor of closing it, but there is no loophole. What we are dealing with is that the Federal Government doesn’t regulate the transfer of private property between individuals regardless of the nature of the property. To allow the government to do so would be unprecedented and unwise.
For me, common sense and reasonable solutions are ones that are enacted with a view to limiting criminal activity; registration, licensing, insurance, waiting periods, bans, micro-stamping, trigger locks, gun safes and closing non-existent loop holes do little if anything to reduce crime. A quote;
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Many here don't see the 2nd Amendment as being equal to or as important as the other amendments in the BoR, which to me is just bizarre. They will use these "common sense" and "reasonable" solutions as a means to control those "who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes" because they have the audacity to engage in one of many behaviors they don't approve of.
As an aside, please note that my work takes me out of the country and into very different time zones. Kyle is publishing this on my behalf through the RKBA diary queue. Everyone has my apologies for what will be limited participation.