Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Gun Control and Gun Laws

Gun Control - "Gun control" is, in my opinion, best defined as "target acquisition with rapidity, accuracy, and consistency." Gun control is possible, necessarily, only as the result of practice and training. There can be no credible nor reliable gun control without training and practice.

Safe firearm handling must precede target acquisition with live ammunition. Safe firearm handling must precede all other facets of the firearm training process.

Target acquisition is key—following the safety training process—since it is at the very center of gun control. If one has substantially learned the various guidelines of safe firearm handling, one must then become practiced as regards target acquisition and "learning to hit one's target," as it were.

Safety training ensures one will handle one's firearm safely—thus ensuring the global safety of the shooter and those within range of the projectiles fired by him from his firearm. Accuracy, then, must follow closely, else one's target acquisition will be unpredictable, at best, and dangerous, at worst. If one's accuracy is not good, the target will not be properly acquired, and one's fired projectile may well pose a significant threat to bystanders.

"Gun laws" should—in my opinion—be defined as "structured laws and regulations regarding the sale, storage, transportation, carry, and use of firearms and ammunition."

Under this definition, gun laws are, then, a means of structuring the conditions under which one is allowed to obtain and use a firearm.

The danger, in my mind, with any laws enacted for the purpose of providing such guidelines is that the danger is significant that the rights of law-abiding citizens might be unduly constrained while, concurrently, the intent of the legislation is not met. In other words, placing unwarranted restrictions upon all firearm owners does not differentiate between law-abiding citizens and criminals. Thus, the law-abiding citizen's firearm ownership and use is limited equally as it is for criminals. This has the effect, unfortunately, of unnecessarily and unconditionally limiting the rights of the law-abiding while imposing no significantly greater restraints upon criminals. It is, in my opinion, of no benefit whatever to impose equal restraints upon all people. The law-abiding citizen will, of course, follow the law and, therefore, have his rights severely restricted—whereas the criminal will pay no mind whatever to the impositions, since his intent is the breaking of laws that are, certainly, of a considerably greater level: For example, a law-abiding citizen will follow the law. He will purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer, complete the requisite paperwork, and await delivery of the purchased firearm only when the waiting period has been met and he has been thoroughly vetted. The criminal, on the other hand, will likely sneer at waiting periods and such restrictions, since he intends to use the firearm as a tool in his employ while committing a crime of significantly greater stature: If a criminal intends to rob a liquor store or bank, perpetrate a home invasion, or murder someone, he will certainly not be inclined to obey gun laws!

The very best gun laws, then, would impose no undue restrictions upon law-abiding citizens while providing an environment in which the acquisition and use of firearms by criminals is limited as much as is reasonable.

I would recommend the following:

  • A background check of purchaser
  • A waiting period of 10 days
  • Sales denied to those convicted of any felony crime or violent misdemeanor
  • Sales restricted to a maximum of three firearms per quarter—excepting collectors
  • No transfer of fully-automatic firearms
  • No transfer of suppressors/silencers

    I see no justifiable reason to constrict the acquisition or use of military-style weapons. There are, in my mind, no definable separators by which such definitions might be reasonable. Often, civilian versions of military/law enforcement firearms are well-suited for predator/pest control, competitive shooting, etc.

    I see no justifiable reason to restrict magazine capacity.

    Most states and cities have gun laws, and it is only the lack of enforcement that precludes these laws from being efficacious.

    Traditionally, cities with the most restrictive gun laws (Chicago, Detroit, D.C., Miami, etc.) have the highest incidence of firearm violence. Conversely, cities with the laxest firearm laws have the lowest incidence of firearm violence.