AR-15
I don’t pretend to be a specialist or to have any sort of extensive knowledge in this (or any) area. I’ll admit to being a gun enthusiast. Like most things that I’m enthusiastic about, I’ve read a little about guns and crime. I consider the unspeakable tragedies of late to be wicked, debased, and utterly odious. I have been (both in private and in pubic) in prayer for the families of the victims of the recent shootings. These were not “killings”; they were murders. So, hopefully nothing in this post is misconstrued. As one who very recently lost a child, I can sympathize with our countrymen in Connecticut and here in Oregon, too. These tragedies necessarily bring up questions about how these sorts of tragedies can be stopped. That is a worthy and necessary discussion. Let’s have that discussion honestly and without rancor.
Nearly 100% of the population in our country wants to stop these vicious murders in malls, schools, and the like. There is a very small percentage of people in our country that wants to commit these atrocities, but the vast, vast majority of people want to stop them from occurring. So far so good. My question is how gun laws fit into that laudable goal.
Some say that we should ban assault rifles (again) or limit the capacity of magazines/clips to 10 rounds. Say laws are passed to that effect. Say that it is no longer lawful to buy AK-47s and AR-15s at our local gun shops. Say that the magazines we can purchase are no longer high-capacity mags. One would, then, be breaking the law to buy an assault rifle or to have hi-cap magazine. Okay, here’s the rub: Who would obey those new laws?
We would all WANT the murders to obey those new laws. Is that what would happen? Not at all. Not trying to be overly cynical, but murder is already against the law. The person who commits that crime (worse: sin) is 100% committed to breaking the law, at least at that point. Would such a person have some qualms about breaking the law to get an assault rifle or a hi-cap mag? No one can think they will. But who will have those qualms? Law-abiding citizens will obey those laws. So, what is the net gain on these sorts of laws? Law-abiding citizens are limited by the law, while murderous outlaw are not.
These sorts of laws target outlaws, but they never hit their target… they CANNOT, at least not directly. This is the (supposed) logic of gun laws. We need to look for an effective way to curtail these unspeakably tragic murders. Gun laws are a waste of time. Worse than that, they are counter productive. Let’s focus our energy on what nearly 100% of us actually want to achieve, stopping murdering fiends. Gun law do not and cannot do that.
Hit the nail on the head, Tim. Laws against guns are superfluous and ineffective. If the punishment for murder is not deterrent enough to stop someone from committing a crime, then no gun law ever will. You cannot litigate against a deranged murderer who has every intention of killing as many people as he can before killing himself. That kind of person will not be deterred no matter how many years in prison he is threatened with, because he has no intention of ever being arrested.
Gun laws can’t prevent against people who already plan on committing the more serious crime of murder. All they can do is give people a false sense of security, while at the same time taking away that which could actually provide real security from those who would use their constitutional right to bear arms to protect against just such violence.
The first and most effective part of the solution is to immediately remove all “gun-free” designations, zones, and signs in any public gathering area. ((snarkily -If the constitution is in force all across america, there is no “zone” that is constitution free))
Immediately post signs informing persons entering schools, hospitals, malls, that people may carry concealed weapons at will, and that persons have been hired to carry such weapons and act as shoppers. More than one.
Immediately pass laws in the remaining 25 odd states that concealed weapons are ok. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is that perps THINK there are concealed weapons.
Suspend any prosecution against anyone stopping any crime when using a handgun or other weapon. Stopping crime is the issue.
Make illegal any inquiry as to school safety protocol for anyone not personally involved with education, their children at the school, or security professionals working the school. All documents on the protocols for such places are to be kept secret.
Inform the public that special education classes are being held to teach teachers how to use and conceal weapons.
It does not matter if they do carry, what matters is that perpetrators think they are carrying weapons.
In actuality, the first time that a perpetrator gets his head blown off by a good samaritan, shockwaves will reverberate around the criminal community – they are cowards and plan meticulously to kill as many as possible. the only thing they cannot plan for is two or three secret protectors at a place they intend to victimize. They cannot control or anticipate the unknown gun, so it makes it unappealing.
In a gun free zone, the armed man is king.
Ted… how would this work? The past few sprees were committed by folks who knew they would die going into the event and probably even planned on dying by either being shot or suicide. How would, “you are going to get shot” deter this?
by the way, if my chuirch posts itself as a gun free zone I will no longer go there.
?? so if all Church posts this, would you stop Church all together? Is your commitment to your Church dependent upon man and gun or on God? I do however, agree with you that I prefer Church with concealed weapons upon persons in the congregation… but i would not leave my Church for that reason… especially if Tim were my pastor.
I would probably carry a concealed weapon to Church even if posted.
I think it is super clever to use “target” in a piece on guns. You are a clever, clever man. “These sorts of laws target outlaws, but they never hit their target…” Good thoughts here.
I agree with your conclusion, but not your route to get there. You argue that outlaws who are already breaking the laws would not find breaking another law a deterrent. I have a problem with this conclusion because the majority of these school shootings are being perpetrated by children who have no access to breaking the law by buying illegal guns… they obtain their guns from mostly legal ownership of the parents. So in your scenario, outlawing assault rifles would keep assault rifles out of the hands of those children who are getting their guns from their law-abiding parents’ gun closet.
Most of this post I agree with. Psychopaths, serial killers, and religious zealots will undoubtedly not follow these laws to begin with. They will find a way to kill themselves and many others before being stopped. However, the following is where you go wrong, and to be honest, I think you know it. You say, “We would all WANT the murders to obey those new laws. Is that what would happen? Not at all. Not trying to be overly cynical, but murder is already against the law. The person who commits that crime (worse: sin) is 100% committed to breaking the law, at least at that point.”
I submit you even know you are wrong in this paragraph with the statement “at least at that point.” The concept you are referring to is informally called a “crime of passion.” People that commit these murders are law-abiding citizens, until some event turns their “passion” into murder.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
According the above FBI statistics (admittedly, you have to do some searching and data aggregation) a vast majority of murders occur as “crimes of passion.” These normally lawful people WOULD be following the law. When they come to the moment where they are mad/depressed/whatever enough to murder someone, they would now have much less efficient means to murder, and therefore would be far less likely to claim multiple victims.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Brandon. “Crimes of passion” (CoP) are one thing and seem to me to be nearly impossible to legislate against.
I think, however, that even the designation CoP is unhelpful, as it gets us thinking in categories that are simply not entirely true to life experience. For example, say a man murders his wife in a fit of rage one night. This would most likely be categorized as a CoP, but it’s probably closer to the truth that he’d suppressed homicidal thoughts in the past, and lost control that night. In a word, as a category, CoP is too broad to be helpful (at least in my mind).
How would, say, banning assault rifles or limiting mag caps help with the CoP? It wouldn’t. A short waiting period *might* help with some of these, but even that is plenty iffy.
How would the assault rifle and hi-cap bans come into play with, say, mall shootings? They wouldn’t. They guy who’s planned ahead enough to procure body armor will certainly have found a way to get the weapons.
In both cases, (the CoP and the mall shooting) gun laws are ineffective. The reason they’re ineffective is that the murderer DOESN’T CARE A WIT about the law. He’s willing to give his own life to work his wickedness. A feeble gun law simply means nothing. As I said, they’re 100% committed to breaking the law, at least at the point of carrying out their intention.
I appreciate the thoughtful original post as well, Tim.
Yeah, I think the jury is still out on waiting periods. I have never seen any sort of definitive evidence either way, and it appears to have been dropped at the federal level if I recall correctly.
While I agree with your statement “For example, say a man murders his wife in a fit of rage one night. This would most likely be categorized as a CoP, but it’s probably closer to the truth that he’d suppressed homicidal thoughts in the past, and lost control that night. In a word, as a category, CoP is too broad to be helpful (at least in my mind).” generally (and I think your description of how the average CoP evolves is exactly right), I think even a person with suppressed homicidal thoughts would not be thinking that he needs to go get a mass-killing weapon. He hasn’t “snapped” so his homicidal thoughts are focused on the one person causing him problems. Thus, when the “last straw” comes, he simply doesn’t have that especially deadly weapon to kill his wife/mother and then slaughter all (though inevitably he will get some) of her co-workers, students, lovers, etc.
Also, I do think we’d disagree about the prevalence of the CoP. I’ll see if I can find some hard data to support one of us.
As for your last two paragraphs, I’m completely with you. Those devoid of morals and/or habitual criminals will find a way to get what they need. My only point of contention are the lawful folks that end up committing CoPs that turn into bloodbaths (frankly, those are the only ones we can minimize with gun laws alone).
I would suggest that all watch geniusthemove.com and pay attention to how many “law-abiding” citizens would murder for the right price and sometimes for free…. if there was no chance of getting caught. I find it incredulous at the answers given to this simple question with the kicker of not getting caught added in. Man without God is so depraved… even law-abiding depraved man.
Sorry, it is movie, not move…. http://geniusthemovie.com
You using that “movie” as the basis for the statement “Man without God is so depraved… even law-abiding depraved man.” is what I find incredulous. Assuming that movie is anything but pure entertainment is folly.
I agree with you totally… but then again it is all folly… 1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV