Can we talk?

One week after launching this blog, a funny thing happened on the way to this conversation. It never happened. Most of the emails we've received have been from gun owners, who, though polite and respectful, don't actually want to consider the question: how do dangerous criminals access guns?

Here are some typical non-answers:

I'm all for making it harder for criminals to obtain guns but by definition they disregard all legal regulations.

Celebrities and prominent politicians get handgun permits while store owners living/operating in bad neighborhoods just don't seem to "measure up" for selection criteria.

We got a generous helping of what the gun control movement stands for when Rosie O'Donnell (amid cheers from the "marching moms" at the first Million Mom March) advocated that gun owners should be jailed to stop future school shootings like the one at Columbine High School.

I would rather ask the question as to why an illegal alien was out on two separate bails.

The last comment refrers to the case of the recent Newark shooting of 4 college students and brings up a valid point: we need to hold the shooters accountable as well as a revolving-door legal system that allows too many recidivists back on the street without proper support services.

What baffles me is why the gun owners I've heard from think the only remedy to gun violence is to lock up offenders and throw away the key. Why can't we hold shooters and their suppliers accountable? It shouldn't be an either/or.

This blog was intended to focus on ways to prevent the criminal misuse of guns by finding out where crime guns come from and doing what we can to reduce the supply. So, can we talk?

Nancyrob

Comments

[thirdpower]

Sure we can talk. Stop deleting comments for one.

Way to reduce "trafficking"?

1.Actually prosecute traffickers when caught.

A trafficker IS an "offender". They are NOT being locked up. They are part of the black-market system. If a legitimate FFL dealer is intentionally selling to them, they should be shut down and prosecuted by Federal and local authorities. Instead, the BATFE is going after dealers who put "N" instead of "No" on paperwork, spending millions of dollars on decorating, and wasting time changing Wiki articles.

You can't use trace data to pinpoint dealers based on statistics. This is confirmed by the CRS. Yet groups like the Mayors, Brady's, et al. continue to use these statistics to attack dealers, labeling them as "rogue", and pursuing civil suits against them.

As to why we keep harping on the shooters, it's because most crimes are committed by recidivists, not the overwhelming majority of legal owners. Most legislation, however, does nothing to effect the criminals, but only those who are not committing crimes. For example: "Safe Storage" laws put the onus of crime on the victim of crime. If a criminal breaks into your home and steals your property, it's then YOUR fault. Do you see a problem w/ that? Is it a good idea to keep them locked up when not at home? Yes. Should it be encouraged? Yes. Should it be made mandatory? No. Should you be forced to give up your 4th Amendment rights to allow police inspections of homes to ensure compliance (yes, this is part of many "safe storage" legislations)? No.

2. Allow non-FFL NICS access.

The various anti-gun groups don't want this. This would allow for private sales by individuals (non-FFL holders) w/ background checks. Instead, they want all sales to go through FFL dealers while at the same time advocating reductions in FFL dealers and access to trace data which they misuse. Do you see the connection here?