US Gun Control or why policy detail matters…

P O’Neill with a great spot off Cspan on the gun control debate. It’s a snippet from the Senate Judiciary Committee:

O’Neill comments:

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, thinks he has scored a massive point by showing that the Washington DC murder rate went up in the years after a gun ban was introduced. The Baltimore police chief Jim Johnson — an actual law enforcement official — points out that Northeastern cities experiencing this phenomenon were being swamped by unlicensed guns flooding in from outside.

It’s precisely in these is small ticket policy detail that the US may grind forward to finding some solution to the gun proliferation problem…


  • Kevsterino

    We haven’t agree what the problem is, Mick, and there lies the problem.

  • Kevsterino

    *agreed* damn my clumsy fingers!

  • Sen. Cruz, like many other members of Congress from both parties, is an ally of the National Rifle Association, which is today primarily a lobby representing gun manufacturers rather than hunters, target shooters, and other law-abiding gun owners. The measures being proposed by the Obama administration will not solve the problem of gun violence in America, but they will reduce it without intruding on the legitimate rights of law-abiding citizens. They will, however, cut into the profits of gun manufacturers who depend on legal sales at gun shows without background checks that end up in the hands of criminals. The NRA likes to pretend that these are all hobbyists. The NRA also likes to pretend that the definition of assault rifles is all a matter of “cosmetics” and appearance ignoring that these rifles are simply non-automatic civilian versions of assault rifles and that in the military lots of time is spent in training on single-shot firing at ranges and at rapid magazine changes and not at firing rifles on automatic.

  • Kevsterino

    One idea an old friend brought up last weekend would be very simple, wouldn’t cost much and leaves the 2nd Amendment intact. Put a trigger lock in the box with every gun. That would at least mitigate the problem of careless gun storage.

    As far as the whole “Assault Rifle” thing goes, too many people flapping their gums with no knowledge of how these things work.

  • Kevsterino,

    I remember a couple of years ago a US gun manufacturer said that they would be producing a gun which would have a fingerprint reading device of the trigger so that only a licensed owner could fire it. Did that ever happen?

  • Kevsterino

    Hey Joe (apologies to Jimi Hendrix),
    I don’t remember that idea coming from a manufacturer, but I do remember the idea. I think the key would be to keep the expense down, so as to enhance the chance it would be accepted. So far, I haven’t seen any guns with this feature. Last I heard, biometric stuff is pretty costly.

  • Greenflag

    tmitch57 ,

    ‘They will, however, cut into the profits of gun manufacturers who depend on legal sales at gun shows without background checks ‘

    And that’s all that matters for the NRA .Lesser profits for gun manufacturers means smaller donations for the NRA .

    It’s not about the Second Amendment and never was .

    Gabrielle Giffords put it simply yesterday at the Senate hearing.

  • Mick Fealty

    Kev, what would you say the problem is?

  • Kevsterino

    Locking up people who use guns commit crimes would be a step most Americans would agree with. I would also favor locking them up if they don’t safeguard their firearms, but I don’t think enough education has been tried at this stage for that step.

    We need the NRA crazies to get out of the way before we can get anything reasonable passed. Demanding people behave responsibly with regard to firearms does no harm to 2nd Amendment rights.

  • Kevsterino

    The NRA takes much upon themselves, acting as if they spoke for every gun owner and gun carrier in the US. They don’t speak for me, and I am licensed in both regards.

    Mick, we have people who own very powerful guns who haven’t a clue how to safely fire them, store them and carry them. And there are millions of them. When you buy a car, you have to prove you can operate the thing competently within the law. Guns are at least as dangerous, but I know of no state that requires people to prove their proficiency with a gun. Stupid!

  • pauluk

    Mr Joe, James Bond got himself one of those!

  • Kevsterino

    Or “The Law Giver” from Judge Dredd