Here we are two months into the administration of Jo and the Ho and - whaddya
know? - they suddenly have justifications for those gun control moves they
talked about for the entire year of the Evil Party primaries. It's
a miracle of miracles! Suddenly, after many quiet months, we have a
group murder of "sex workers" at a "massage parlor" and a group murder in a
food store by either a sufferer of
Sudden Jihad Syndrome
or simply the common Muslim
hatred of Jews
Since no one on the left seems to be capable of an original thought, it's time for them to trot out the old trope of "reasonable gun
laws." And since I've written about that term and my views of it at
least a dozen times, I'll take my privilege of having the pilot's seat and
reprint some of the things I've written since 2010.
Are you as sick as I am of hearing the phrase "reasonable gun laws?"
It's not just in the last few days, it's always there to some degree.
I'm sick of explaining there is no such thing as a gun show loophole; there
are no laws that don't apply at gun shows or to internet sales. I'm
tired of explaining that we already have background checks on all new guns, we
don't do them on private sales because it's an individual selling their own
property and the Federal Government doesn't seem to get involved in private
sales of private property. States do; if I sell a car, boat or whatever,
I have to do a bill of sales and the buyer pays sales tax. I know of no
place where the Fed.gov does that. I'm really sick of the "why does
anyone need (fill in the blank)??" nonsense that we hear from an alarming number of
people who are nominally on our side. The ones called Fudds. Why
does anyone need 42 guns? Why does anyone need 30 round magazines?
I want to ask why does anyone need 42 books? That's also a constitutionally
protected right. Why does anyone need a TV in every room, or a muscle
car or you name it. BFYTW! It's None of Your F**king Business.
What would constitute real "reasonable gun laws?" Let's start here: any
adult with normal rights can walk into a sporting goods store in most places
and walk out with a shotgun or a rifle with no waiting period. But if
they wanted to buy an AR-15 or a
factory or from a store in another city, (like I've done) why does it have to
go through a local FFL's hands?
Why can't anyone order a rifle or shotgun from a gun store in another city, their
favorite Big Outdoor Store, or even an Amazon.com kind of "online
superstore", and have the gun shipped to their house?
It was sold by an FFL that can do the NICS check, so why does another
FFL have to get involved? It used to be that way, until the Gun Control Act of
'68. What advantage is there to society from shipping it to an
FFL? It's not like the second FFL prevents someone from stealing it in
transit - that's on the shipping company. It does nothing but give money
to local FFL holders. All they can do is look at the buyer's ID - which can be
done digitally with encryption when the purchase is made.
We all know there's no such thing as a "gun show" loophole, and that you
can't just order something online from a gun store. I say, "why the hell
not?" It's the freaking 21st Century, for God's sake. We have the
In consumer goods, your local camera shop, say, really does have to compete
with the big guys in New York. Gun shops don't have that. I can see how local
gun shops might really like these laws. They get an easy 35 bucks (or whatever) for filling
out the forms and "receiving" the shipment, but I don't see any value added to
us or society. There was certainly no value added to me.
If there's a mandatory 3 or 5 day waiting period for a handgun where you live
(Florida waives that for Concealed Carry licensees), why can't you order handguns online? What's the difference between waiting 3 or 5 days for UPS to
deliver it and waiting 3 or 5 days to pick it up at your gun store?
Again, with today's computer security, you could verify age, do a NICS check -
anything the local shop can do - online. I think the waiting periods are
all bullsh*t anyway, just another way for government to yank our chains and
make it harder than it ought to be. I've never seen any data that
waiting periods have ever done anything except inconvenience legal
purchasers. But, fine, we'll play your infantile waiting game.
The whole idea of a wait was a "cooling off" period, so that a hothead doesn't
go buy a gun in a moment of anger and then go kill someone, but I personally
have never seen data that those waiting periods do anything. I know they
started with the GCA of '68 ban on Saturday Night Specials, which (as far as I
can tell) only had the effect of removing cheap, reasonably functional guns
from people who couldn't afford better ones, and caused some smaller arms
companies to either fold or change their product line. Another
government penalty on the poor.
What possible arguments are there against this? That we can't guarantee
security, we can't guarantee that criminals won't order guns online?
Nobody can guarantee security. Criminals don't have any problems getting
guns now while staying out of the system entirely. If we use strong
security, it's as good as what we have. One time I posted something like
this and a commenter said, "what if your kids used your ID?" I
wouldn't want my kids buying anything under my ID on my computer. If you
can't control your own kids in your own house, I think that's a bigger problem
than just what they're buying. Maybe you should be making sure they
don't know the combination to your safe and don't know where to find
Why are silencers
- glorified mufflers - regulated as if they were machine
guns? Why are we required to have a muffler on a car, motorcycle or lawn
mower, but we're required to not
have one on a gun? This was
originally to keep people from shooting the King's deer (poaching game), but I
think the problem today is Hollywood. They created this illusion that a
silencer reduces the 155 to 160 dB of a gun shot down to a barely audible, and
it just isn't so. Silencers should be completely deregulated - not even
the $5 "any other weapon" class - just over the counter at your local
store. Did you know that there's nothing like an 80% lower in the
construction of a silencer; no stage that's legal? If I have a lathe
(like I do) and they find pieces that someone thinks could someday
a silencer, I've broken the law. The ban is total.
This one actually is
for the children. And for anyone who moves
next door to gun ranges or clubs and gets disturbed by the sounds.
Get rid of the stupid “sporting purpose” tests for firearms. The Heller
decision makes it very clear that the Second Amendment isn’t about duck
hunting. This particularly affects imports. No restrictions. Get rid of the
stupid laws on short barreled rifles and shotguns. The idea that a shotgun
barrel 18.05" long is fine, but one that's 17.95" is some sort of killer
monster weapon is just silly. It's there simply to create law violators. It's
also one of their most enforced laws - probably because it's really easy to
measure barrel length.
The last time I did some looking at John Lott's data, his studies had been
peer reviewed 30 times and never refuted. There was one author who said
Lott couldn't prove "More Guns Equals Less Crime"; but neither could he (the
reviewer) disprove it. Lump this one under the rule for reading medical
studies: correlation does not equal causation. However, and this is
important, there can't be causation without correlation. When you look
at global rates of gun ownership vs homicides, there's almost a perfect lack
of correlation, almost perfect inverse relationship between the number of guns
in private hands and murder rate, across the globe. More guns can NOT
equal more murders.
This is fairly old - the closest I can tell is that it dates from early