Guns as tools

mikeb302000 posted part of this debate from the Seattle Times. I wanted to post this comment from Lynne Varner:

Focusing on the crime and not the tools is shortsighted as any security expert for banking, technolology or other industries could tell you. You’ll never deter all crimes, so targeting the tools criminals use is a way to prevent or at least make criminal activities more difficult. In 2006, 10,700 people in the United States died by gunfire. After 9-11 many Americans agreed with security changes that altered our freedoms, and in some cases, our rights. We agreed it was important to do so to offer a modicum of public safety. So it ought to be with guns.

This is pretty much what I’ve been saying: gun control serves to reduce the amount of guns that flow into the hands of criminals.

I have a real problem with calling this position “anti-gun” since it makes sense for people who are responsible gun owners to want to ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of criminals. It could possibly be “anti-gun” since it will definitely reduce the amount of guns that are sold.

I have to admit a curiousity at to how many of the guns sold in the US end up in the hands of criminals, or used in crimes. We can debate how this happens: direct sale, straw purchase, theft, and so forth; however, the real issue is that guns end up in the hands of criminals. The term the “time-to-crime” rate of a firearm comes up regarding this issue. Time-to-crime is the period of time (measured in days) between a firearm’s retail sale and law enforcement’s recovery of the firearm in connection with a crime. A short time-to-crime rate usually means the firearm will be easier to trace, and when several short time-to-crime traces involve the same individual/Federal firearm licensee, illegal trafficking activity is highly probable.

Also, I was told that the number of “stolen” guns isn’t a good indicator per ATF as gun traffickers tend to say their guns were stolen when they turn up at crime scenes.

We also have the illusory concept of “gun rights” which isn’t associated with the Second Amendment. That was supposed to ensure civilian control over the military by preventing the establishment of a professional standing army. Instead, defence was to be performed by a Swiss style military. The Second Amendment was to ensure institution of a Swiss style military.

“Gun rights” pops up as a concept in state Constitutions, but can one argue that criminals have a right to own a firearm? If criminals and others who are detriments to society have “gun rights” then that is pretty idiotic right.


Posted 04/12/2009 by lacithedog in gun control

%d bloggers like this: