Strengthen our gun laws, or weaken them?

Arguments from both sides arise, but neither know for sure!

By Jack E. Lohman

Rather than taking the Arizona tragedy for what it was, a lone crazy gunman, it will be conveniently misconstrued by both sides to justify either stronger or weaker gun ownership laws.

To both I say, be careful of what you ask for.

Surely the results could go either way, but we will not get a fair debate as long as the NRA is the moderator. I’d like to see this argument take place with politicians that are not taking cash bribes from the National Rifle Association. The “non gun” industry has no profits to share with the politicians, so the smart answer can only come from a nonpartisan, non-conflicted committee.

At the moment I support concealed carry laws, though even I cannot be sure that is best for society. John Boehner did the right thing for the wrong reason when he killed efforts to restrict ammunition sales. Wrong because he is in the pockets of the NRA, and that prompted his action. Not the people’s best interest.

I believe that if every bystander had a concealed gun in the Arizona tragedy, it would not have occurred. If street robbers were unsure of whether the intended victim was armed, perhaps fewer robberies would occur. If teachers and perhaps a half-dozen solid and trained older students were armed, perhaps we’d have fewer school shootouts. But in reverse, maybe it would cause the bad guys to go in blazing.

Even with strong gun laws, wackos will get guns. And the best way to protect society is with a well-thought out concealed carry law.

Though today’s politicians and their funky giveaways to corporate America may have given them reason to fear for their life, wanting a lesser-armed society may be some of their goal. Especially with so many unemployed who have given up playing by fair rules, I’d be scared too if I was in cahoots with industry.

Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Isn’t this a sad testimony of our perfect society?

Surely wackos will emerge in even the best of times, willing to give their own life for 15 minutes of fame. But this incident was NOT caused by either the Left or Right fringe… it was caused by one single wacko. And that is the price we pay for freedom.

That said, our corrupt politicians are another issue. They cannot continue removing food from tables and transferring our nation’s wealth to the elites without repercussions, yet they seem not to get the message. Or they do but feel they have room to push society further.

In a time when congress enjoys an approval rating of only 13%, what more can our politicians expect than massive unrest and eventual violence or revolution? Do they even give a damn? Or will they simply disarm the citizenry to try to protect themselves?

I don’t know all of these answers, but I pay my politicians to know. Unfortunately they are paid even more by Corporate America, so I lose representation.

13 Responses to Strengthen our gun laws, or weaken them?

  1. From WikiPedia

    In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott‘s analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.[64] Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott’s conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott’s tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[65] However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence.

    According to Fareed Zakaria the US has 90 guns per 100 Americans and our murder rate is 44 times that of Britain’s and its 5.6 guns.

    So what is the answer?

    First I’d like to get our politicians off the payroll of the NRA and let them make the right decision in the best interest of the country. I’d like less money spent on wars and more money spent on health care.

  2. Joe says:

    There’s 90 guns per every 100 Americans, but it doesn’t mean 9 out of 10 Americans own guns. Less than 40% of Americans own guns, and 10% of Americans own 77% of the guns.

  3. Joe, that’s a good point and I agree. But the same formula applies to the UK and their 5.6 guns per 100 people.

    Honestly, I don’t know which way to lean. Part of me says if we totally eliminated guns, the crazies will use knives. And I cherish the intent of the 2nd amendment, especially as we head into an era when we will want politicians more afraid of the people than the other way around.

  4. Matt says:

    The genie is out of the bottle, guns are here until they are replaced (as guns replaced swords) by something else.

    Putting this aside after a long time in private law enforcement, I have seen that if someone wants it they will get it so by banning them only the police and criminals have them and this will affect you like this; criminals want an easy life so will carry a gun to do their business show a gun for effect and with such limited police resources in most towns what are the chances of having to deal with the police other than unlucky or slim? If more people open carry then you push the criminals out of your area to somewhere that is weaker than you. So if you keep displacing the criminals then you can make life hard for them instead of them making life hard for you.

    Please note that this will not cure the problem, just a moving of the goal posts but if more people stood up and thought of their neighboUrs instead of sitting around hoping someone else will deal with it then the criminals will have to work much much harder and most criminals will hurt you whether you fight or not, so if your going to get hurt why not hurt them back.

    This is just a thought and by no means an encouragement to go out there and get them before they get you, well not without at least getting some physical training and legal instruction from a state acknowledged training centre and stay within the laws of your jurisdiction.


  5. Yea, I agree Matt. The bad guys are going to get the guns no matter what.

  6. Jeremy says:

    I never like to compare the USA to the UK or any other country. Simple because we are all different cultures with different laws and constitutions. I believe, as my police family and friends tell me they do, most violent crime is in some way drug related. The U.S. borders Mexico with a very weak and partially open border where drugs are funneled in by the kilotons. We can have gun rights, carry rights or have none of them. That won’t make a difference to the illegal drug demand and therefore won’t touch the supply side of it.

    It seems that all places that have very high murder rates have one thing in common. They either produce or consume large amounts of illegal drugs. Since firearms have been invented and cannot be uninvented, firearms will always accompany the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of those drugs.

    I look at it like this. If there is a total ban on guns then that may very save a few hundred lives that might have otherwise been murdered or accidentally killed but it will also cause the death of several thousand more that would have saved themselves or simply not been attacked in the first place.

  7. Yea, it’s a complex problem with history and drugs playing a major part of it. We can’t undo history but we can switch our tactics on the drug war. And imagine this; in Egypt they are throwing rocks. In America we’d be shooting the opposition.

  8. DR.G PharmD, RPh says:

    To Moneyed Politicians:\ I am in complete disagreement with your salacious and scandalous portrayal of an isolated incident. Had someone had a firearm to stop the Loughner guy maybe this wouldn’t of happened. In the UK violent crime with and w/o guns has increased 4 fold. I am 1000% percent behind the 2nd amendment as well as all the others and will not allow your fears to disarm the populace. How much have you read on the 2nd amendment? Did you know it is the main reason why the revolution started in Boston when patriots found out the British governer had destroyed their gunpowder stocks and not the Tea Party BS we hear about? This is the problem with America today… we know little of the past and how hard our fathers fought to make sure we had these rights. People have always been in danger of being shot…would you have us destroy our knives too? There are actually politicians in Britain that are calling for a ban on some tools in the home… this is where you would have us go…I am a free American restrict yourself please, you are a cowardly tyrant sir, I take the bill of rights as literal!!!

  9. What are you talking about. I am a second amendment supporter and do not want to see guns banned. And FYI, a bystander DID have a gun and didn’t use it. Didn’t have time.

  10. Paul X says:

    Much as I dislike NRA (Vin Suprynowicz called them the largest gun control organization in the United States), I believe your opinion about them money-wise is a bit off. They represent millions of members each contributing small amounts of dollars, and their aim is generally to stop legislation rather than rent-seeking. This is far different than contributions by the banksters, or by military contractors.

  11. To a large extent you are right, Paul, but it is my guess that by far the funders of the NRA are the gun manufacturers.

  12. Mark Crist says:

    Are you suggesting the cash bribes (campaign contributions) are somehow less noble than cash bribes from say the Violence Policy Center, or say Planned Parenthood?
    Members pay their dues to these organizations to represent them in promoting legislation that is important to them. I imagine there might even be some that represent law enforcement. And then of course there are some that might be bigger than the NRA. Such as unions?

    • Cash bribes are cash bribes from whoever, and whenever they are given to elicit political favors from politicians who are supposed to act in the best interest of the nation, nobleness plays no role. Only corruption does.

%d bloggers like this: