Gun Control Doesn’t Work

I’ve been watching someone close to me spiral into the black hole of alcoholism. At some point I went down to the local liquor store and asked them not to sell my loved one liquor. How stupid was that? An alcoholic will always find booze. Always. You can’t stop them. You can only make sure they face the consequences of their actions. And sometimes you can’t even do that. At the same time, it’s tempting to wish you could eliminate all liquor production, liquor stores and bars. America tried prohibition. It didn’t do anything to stem alcoholism. How could it? In the same way, a criminal will always be able to get a gun. Always. You can’t stop them. You can only make sure that they face the consequences of their actions. And sometimes you can’t even do that.

comments

  1. avatar LC Judas says:

    It only minimizes the weapons that do get out. No, it isn’t an airtight seal but I can say this from living in a craphole neighborhood that it does slow some of the criminal-minded down. I have had a gun stolen from me. A friend of mine did just yesterday. Weapons will always be out there the same way booze was back in the “lets ban alcohol” days. It is the safeguards in place that deter those who are not as law abiding as to want to follow the rules but not so delinquent as to risk imprisonment.

    That group is larger than both the happily law abiding citizens and the most hardcore criminals put together. The concept of gun control helps keep them more honest than they would otherwise be.

    Alcoholism is a heavily taxing thing on the entire family. The fact that booze will be sold and that they are adult should not cause you to lose hope. I reclaimed a father and uncle from it and it is a personal choice to drink or not, not the inability to drink from availability that is the bottom line at the end of the day. I see people do the Detox merry-go-round in my line of work. The rider has to decide when the fun is over, no one else and no sooner than that.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      You’re in denial. There’s no evidence that gun control limits the number of guns available to criminals.

      Anecdotally, I spoke to a homicide detective the other day. I asked what kind of weapons the bad guys were using. Glocks and Smith & Wessons. Good quality stuff. “How do they get them?” I asked. “Any way they can,” he said.

      1. avatar LC Judas says:

        The people I know who use hot guns as a line of work can’t pass a background check and can’t persuade the people they know who can to get them a weapon even with ample compensation involved. Gun control does minimize “buying for the other guy”. I know that because I have been asked and no amount of money is worth the issues of being pinned on multiple felony counts. It isn’t a cure all but does serve as a deterant. I’ve been asked how to get around it many times. Steal a gun that the owner is happy to shoot you with or buy a knife.

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          We can trade anecdotes all night. Where is the statistical data that indicates (never mind proves) that gun control reduces the number of crimes committed by people using/carrying firearms?

          Some cities and states have had gun control for decades: Chicago, D.C., NYC and more. It seems clear that those draconian, unconstitutional laws have done nothing to reduce “gun crime.”

          Never mind more guns less crime; I reckon it’s more gun control, more crime. Am I wrong?

    2. avatar Rob J says:

      If you are OK limiting the 2nd Amendment in the hopes of reducing some crime, are you also OK with limiting other rights in the name of “reducing crime”?
      Based on your logic all of the following can be eroded in order to “minimize crime”: freedom of speech, search and seizure of private property, self incrimination, speedy public trial by jury, and cruel and unusual punishment.
      Keep in mind that our all of our rights will be slowly eroded if you are able to limit one in the name of security.

      1. avatar David Sommer says:

        Amen!!

  2. avatar LC Judas says:

    More gun control will cause more crime. Too much less gun control likely will too. I never said that gun control prevented crime, I said it slowed guns hitting the streets and kept more of the average citizens honest. A small percentage of us will commit crimes no matter what. That’s undebatable.

    If you expect gun control to directly lessen crime I doubt that will happen. But, no I don’t have stats so I will quell the speculations and opinions here.

    More guns aren’t less crime. More armed and willing to defend themselves righteously as a population is and that is not directly the same thing, highly similar but not the same.

    1. avatar TTACer says:

      “I said it slowed guns hitting the streets and kept more of the average citizens honest. “

      Citation?

      1. avatar LC Judas says:

        This from talking to career criminals in Cleveland personally who have looked at the law abiding method of getting a firearm to commit crimes with. However, in my second paragraph of the same post I said I would stop my opinions and speculation. I do not ask that they be treated as fact and hence do not have a citation for what I said.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Career criminals are more likely to avoid commiting crime in areas where there is an armed population. Both anecdotal and statisticial evidence support that contention.

          Most gun crime is commited by gangs. They import their weapons along with their drugs. If we make guns hard to get then the blackmarket for imported firearms will just take up the slack.

          Higher arrest and convictions rates are the Government’s mechanism to discourage crime. Weapons control doesn’t cut it.

  3. avatar Stephen says:

    Well said

  4. avatar Pascal says:

    What is the right balance of gun control to keep the bad guys at bay and the honest guys honest as well give them the freedom to do what they want with their guns?

    Does anyone know?

    1. avatar Wellington says:

      A commenter in the thread above suggests that the current balance of gun control is just right:

      “More gun control will cause more crime. Too much less gun control likely will too.”

      It’s just like Goldilocks and the Three Bears but we don’t have to try any more beds.

  5. avatar Adam says:

    @PascalThere is no balance. Criminals will break laws no matter what. Shit, the death penalty does not even deter murder. If a criminal wants a gun they will get one, no matter what because criminals don’t care about laws. That’s why they are call criminals.

    The only gun law that should be on the books is one that says it’s illegal for someone convicted of a violent crime to be in possession of a gun. Anything more is an infringement.

  6. avatar KWood says:

    My view on gun control? While I don’t think that Average Joe needs anything like a fully automatic “rock ‘n’ roll” machine fun (er, “gun”); I also believe that if you haven’t committed a crime and are of sound mind (that’s the hard part), then owning as many guns as you want should be legal. I can buy Armored Personnel Carriers if I have the funds, why not a rifle or three? This take doesn’t really have anything to do with the crime rate or any other statistical fact, it’s merely about the right to do what you want with what’s yours (i.e, your money).
    People who are determined to obtain a weapon will obtain one. Why deprive honest people of weapons, when it won’t stop a dishonest person?

    1. avatar Adam says:

      @KWood

      I may not “need” a fully-automatic gun. No one really does; short of someone in a combat situation who needs to produce suppressive fire.

      No, I want a full-auto. Why? Doesn’t matter. All that matters is that I want one and as a law-abiding citizen with no criminal background to speak of, I should be able to pick one up, no questions asked, at my favorite gun dealer. Crap, police don’t need full-auto ARs… but the fact that they want them is enough to justify them having them… why is that not enough for me as well?

      BTW – Really, I want a full-auto because I think it would be fun. Nothing more, nothing less.

      1. avatar Drew says:

        I’ve always wanted an MG42 but I think I’d be just as happy with a deactivated one, since I couldn’t afford to shoot it! So realistically that leaves stuff like Ermas, PPSHs, M2 carbines, M3s, Thompsons, or MP5’s (in my order of desirability) which I’d enjoy owning , but would never consider dropping thousands upon thousands of dollars on.

      2. avatar rosignol says:

        While I personally think that full-auto is mainly a way to turn good money into noise at a prodigious rate… it’s my money.

        1. avatar KWood says:

          Fully Automatic = Fully Awesome. No questions asked, I’ve always wanted to head to the range with a couple of machine guns and let rip. I’d also like to point out that I never said they should be illegal. I kind of like machine guns where they are now: expensive, and with a heavy background check to obtain one (pre-ban, of course). But if you’ve got 15K dollars, and your local yokel sheriff signs off (or whatever you have to do to own Class 3 guns), then you can buy an MP5 and blast rocks until your neighbors complain about the light from the tracers keeping them up all night.

  7. avatar Gabba says:

    just as deterrent brandishings do not register on defensive gun use stats neither do criminals not getting hold of weapons.

  8. avatar Van says:

    Sorry about your friend.

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    Most criminals are created through years of abuse, neglect and indifference. Gun control is a poor lever on preventing sociopaths from committing acts. Alcoholism has a genetic component which makes falling into the trap easier but history still plays a large part. Those that enjoy alcohol don’t want it taken away because of actions of a few. Gun owners have constitutional standing for their beliefs and the fear well meaning people will strip them of self defense.

    I’m a believer in strong criminal control but its expensive and hard to implement nationally. Ironically states with the stringent gun control laws have interesting rules for treating the criminals. I’ll let someone else prove me wrong on my assumption.

    Gun control is a great idea, just show me how the criminals are going to be disarmed first and I’m all for it.

  10. avatar Adam says:

    @KWood

    The only reason that full auto guns are so expensive is because the average Joe or Jane can only own one if it was made prior to 1986. As you can imagine supplies are limited and that’s why it cost so much for a full-auto.

    Full-auto guns are expensive not because they are expensive to make, no they are expensive because they were legislated to be expensive. If you were to lift the ban you’d see manufacturers making full-auto guns for not much more then their semi-counterparts.

    You say: “I kind of like machine guns where they are now”

    Which tells me that you like laws that only affect the law abiding (which is what the GCA of 1986 is) and you don’t fully comprehend the meaning of “Shall not be infringed.”

    Glad your in our corner… or not.

  11. avatar Totenglocke says:

    Not only did Prohibition fail to end alcoholism or just alcohol consumption, it created a series of massive criminal enterprises that made the country far less safe than the occasional domestic violence from a drunken father / husband.

    If gun control worked in the slightest, then all of these countries (such as the UK) that ban guns for civilians wouldn’t ever have a single crime committed with a gun.

  12. avatar Dylan says:

    because some tards think the way they do, it ruins things for everyone else.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email