Proposals For New Gun Control Laws

A mass murderer killed almost 60 people in Las Vegas. Hundreds more were injured by gunshot wounds and by being trampled in the mass panic that followed. Politicians, celebrities and gun control activists called for new gun laws. Gun control laws aren’t a new idea. We already have 23 thousand firearms regulations.

We can keep the gun-control laws that work and get rid of the rest. Let’s examine the recent proposals.

We Demand Universal Background Checks

We have a long history of background checks. Many states already require them when firearms are bought or sold. The murderer in Las Vegas bought his guns legally at a gun shop so he passed his mandated federal background checks. So did the mass murderers who killed people at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon, and at Isla Vista near the University of Santa Barbara campus. I’m noticing a pattern here. Background checks only look at past criminal history. They can not predict the future behavior of mass murderers. They absolutely failed and we should not put our faith in them to stop the next murderer.

We Must Impose Magazine Capacity Restrictions

I mentioned him before, but the murderer at Isla Vista used a handgun, not a rifle. He bought his gun and magazines in California which already has magazine capacity restrictions. This murderer had several magazines. So did the murder who killed at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The attempted mass murderer who attacked a church in Tennessee last month also used a handgun. These murderers were able to kill at will because their victims were disarmed. Magazine Capacity Restrictions didn’t stop mass murders. Let’s get rid of this failed law.

Outlaw Semi-Automatic Weapons

The proponents of gun control said we should outlaw semi-automatic weapons. These weapons fire a single shot for each press of the trigger. We will ignore the physical and legal impossibility of collecting every one of the 200 million semi-automatic firearms in the United States. Let’s pretend for a moment that we could make all of the semi-automatic guns in the United States go away. Guns don’t stay gone. Criminals get them. Criminals have them now. It is illegal for criminals to have guns, but the night is filled with gunfire in Chicago. In Chicago, we disarmed the honest people while we left the criminals armed. Gun prohibition failed to disarm criminals, so let’s get rid of it.

Prohibit Private Citizens from Owning Firearms

Gun Control advocates say we should have gun laws like the ones in England and France. Mexico and Honduras also have gun prohibition, but the prohibitionists don’t bring up those examples. In Mexico and Honduras, the drug gangs have guns and the honest citizens are disarmed. Those countries have a frightening murder rate that is far higher than in the United States.

When we consider Europe, we see that gun prohibition again failed to lower crime or stop mass murder. London now has a higher crime rate than New York City. France outlawed semi-automatic rifles, yet terrorists murdered over a hundred people at the Bataclan Theater in Paris. These terrorists used illegal automatic rifles. It turns out that terrorists and drug gangs don’t obey the law. Only honest people do, so who are we disarming with more gun laws? These gun laws fail in the United States and around the world. Prohibition fails, so let’s get rid of it.

We need more gun-free zones

The Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas was a gun free zone. Not even the security guards were armed. The Pulse Nightclub, the Umpqua Community College, Isla Vista, and the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church were also gun free zones. Murderers go to these so-called “gun-free zones” because they want disarmed victims. Since murderers like them, let’s get rid of legally mandated gun-free zones.

But gun-control might save one life

For every claim that gun control saves a life, I can point to many lives we’ve lost due to gun prohibition. For example, victims of domestic abuse could not buy a gun to protect themselves and their family. I can point to rape victims who were disarmed by gun laws at their campus. Disarming honest people doesn’t make us safer. I document that guns save lives every week.

I want to save many lives, and that is why I want these ineffective gun laws to go away. I trust my neighbors to do the right thing. I trust my neighbors every day as we drive to work and school. So do you. I trust my neighbors more than I fear criminals. I want my neighbors ready to save lives every day..and everywhere. That is why I want to get rid of these gun control laws that don’t work. It is simply common sense.

 
source: https://www.ammoland.com

  • AFGus

    All common sense. Well stated article!

    • Jerry

      As a former Army combat sergeant, I learned very quickly that common sense saves lives. It is to bad people do not think for themselves any more. It seems everyone thinks you have be something, Democrat or Republican for instance, NO, we are all US citizens first. All weapon restrictions are against the Constitutional 2nd amendment. Even Concealed Carry Permits, they are taking a right and turning it into a privilege of a few like a drivers licence.

      • Kanawah

        It would be nice if we had gun laws that were as good as drivers license.
        To purchase a gun, a background check, and a psychological evaluation should be required, and it should be repeated every 4 years. Also, there should be laws requiring any all information that could block the possession of a gun be entered into the background data base.

        If this had been done, the Texas massacre would not have happened.

        • David Seale

          There are already gun laws that are in place for that!!! The criminals really pay attention to them don’t they!!!!!

        • Wolfsbane

          From the Feb 2016 New York ABLE newsletter

          Tired of People With Mental Illness Only Being Part Of The Discussions Of Violence

          By Glenn Liebman CEO
          Mental Health Association In New York State Inc.

          Why is it that every time the gun control debate is discussed – there is a completely inappropriate and unwarranted focus on people with mental illness?

          People with mental illness are no more violent than the general population. We have the numbers. We have statistically sound data and science to back this up. Everyone knows this, nobody claims we’re making this up. Yet no matter how blue in the face we get about raising the false issue, why have people with mental illness become the foils of gun control debate?

          Why are risk factors like history of domestic , family violence, history of violent behavior, substance abuse and family history of abuse not put first and foremost in the discussions? Those are much more predictive of gun violence than mental illness.

          None of us are blind to realities. We understand that if you have a history of violence that is also concurrent with a mental illness you should not own a gun, but to broad brush a whole population of people is akin to saying that all people who have diabetes should not have drivers licenses because they could go into coma shock while driving.

          Some people say it’s not the guns. They argue that if we outlawed people with mental illness from owning guns, there would be many less people who would die from gun violence. Yet, while it makes for a nice sound bite, there is no evidence to back that up. It is a lazy scapegoating technique. Where you stand on gun control is a personal issue, but you cannot generalize about a whole population of people.

        • Daryl

          You are wrong. You don’t need a background check or a psychological evaluation to get a drivers license, not in any state. A felon can get a drivers license legally but they can’t get a gun legally. We don’t need anymore gun laws. Besides the person buying the gun pays for the background check but who would pay for a psychological evaluation every 4 years. Hope you rethink your position on this matter.

        • Juanito Ibañez

          Kanawah wrote: “It would be nice if we had gun laws that were as good as drivers license.”

          Please identify the state that requires “a background check and a psychological evaluation…repeated every 4 years” to obtain and keep a driver license, Kanawah.

  • myfordtruck

    how can you have gun laws when the feds don’t do their jobs like reporting people that are discharged from military dishonorably and also been charged with spousal abuse and child abuse and not reporting to the background check system that s what happened with the man doing the church shooting sunday

  • Alan404

    The lack of communication between government agencies and departments played a major role in “9/11”. Seems like the same song is still being sung, this time the Air Force isn’t speaking to or with the FBI, or perhaps the other way round. In either case, when if ever is government going to wake up.

  • jon

    wait one minute he passed the background check and was able to buy the guns / and yes he lied to do so / and others who had the responsibility to see that his dishonorable discharge as well as his violence was documented in the system.

  • John

    I “enjoy” the repeated contradictions these gun grabbers make. Guns must be banned because guns kill people. Okay, as we know from New York City, London, Paris, and all over the world, trucks kill people, cars kill people, airplanes kill people, knives, bats and so on kill people. Therefore, all things that kill people must be banned. Are the gun grabbers being properly inclusive? Doesn’t seem that way. Do any of these inanimate objects kill people on their own, without human intervention? Or do they, so guns, knives, and trucks should be held for murder, not people. Another piece of “amusement” is that only some must not have guns but the ban must not include political types, security types, F.B.I., police, military, and so on. To be consistent, shouldn’t all people be included in the ban, so gun violence can be stopped?

    • Kanawah

      Your “grabbing at straws” (trucks cars and airplanes, etc) is total BS.
      Compared to guns, all the others do not kill any where near as many as guns.
      Guns are the most dangerous invention in the history of man kind. Their intended purpose is to kill. They should be eliminated from the world.

      • Jerry

        Read the FBI reports, you live in la la land. Knives used as weapons in killing people far out number guns, car deaths far out number gun deaths. Get a grip and do some research.

      • David Seale

        Look at the gun ban in Chicago!!!!!!! It really works well doesn’t it.You are suffering from “Rectal Cranial Inversion” and you are blinded by all those lies that most of you gun grabbers swear by. Look at the crime in Great Britain and Australia. Talk to folks who live there about the crime rates!!!!

      • John

        Sorry (not so sorry), but try checking the records for deaths and injuries involving cars and trucks. Guns are well down on the list. Just because gun is a three letter word doesn’t make them bad, and you still need a human to cause the death. We should ban cars to save lives.

      • Daryl

        Abortion kills more people than any other form of murder. Look at the numbers.

      • Juanito Ibañez

        Kanawah wrote: “Their intended purpose is to kill.”

        The only “intended purpose” of a firearm is to send a projectile down range towards an intended target with reasonable accuracy.

        Whether or not it is used to kill is totally up to the user.

  • David Seale

    Assinine laws are keeping people from being able to protect themselves and others!!!!!! NO GUN CONTROL LAWS ALLOWED!!!!!!

    • Kanawah

      WRONG.
      There should be very strict restrictions on who can purchase and possess a gun.
      Read the second very closely, and then research WHY it was created.
      Its purpose was to make available to the federal government a “well regulated militia”. It was not to give every loony tune access to a gun.
      In today’s world, we have the National Guard and a standing military. Based on the reason the second amendment was created, it is no longer needed, and should be removed from the constitution.

      • Jerry

        You are very incorrect. If you had done the research you would find that what you say is loony. The militia is a citizens army, it has nothing to do with the armed forces. As members of this militia as we all are, including yourself, Whether you want to own a weapon or not, it is our duty to defend the soil we stand on, we do not go to other countries and fight, that is left up to the military. The second amendment was based on the peoples right to defend this nation against all enemies foreign (invasion by another country), and domestic (people that want to overthrow this government), and even to protect us against our own government if it becomes to powerful and tyrannical.

      • L Cavendish

        It is to give (OK…not restrict) INDIVIDUALS the right to own and bear arms…like all those OTHER rights…for INDIVIDUALS…NOT the government…speech…voting…privacy…religion…etc etc etc
        Yes…some restrictions are necessary…but they should be VERY…VERY…limited…just as they are for speech and voting and other RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS

      • Daryl

        The people are the militia, we own more than 300 million guns. The people own more guns than the military and police departments do. Are you saying those people cannot be regulated to defend the United States of America? I say we can and we will against a foreign or domestic threat.

      • Juanito Ibañez

        Kanawah wrote: “There should be very strict restrictions on who can purchase and possess a gun.”

        What part of “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed” do you NOT understand, Kanawah???

  • billybob

    Universal background checks are a pathway to National Registration,illegal, which EVERYWHERE it has been done, is followed by confiscation. Also illegal and Unconstitutional.
    Magazine limits are asinine. They serve no purpose but making everyone’s weapon less effective. See if you can require this on just the crazies and the criminals. If you figure that one out, the rest of us may follow along. Of course that approach hasn’t gone too well on that “Thou shalt not Murder” Law so far so the prospects aren’t looking so good. Then there’s the 100 Million large cap magazines already in circulation problem….
    Gun Free zones,Hows that working for all those victims from Ft. Hood, the Navy Yard, The First Baptist Church Sutherland TX, et al. Criminals look at gun-free zones as nobody’s gonna be shooting back at me zones, they love unarmed victims. Did you ever notice how the Antifa riot punk-assed bitches don’t get violent in Shall Issue States? Too dangerous to swing clubs and chains with bullets coming back at you!
    Better to allow permit-less carry as an armed society is a polite society!

  • L Cavendish

    I’d love it if you could pay for and get an NFA license/permit…go through the checks ONCE…a photo…fingerprints…and get an OK for say 3-5 years.
    Then be able to buy what you want and get an INSTANT OK or tax stamp. Even if you had to do a photo and prints at a kiosk each time.
    A 3-11 MONTH wait is just ridiculous…especially if you already own NFA items…or are a cop or military that already has access to NFA items.
    Now THAT would be common sense…if you are not going to do away with NFA totally.