For the past week or so, I have been regularly accosted on campus to sign a petition to increase background checks on guns. I am annoyed that they do not recognize me, especially when I walk by the same people four or five times in the same day. Also, it annoys me that so many people are signing this petition, because it's a complete canard. One guy when I rejected him said, "It's a step", but that doesn't mean it's a good one. What these signatories actually do is sign away their own liberty for safety thinking it will work when it will not necessarily do any good. What the petitioners do is appeal to the FEELINGS of the signatories, so they feel like they did something that matters.
Most gun crimes in Nevada are not committed by people who obtained their guns legally in Nevada. A close acquaintance of mine works for the District Attorney's office, and I bet if I asked she could corroborate that claim. Even the two nincompoops who killed cops at a Walmart near my house bought their guns out of state and brought them along when they moved here last year. Many crimes are committed using guns that are STOLEN. Criminals will get guns no matter what. If you doubt me, look at the unrest worldwide, committed largely by insurgents who probably didn't follow the rules to get their AR-50s or RPGs or whatever.
Making Clark County laws will not help. In fact, you only have to check with the Highway Patrol if you buy the gun in Clark or Washoe County. Drive a half hour to Pahrump, and you don't have to tell anyone you bought a gun because it's in Nye County (which is probably why Pahrump exists, for people who don't like Clark County Statutes). When I deal with people buying and selling things, they do ask for ID and for my Blue Card, which the NHP gave me when I first transferred a gun through a gun store in the state (it was a Winchester 94 in 30-30). This means that at one point I DID pass a background check.
Criminals do not obey the law. That's why they are criminals. When you pass more laws, the only verifiable consequence is that law-abiding citizens sign away their own rights for a false sense of security. Private party background checks will limit private party sales, but it will not keep guns from criminals. In fact, the more records law enforcement keeps and makes public, the easier criminals have access to guns because they know who owns what and where they live. Back during Hurricane Sandy, I remember stories about residents robbing sporting goods stores for hockey sticks, baseball bats, and the like for some semblance of protection. You are not allowed to own a gun in NJ, but somehow the criminals have them anyway. Imagine that.
Benjamin Franklin is credited with the saying: "Those who trade liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". I know these students mean well. I also know that they are misguided if they think it will keep them safe. We are not allowed to have guns on campus, but if there is a shooting on campus, it won't be because the shooter found a way to bring them here legally. It will be because he DOES NOT CARE. The petitioners appeal to emotion in order to overpower logical and deductive reasoning, and these people feel important because they're "making change". I don't have to break the law to get around this law. I simply have to drive out of the county. Background checks only tell you what people have done. It says nothing about what people might do. When the two shooters walked into Walmart this summer after shooting two cops, a brave citizen with a gun tried to stop them. The police and firefighters both considered him a hero, and he died for his efforts. The Duke of Guise, father of Mary Queen of Scots told Mary, "If you disarm yourself, your enemy shoots you." That's as true today as it was in 1560. The only way to stop people with guns is to have a gun yourself. The cops who stopped that crazy couple at Walmart can tell you that too.
No comments:
Post a Comment