Making it easier for criminals to get guns.

Remove all ads!

Here is an interesting article I came across.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31arizona.html?ref=us

I hope it isn't true but if it is then the respect I have for lawmakers in Arizona has dropped (ok, maybe not all but certainly for some of those that supported this).

The argument is that we don't need background checks for purchasing a gun because criminals supposedly have them already.

Some criminals do, but others don't.

If that wasn't the case then there would be no problem with "straw buyers". These are people (who can pass a background check) that legally purchase a gun for themselves but aim to purchase the weapon in order to hand it over or sell it to someone who cannot because he or she has a criminal record.

Part of the reason you don't want people with criminal records to get guns is because of the idea that they are more likely than an average citizen to use those guns in the process of committing a crime.

Ditto for those who are denied due to a history of mental problems. Giving guns to people with problems can lead to more.... problems.

An article on this (it is taken off non-national news but a fact is that it happens):
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/63459407.html

Does this Arizona bill have a chance of passing? And, if it does, doesn't it kill many of the arguments put forward in efforts to pass concealed carry legislation that only law abiding citizens who had been trained how to properly use and store a firearm would be making use of legalized concealed carry?

 

This part:

struck me as particularly bad. In my mind, training should be mandatory before the purchase of any firearm. It's not hard, it's not expensive, it's not long, and it will save people's lives. Anyone who wants to fool around with a weapon and not get training should automatically have that weapon used on them (preferably something expendable, like a toe) just so they learn their lesson without putting others at risk.

Beyond that, I agree that a background check is just common sense. I have no problem with the removal of the need for a concealed carry permit, though.

 

I have no real problem with the idea that people who wish to own a firearm should be properly trained. I also do have to say that I'm a bit ambivalent about the idea of not checking if the gun-buyer has any sort of history of mental problems.

I can understand the logic that says that any criminal that wants to get a gun isn't going to be deterred from getting one thru illegal means, and thus, such requirements only really affect (mostly) non-criminals. The problem that I have is that without this sort of background check, while it will make it easier for the non-criminal to get a gun, it also makes it easier for the criminal to get a gun as well. Thus, I think this begs the question ... which is better ... accepting that it might be a bit more difficult for the law-abiding to get guns due to a background check, knowing that it will largely prevent the non-law-abiding from purchasing guns legally... OR ... making it easier for the law-abiding to buy guns, knowing that it will also make it easier for the non-law-abiding to get guns? I don't have an answer for this question, though I'm somewhat tempted to accept a bit of difficulty if it means that criminals can't just stroll into some local gun shop and buy a gun as easily as one could buy a bottle of milk at a 7-11.

 

I think background checks aren't such a big problem for lawful, conscientious owners - they will not have any problem with them, and in the vast majority of cases obtaining a gun is not something that you need on the spot (if you do, maybe you should call the polic instead). Same for training - someone who wants to own a gun for self-defense or hunting should either have training or not have any problem with it. After all, if you want a gun for self-defense, thus to avoid risks for you and your family, you should make sure you know how to use it properly so that you are not a risk yourself, just like you need to take an exam to get a driver's license.

It won't stop all criminals from owning guns, but it might reduce their number somewhat, and possibly lead to the apprehension of some of the more careless ones.

 

I would argue that background checks deter more would-be criminals than we may realize. Committing a crime is a risk. Acquiring a gun illegally is also risky. This means that any felon looking to commit a gun crime will have to risk getting caught two times rather than just once. Most criminals are intelligent enough to realize this, and while it won't deter all of them, it will deter quite a few. For those it doesn't deter, at least it gives law enforcement an extra opportunity to catch them before they re-offend.

Well... if you want to get technical, it doesn't. Acquiring a gun illegally is still technically re-offending. On the other hand, I'd rather see an undercover cop or parole officer arrest Bob the Mugger when he buys a gun illegally than after he, you know, mugs someone with it.

 

It would be less of an issue if we just executed violent criminals -- it wouldn't solve the problem 100% but it'd make some inroads. But as long as we have a legal system that cares more for the rights of the criminal than it does about the rights of the victims, we're gonna have repeat offenders and their sleazy lawyers getting them off with ridiculously light sentences, which permits them to go out and commit their 12th and 13th violent felonies.

But the sleazy defense lawyers aren't the only ones with culpibility -- the government shouldn't be locking up peaceful, non-gun using pot users -- save the space for the really dangerous criminals.

 

It would be interesting sometime meet one of those lawyers you are constantly referring to. I would also like to hear what you suggest we as a society do instead of allowing people accused of a crime to have a legal expert defend them?

 

Perhaps I came across too strongly -- everyone deserves a defense, no problem. But there should be realism. Take the case of Karla Homolka here in Canada. The defense had videos that showed Karla actively participating in the torture and rape of at least 2 girls (one of whom was her own frigging sister) alongside Karla's husband Paul Bernardo. The tapes were universally described by all who saw them as revolting. Now any human with a conscience would want Karla in prison for a good long time. But the defense lawyer used the tapes to cut a deal with the prosecutors, who had to take the tapes sight unseen in exchange for a really cushy deal for Homolka.

Now I know that the lawyer's job is to do the best she can for her client. Blah Blah Blah legal gobbledegook. But I really don't care. No one with an ounce of decency should advocate for the early release (or ANY release) of a person as vile as Karla. But she walks free as I type this post, and it nauseates me. Defense attorneys who get their clients off when they know not only that the client is guilty as hell but that the client poses a significant risk to the general public are criminals. The true purpose of the legal system has been lost, IMHO.

 

Every codified system has its flaws and loopholes, though. it is important to work towards reducing them, but infringing on an important right because of a few high-profile abuses is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's the job of the defense attorney to insure their client is represented correctly and is not convicted if they are not guilty.

 

I'm all for "is not convicted if not guilty". What I oppose is "is not convicted if I can exploit a loophole, so the guilty is free to victimize again." If they are guilty, argue for a nicer prison or whatever, but don't work so hard to release an obviously dangerous person into the public.