The Gun Blogs

LTE in response to this

Argument No. 1: Laws already exist to get illegal guns off the street.

A: Yes, Pennsylvania has laws. But enforcing them isn't as simple as walking out the cop-shop door and catching the bad guy committing a crime in plain sight.

And your point is??? That we should only pass laws that are easy to enforce? How about if we stick to only passing laws that are effective. Oops, that leaves out one handgun a month laws (or any gun control laws for that matter...unless, of course, effectiveness is measured by how many law abiding citizens can be turned into defenseless sheep).

Argument No. 2: Handgun controls have been enacted nationally and violent crime is still on the rise.

A: Yes, and murders still occur despite the death penalty. No single measure will reduce violence. That's why House members' support for a proposal to have the state bear some of the cost of hiring more police officers is worthwhile as part of a comprehensive anticrime strategy.

You can't control crime in your own city so...penalize everyone else. And when that fails, how much more money will you need to take from others to increasingly subsidize ineffective policies? 10,000 more police officers will do absolutely nothing when coupled with a revolving door judicial system. No single measure will reduce violence? I beg to differ, the single measure of keeping criminals off the streets after they are arrested absolutely WILL reduce violence and crime.

Argument No. 3: Criminals don't care about laws.

A: Duh. If legislators are guided by that premise, they should rescind the entire criminal code. The point is to enact laws that give police and prosecutors more tools to prevent crimes or punish criminals.

Great idea, let's outlaw baggy pants and gold chains...everyone knows that the thugs who wear those getups commit all the crimes anyway right? Or we could set a national curfew between 10pm and 6am and arrest everyone outside during those hours...they're probably up to no good anyway. Heck, that would cut down on drunk driving too. Hey, I've got an idea: Rights be damned...criminalize everything. That way the Police can just arrest whoever they think might be considering committing a crime. Talk about your ultimate "tool to prevent crimes or punish criminals".

Argument No. 4: The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.

A: Yes, but every amendment comes with responsibilities and regulations. The First Amendment doesn't mean journalists can commit libel. Why should the Second Amendment be immune from limits that protect other citizens from harm?

How is the Second Amendment immune from limits that protect other citizens from harm? Isn't murder illegal just like libel? Isn't armed robbery illegal? Assault with a deadly weapon? Even just DISCHARGING a firearm is illegal in many jurisdictions even if it wasn't done negligently and no other citizens were in danger of being harmed.

Sure, a journalist can be prosecuted for libel, but what law prevents said journalist from freely exercising that right BEFORE committing the crime? What law criminalizes speech under the premise that one MIGHT use it to harm other citizens?

Argument No. 5: The more guns law-abiding citizens have for self-defense, the safer we all are.

A: There's an endless supply of guns in Iraq. Would you call Baghdad a safe place to raise a family?

That is a specious and ridiculous argument. The fact that that bit of hyperbole was the best you could do in rebuttal of argument No. 5 speaks volumes to your lack of legitimate points. Baghdad is unsafe due to an ongoing war, not criminality. If the US forces (i.e. the Good Guys...comparable to the law abiding citizens of Argument No. 5) in Iraq all gave up their arms, would that make Baghdad a safer place to live? Would the law abiding Iraqis who arm themselves for self defense against their enemies be safer if they disarmed? Don't be ridiculous.

anticrime advocates...need to fight the reelection of legislators who block reasonable gun restrictions that most Pennsylvanians support.

If they truly were "anti-crime" advocates rather than simply anti-gun, they would support measures that might actually succeed at fighting crime rather than utopian proposals that fail every time they are tried. With that said, they are free to fight the reelection of anyone they choose. If they truly are aligned with "most Pennsylvanians", they will be successful with or without the assistance of your propaganda.