Columbus Justice Ban
You've heard me talk about the Columbus Assault Weapons Ban. With that in mind, I found a certain Columbus Dispatch report to be very discouraging.
(Note: I'm sure it doesn't matter due to the size of my audience, but technically most firearm stuff won't be my IP anymore, so I'm going to quote it in the future from the original source. I'm sure you'll also be pleased that so far it has resulted in less gun stuff on here.)
Read the original article here.
Columbus Justice Ban
When readers of this site see the words “Columbus” and “Ban” in the same sentence, they most likely think of unnecessary laws prohibiting firearms based on their appearance rather than function. The Columbus Assault Weapons Ban was proposed by anti-gun advocates to supposedly make the city’s streets safer. Those laws have proven to be ineffectual.
How could Columbus decrease its crime rate? Appropriate sentences for criminals would be a logical start. The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that Larry Laury, 25, was sentenced to only nine years in prison by Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Angela White after admitting to holding seven people at gunpoint in an apartment on October 25. His participation in this felonious act resulted in the death of one of his accomplices. Appropriately, Laury was originally charged with murder. That charge was dropped in exchange for his plea of guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery.
If Laury were to serve his entire sentence (which is rare these days) he would be back on the streets only nine years after terrorizing seven people at gunpoint and being responsible for murder.
Our local, state, and federal representatives need to realize that crime can not be prevented by inconveniencing the law-abiding with one more regulation the criminal will continue to ignore. The only way Columbus can protect its citizens is by punishing a murderer with a sentence appropriate for murder.
This article is permanently linked here.
9 comments
9 Comments:
I know you're really pro-gun, like REALLY pro-gun, but are you pro-assault weapons? I'm fine with the Second Ammendment, but I think giving the public free access to assault weapons could cause some serious problems for law enforcement. Drug busts, for example; you don't want the drug dealers armed with AK-47s.
You got me, I am really pro-gun. :)
Thank God someone finally wants to talk about firearm issues. I guess I only have to write 39 posts before someone wants to initiate a most welcomed dialogue.
As to whether I'm "pro-assault weapons" I have to ask about the type of firearms you have in mind. (As I basically wrote the post for you) I'd love to hear your thoughts on Defining an Assault Rifle and the follow-up Assault Honda Kills Five. I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts as to whether it makes any difference if we ban guns based on looks alone and not function. The other thing I want to make clear before I drone on is that the overwhelming majority of criminals use very small, very concealable, (and usually cheap and junky) handguns. How far are they going to get if they're trying to sell crack on the street corner while holding a full-size AK-47 rifle? There's no way they're hiding that thing. Please provide a source for drug dealers (or any criminal) using an AK (or any other "assault rifle" that is typically banned). The anti-gun folks want you to think drug dealers use them because they look "scarier" than other firearms.
So, I am very much against "giving the public free access to assault weapons" so long as we define assault weapons properly as something more than a semi-auto rifle that happens to be black rather than a natural wood color (while functioning exactly the same).
As to your specific example of an AK-47, it's true that there are fully automatic versions that have been made and are used around the world, but fully automatic rifles have been severely restricted in the U.S. since the early 1930's. The History Channel recently did a special on "The Machine Gun" (very recommended) where they pointed out a fact that us pro-gun folks use. That fact is that there has only been one crime committed with a legally owned fully automatic rifle since the '30s. That one crime was committed by a police officer. I'd say that the law put on the books in the '30s is doing a pretty damn good job of keeping these guns out of the hand of drug dealers.
So, do I want drug dealers armed with AK-47s? Of course not! There are safeguards (that I support) already in place that make it a FELONY for any convicted criminal to be in the presence of any firearm (let alone buying, carrying, using a firearm). That's why I say that logically, if someone is willing to commit a felony by being in the presence of a firearm, that wacko isn't going to give a shit about the misdemeanor charge of having a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds. That 10 round capacity law will only affect those that follow the law in the first place. Criminals do not follow the law in the first place.
I apologize for rambling on a bit, but the other thing I wanted to touch on was in response to you saying, "I'm fine with the Second Amendment." Can I ask for your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I also wrote this post concerning how some people twist the 2nd Amendment to try and explain their anti-gun conclusions. In a nutshell, I feel that my right as part of "the people" means that my right to own and use firearms shall not be infringed upon. That is the exact sentiment that all of the founding fathers meant when they carefully wrote those words. I can also provide numerous quotations to that effect concerning Washington's, Jefferson's, Adam's, Madison's, (and so on) speaking after the fact about whether they wanted the whole populace to be armed or the National Guard that was formed more than a century after they all died.
Throw me a bone! Keep this going and let me know what you think! I'm sick of preaching to the choir on the other website that I write for!
To try and finalize this novel by going back to what the original post was discussing... I feel that those inclined to terrorize seven people illegally at gunpoint and be responsible for the murder of one person should be incarcerated for a lot longer than 9 years. Passing laws that this person will ignore and I will follow will not stop crime like this in the future. At best, if for some reason you think he'd follow the gun laws next time... the next time he'd use a knife, or a baseball bat, or something else. And me, the law-abiding citizen, would not have the means to protect my family because I actually follow the law, while this animal does not.
After re-reading the above this morning, I'm surprised it's as grammatically correct as it is considering the amount of gin that was consumed while typing it.
That's a good point, uzi type weapons can, in many scenarios, be way worse in the wrong hands than an AK.
And yeah, it's been alot of posts about guns.
Awwww, come on man... is that all I get? At least tell me if you still fear so called "assault weapons" after reading the legal definitions I've quoted and pointed you towards.
And, as your internet friend, I'm not going to let you fall into the same trap as you initially fell into with AK-47s. When you said "Uzi type weapons" you were probably picturing a fully automatic killing machine that holds 10,000 rounds and Neo used in The Matrix, right? Those are fully automatic and I believe I've mentioned 5 or 10 times now that they haven't been the issue since the 1930's. What do you want to do... ban them again because those laws aren't good enough? Let's put them on double secret probation. Those aren't the "assault weapons" we've been talking about.
I don't even think they make a typical semi-auto (one bullet per one trigger pull) Uzi... but if they do, they would function absolutely the same as the little wood plinker I showed in the "Defining an Assault Rifle" article and hundreds of millions of people have in their house. Should we ban these hypothetical semi-auto Uzis? If so... Why?
And some blogs have every single post talk about firearms. I enjoy having a focus for my efforts with some other stuff mixed in.
You voted for Bush didn't you? You can admit it, I won't even be mad.
Actually, I didn't vote for him either time. I wish to God that firearms weren't seen as a partisan issue.
Why won't you say either:
A) "The facts you present on how these assault weapons are legally defined make sense and I now support your conclusions."
or
B) "Even though assault weapons are only demonized because of their looks, I still think they're bad... therefore, all guns of this nature are bad."
I don't mean to call you out... just wondering why you're completely avoiding a request for feedback.
You can answer, I won't be mad.
I re-read your definition of assault weapons, and agree that they are not as dangerous as they may often be perceived. But I ask again, why do civilians need high-powered, semi-automatic, clip-loaded rifles?
I don't know if you're a hunter, but I'm totally against bloodsports. The only hunting I might be willing to bend on is bowhunting.
That being said, I don't think you need much more than a simple handgun for home defense.
It's not so much that I have a problem with guns, it's the people who own them. With many of them, I simply don't trust their judgment.
Post a Comment
<< Home