|
GentlemanAxel -> The "Loophole" Fallacy (4/10/2009 10:30:04 PM)
|
Thought I'd chime in, another long time marksman and firearms appreciator.
I'm guessing that a lot of folks have never actually been to a gun show. Or been to one in the role of a vendor as opposed to a buyer. There's been a lot of squawking (not just on the board here) about how one can go into a gun show and come out with enough guns to make Arnold Schwarzenegger look naked. About how there's no discretion and no oversight. Capitalism at its most ruthless with a horrific product.
It can all be summed up in one word: crap.
Yes, it is theoretically possible to walk into a gun show and come out significantly better armed than when you came in. However, what folks don't seem to notice or don't care to admit is that just because you can do something does not guarantee or even strongly suggest that it will happen. The guys making private sales are not ruthless profiteers. They're not trying to make a killing "Lord of War"-style to support some extravagant lifestyle. They're more than likely the neighbor down the street a few doors who needs to raise a little extra cash and isn't willing to part with their grandfather's WWI vintage shotgun just yet. They're the guy who's found out that he prefers the lighter loads of a 9mm to the big bore Colt Python he bought when his then girlfriend thought Dirty Harry was so studly. They're the folks who have talked to all of their friends and relatives who shoot, and maybe a few who don't, and they can't clean out the closet enough to make their spouses happy. All of this being said, they're also not about to just let a piece go to the first schmuck who puts cash down on the table. The generally unwritten rule at a gun show, no matter what the vendor, is "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Are there vendors who are crooked as hell? Sure. Are there vendors who manage to make an absolutely horrendous misjudgment of the character of a potential buyer? Sure. But they're also fairly rare. Once word gets out that a vendor is crooked, that he knowingly sells what he shouldn't when he shouldn't to whom he shouldn't, he's pretty much toast. At best, he'll piss away weekends at $100 a pop (space costs have gone up somewhat, and that's also figuring in gas, food, and electricity costs) with nothing to show for his labors. At worst, he'll get busted by the cops and never show up again. As for the vendors who sell to somebody who later goes on a rampage, incredibly tragic, but no less so than somebody at a pharmacy selling razor blades or OTC sleep meds to somebody who's suicidal, a car salesman selling a vehicle to a human smuggler, or a clerk in a hardware store selling an axe to somebody who goes home and chops up his family. As long as human beings are involved, there will always be the potential for tragedy in what should be an innocuous transaction.
As to the arguments for registration and national databases and what not, I would point you towards the TSA and the "no fly" list as a perfect example of why such a scheme is inherently flawed. You have a government entity which holds unchecked power against 300 million Americans, and the other 6.2 billion people on the planet, to detain and interrogate at will simply because some people happen to have their name on a list. Not because the individuals in question have actually done anything, or are even reasonably suspected of doing something, only because their name happens to be similar to another individual's. The "no fly" list creates a broad class of suspects for no good reason. A gun ownership list would do precisely the same thing, to create a permanent class of people automatically assumed to be suspects for no good reason. Such a database cannot possibly be used responsibly by any government agency. The temptation for venality and abuse would be overwhelming. After all, if bureaucrats can't keep the distinction between John Smith the Surburbanite and John Smith the Bloody Handed Terrorist straight, what hope do they have with gun owners who've never committed a crime?
The comparison of gun registration to motor vehicle registration is likewise a fallacy. Motor vehicles have the potential to engage in intrastate, interstate, or even international commerce depending on geographic location and logistical capabilities. Regulation of commerce, customs issues, weights and measurements, all of these are of legitimate interest to the government at local, state, and national levels, and the use of motor vehicles whether for private transportation or commerical shipping touch on these areas in one form or another. The fact that you can also use motor vehicles to cause lethal damage to multiple human beings is purely incidental to their generally accepted purpose.
Lastly, an observation. Several years ago, Britain enacted laws which effectively outlawed private firearms ownership. The result? Crime went up. In particular, the use of knives in assaults and robberies went up. Not all that long ago, Britain enacted laws which rather heavily regulate what knives Britons may own and use. The result? Knife crimes have been going up. If you start seeing laws regarding rocks and pointy sticks showing up in the House of Commons, I think it'll be past time somebody demands something resembling sanity.
|
|
|
|
