Good Lord, a guy goes off to do stuff he gets paid for and the thread gets completely out of hand.
First, on the anti-gun control and pro-gun control / love guns-hate guns thing, I don’t think those classifications are necessarily joined or that being of one mind on the control issue means that there is an oath of perpetual hostility to private gun ownership. There are a fair number of gun owners who cannot be classed as opposed to regulation and control of firearms, myself among them. The fact that a guy thinks that some regulation, for example registration and licensing, is appropriate does not mean that the guy hates and fears firearms and despises gun owners.
Second, there is no way a law officer or any one else can tell what a person is going to do with a weapon. At least in my state if a police officer runs across a person who is an adult (or 14 if accompanied by an adult) with a cased long arm or hand gun, and the person does not have a felony conviction and the weapon is unloaded and it is not a prohibited weapon like a saw off shot gun, there is not a thing the officer can do about it. This is the reason I said, and still say, that is there is a right to go armed there is a right to go armed with intent. The officer can not predict future behavior in the absence of some objective demonstration of future intent. Thus, in the above case, if it is the guy’s secret intent to go to a school yard, uncase his weapon, load it and blast away the officer has no ability to prevent it. You can’t tell if a guy is a Yahoo until he does something Yahoo-like.
Third, protection of children is in issue because it was a child that was killed in Davenport and it was that child’s death that started the thread that started this thread. It seems to me that regulation of fire arms is a public safety issue, not just a child safety issue.
Fourth, I see all sorts of talk about enforcement of the law as it now stands as rendering fire arms control unnecessary. This argument assumes that either the police are deliberately not enforcing the laws or are making a half hearted effort. Nothing I have seen indicates that this assumption is anything close to true. So far as I can tell the background check system is full of holes. There is also the widely debated gun show hole. Once sold by a legitimate arms merchant there is little control of the weapon and nothing to keep track of the gun or the person in possession of it. You can sell me a pistol with all the background checks in the world but there is nothing to keep me from selling/lending that very same pistol to a Yahoo. As long as the Yahoo is not a convicted felon and keeps the pistol cased and unloaded until he actually unlimbers it his possession is perfectly lawful as far as I know. That is one thing that registration and licensing would fix. If nothing else an unregistered weapon, or one registered to someone other than the guy in possession, could be impounded until properly registered and licensed. It gives law enforcement a device to take fire arms out of use and gives one more check on who is carrying heat. Would it be a pain to have to show registration and license the way we do with automobiles? Of course; but it seems to me that the minimal imposition is more than balanced by the probable benefit to public safety.
Fifth, some one above took the view that the only gun control and regulation that should be allowed is regulation and control that is demonstrated to be beneficial. Let me suggest that the “demonstration” requirement is impossibility. This is not a measure that can be tested on a sample group or on a computer model. The only thing that we can rely on as a predictor is our own common sense. It makes perfect sense to me that if we can do anything to keep firearms out of the hands of people who patently, in the exercise of reasonable foresight, ought not to have them there will be a worth while advancement of the public safety.
Sixth, I had raised the specter of an armed population engaged in general gun play. Some suggest that this image is just silly and is dishonest argument. However, in the Davenport case, there was an attempt at retribution and general arming has certainly been suggested by otherwise rational people following many shooting incidents, notably the shootings in a restaurant at Kaleen, TX, several years ago and last September.
Seventh, reviewing this thread I see a number of comments to the effect that this whole thing is just the same old anti-gun agenda. I don’t think so. I think that I am looking for a rational, lawful, minimally obtrusive way to restrict the Yahoos access to fire arms. I see the prime impediment to that sort of thing as the people who resist any attempt to regulate and control fire arms claiming any regulation and control is an unconscionable violation of principle and as the first step toward a general disarming of civilians. To the extent that those forces have prevented the implementation of rational arms control and regulation I say that they share morally responsible for the murder of the little girl in Davenport.
