I walk into work this morning and I click on CNN.com and I see that Supreme Court has lifted the ban on guns Washing D.C. . . . Okay.
The big debate that is going on now is that now gun violence and firearm related deaths will increase tremendously in D.C. If ask me, this argument is critically flawed. Lifting a gun ban on a city is not going to curve the amount of gun violence committed in any city. What we need to do is really analyze the situation.
Who is more likely to commit GUN CRIMES? Your average law abiding citizen or a criminal? I think the criminal is more likely to commit a gun grime in this instance. The last time I checked, most criminals choose not to honor the law any way; so, why the hell would they honor a gun ban in the first place? I don't believe that all gun grimes were eliminated after the ban was first initiated; so, what's the point? Also, D.C. is not exactly surrounded by brick wall and cut off from the rest of society. It really only takes a couple of hours to drive to Pennsylvania and purchase all the firearms and semi-automatic weapons. It's the same thing with drugs. The U.S., in general, has a nationwide ban of drugs; but, they still get into the country and into our communities. Just because the Supreme Court says it's now "legal" to own a gun doesn't mean that all the criminals are going to load up on weapons like it's the Sunday before the Forth of July at Sam's Club.
These criminals already have found ways to get guns into D.C. and use these illegal weapons to kill people. Even with the gun ban lifted, the weapons will still probably be illegal. Gangsters like big guns (i.e. AK-47, AR-15, Mac10, etc.) I don't think these types of weapons can "easily" be purchased at your local gun shop. However, I could be wrong since I'm not exactly the gun connoisseur. I could imagine that could possibly benefit from the lifting of the gun ban would be the law abiding citizen looking to protect him or herself from local thugs. Would having a hand gun in the home give a person a piece of mind? It sure would allow me to sleep better at night knowing that if someone ever tried to forcefully enter my home I would have a firearm that I could use to protect myself and my family.
Sure criminals can choose to purchase these now legal weapons; however, from my experience (not saying I'm a criminal, but I have encountered a few at some point in my life) gangsters like untraceable weapons. They usually like to murder people and not go to jail. Forensic scientists can easily trace bullet markings back to almost any gun. This would make it pretty easy for law enforcement to track down these killers by pinpointing the weapon, learning what shops in the area sell these weapons and who recently purchased them in the area. In addition, I doubt criminals that wish to quickly obtain their weapons would be too thrilled about waiting the mandatory time period required to purchase a weapon, as required by the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill also requires a background check before a gun is actually issued to the purchaser. Now, how many thugs and criminals do you know that are willing to subject themselves to a background check, especially to purchase a gun they plan to use to kill someone?
With the underworld everything is done underground. Criminals purchase their guns in empty lots from out of the back of a truck from some "fast talking" city slicker from New York that has some untraceable, unmarked weapons with no "bodies" attached (never been used to kill anyone). With that being said, I don't think that this controversial ruling is very controversial at all.
Let the people in D.C. have their guns. Criminals will always be criminals and gun crimes are inevitable; especially in the United States.
Just my 0.02 cents.
BJ CJ
No comments:
Post a Comment