Have gun will travel
Thursday, July 26th, 2007The question that arises after a, predominantly urban, shooting is a handgun ban. But would a ban be effective? Hand gun fans say it is pointless and ineffectual and you are punishing the wrong people (law-abiding target shooters and collectors).
The principal of less guns meaning less criminal opportunity however, is unassailable. Others say that the bad guys would just get them somewhere else. Sure, of course they will. But if it’s not in a home or a gun store there is one less gun to get, right?
The best counter-argument for resisting a hand gun ban is economic: that it would cost too much to implement and would lead to a gun registry-type bureaucratic nightmare. There would be costs associated with seizure and searches but we are paying for the police anyway. The more hand guns that the state takes, the less there are around period. It doesn’t need to be a registry deal at all. Just don’t sell them and go after the handguns that you know about. Not a big deal. There not a lot of actual hand gun owners compared with long gun owners.
Long gun owners fear that they might be next. And factor into that protest the rural/urban divide with rural areas steadfastly supporting guns of any kind and urban areas opposed.
Another counter hand gun band argument is, shockingly, protecting your family; as if long guns couldn’t do that against the gangster hoards that are allegedly lining up to rape and pillage every farm house.
The answer is, it is not about what is “effective,” no one thing is the answer. We need tougher sentencing and more policing and to address socio-economic problems. But a handgun ban wouldn’t hurt. How could it hurt? Will it inconvenience sport shooters and collectors, sure. So what? They’re firing blanks anyway.
Shoot me. Go ahead make my day, punk.