Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing guns to law-abiding citizens is as absurd as trying to reduce drunk driving by rationing cars to non-drinkers.
President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs
August 7, 2009
Corzine signs law limiting handgun purchases
[H/T to Jeff.
Straight thinking has never been a strong point of the anti-gun people. This case is just another in a long crooked line of abuses against gun owners.–Joe]
Well, if you talk to the nice, friendly people at MADD…
(Granted, they are for denying alcohol to everyone, rather than cars to non-drinkers, but the ratoinale is almost the same.)
Joe, I can’t believe what you said about straight thinking. That quote sounds good but falls flat when you think about it. The criminal guns start out legal and flow into the criminal world. Diminishing or rationing, which I’ve never heard or, or whatever you do to the legal guns will directly affect the criminals because of a little thing called “gun flow.”
With cars there no comparable flowing of vehicles from sober people to drinkers. The comparison falls apart right there.
As does everything that criminals steal, mike, so let’s just ban everything. Just when you figure anti-gunnies can’t possible say anything less intelligent then what they said yesterday…
Uh, can we talk about how many cars are stolen every year there boyo?
The best part about the NJ law is apparently it covers EVERYBODY, including law enforcement people, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The quote is a good comparison in the sense that it restricts the rights of the innocent because of the misdeeds of the criminals. Perhaps it would be a better comparison to propose restricting people to one six-pack of beer per month.
Do you believe restricting the number of guns a person may purchase in a given time frame will reduce the number of guns criminals have access to? If so, then you should be able to demonstrate laws banning recreational drugs reduced availability of said drugs. And prohibition reduced availability of alcohol during the 1920s. And you should be able to show reduced availability of firearms to the criminals in the U.K. since guns were banned there. Yet, in all cases availability has remained constant or increased.
Even if you could demonstrate either one of those laws were effective in reducing availability you still would need to successfully answer Just One Question–which you haven’t. Then you would need to show you were not infringing upon the specific enumerated right of the people to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and many state Constitutions.
It not only covers law enforcement but gun dealers as well.
Of course law enforcement will ignore the law as it applies to them. Law enforcement in Washington State does this in regard to machine guns, suppressors, and short barreled shotguns. There is no exemption for them in Washington State law but they possess and use them anyway. As near as I can tell New Jersey law enforcement doesn’t appear to think any law applies to them.
“Perhaps it would be a better comparison to propose restricting people to one six-pack of beer per month.”
I disagree. The quote refers to restricting everyone’s access to hardware on the grounds that some people might use said hardware incorrectly. In that regard it’s a perfect fit. It doesn’t go far enough in itself, because it doesn’t take into account, as stated already in comments, that criminals will be the ONLY people with guns when guns are forbidden.
Mikeb; You need to rethink your position on regurgitating what the anti-libertarians are pushing. Better not to swallow it in the first place. Of course guns start out legal, because they’re, uh, legal. Ban them and they’ll start out illegal, and then remain illegal. Get it? Matches and gasoline start out legal too, but then arsonists get hold of them. Therefore your use of legal matches and gasoline is responsible for arson, AND the incidence of arson would drop if we heavily restricted matches and gasoline. Puh-Leeze!