The gun debate has been tilting toward the pro-gun side for more than a dozen years. The Boston Marathon bombings will continue that trend.
Paul Barrett - The Boston Terror Will Benefit the NRA, Hurt Gun Control
April 23rd, 2013
[Let me start off by saying, Paul was trying to be fair though there were a few comments that I don't really agree with. For example attacking Wayne LaPierre or this little bit at the end of his article.
But the NRA and some of its friends are not interested in rational discourse. They thrive on slippery-slope reasoning, according to which any limit on guns is a mere precursor to firearm registration and confiscation. As any gun manufacturer will tell you, the 9/11 attacks helped sales at firearm counters around the country and strengthened the NRA’s hand in lobbying against greater federal restrictions.
Paul most people, even the NRA, are willing to have a rational discourse. The problem is there are so many irrational people on the other side trying to control the conversation the only reasonable thing is to just shut it all down. For example look at Fienstein and what she was pushing and trying to tack on to that bill. Moving further forward that bill honestly didn't have anything really to do with background checks. The people pushing for the bill even admit it would have not made any difference at any of the mass shootings.
So is it irrational that we want to put on the breaks, let the emotion die, and approach this in a rational and reasoned manner instead of an emotional hysteria?
There were a few other errors, such as the comment regarding background checks for commercial firearms sales. That is already required by federal law, so are we redefining commercial sales to include any sale? Including letting someone borrow a firearm? At which point if you exempt it, today's exemption is tomorrows loophole, not to mention how do you define and prove "borrowing".
Paul's conclusion though is correct and can easily be seen with this poll.
Sixty-nine percent say if they were in a situation similar to Bostonians, they would want a gun in their house.
That includes a large 88-percent majority of those in gun-owner households, as well as 50 percent of those in non-gun homes.
As noted by Weer'd the lock-down also occurred in one of the most difficult areas to get a gun permit. I expect there will be a large influx of new owners in that area. Many of them will have an experience much like this individual.
"You'll need a license for that," the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun. Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter. At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I'm not a gun person.
"To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township's police chief. Even a BB gun. Can't even take one down to show you without it."
Many had a wake up call last Friday. Couple that with incidents like this, it's no wonder people want to buy firearms for their own defense.
Then Angela Kramer softly pleads for help as the gunman who killed her parents and brother seconds earlier searches for her inside the family’s Darien home.
“I’m in my house. There’s shooting,” Kramer tells the operator in a low voice immediately after the loud gunshot.
Kramer’s 911 call lasted for more than 55 minutes until police searched the darkened house and rescued her from her hiding place.
Boy, Chicago's restrictive gun laws while pushing reliance on the police really helped that family now didn't it.
Last weeks incident served as wake-up call to many, doubly so since it was a citizen who was confined to his house that found the man on the run after they lifted the lock-down. I'm sure that man probably would prefer to have a firearm the next time he investigates something out of place.
*As an additional aside. I've met Paul and his wife both and they were both extremely nice. I do not think Paul was trying to slight gun owners as a whole or even directly wanted was was really in that bill. Odds are the particular publication for which he works had a serious hand in the tone of the article.
I do not know of any gun owner who actively supports giving firearms to criminals. We all know damn well how that would have a negative affect on us and our rights. What we don't want though is the state coming in and arbitrarily denying or delaying the rights of law-abiding people because in the end, we know the criminals will still get their hands on a firearm. The comments within that article do nothing more than aid in driving a wedge and turning off the other side causing them to ignore you and your position.
I do not think any firearm owner would complain about providing additional tools to aid people in "doing the right thing". Where we all have a problem is trying to trace that and enforce it under law. It becomes this complicated problem fraught with danger because it will become all to easy to criminalize someone who would actually be innocent. -B]