The Next Front in Gun Control is People Control

Instead of labeling certain weapons as being dangerous, it is much easier to label groups of people as "high-risk" and deny them their natural human rights. 

A new report by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health examines policies and initiatives for reducing gun violence in the U.S. by reforming current gun policies. The report, a synthesis of prior research and analysis conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, includes the following key findings:

• Easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings.
• "Right-to-carry" gun laws do not reduce violent crime.
• Prohibiting high-risk groups from having guns–criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence, youths under age 21, substance abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses–and closing loopholes that enable them to have guns are integral and politically feasible steps to reduce gun violence.

"Mass shootings bring public attention to the exceptionally high rate of gun violence in the U.S., but policy discussions rarely focus on preventing the daily gun violence that results in an average of 30 lives lost every day," said Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and lead author of the report. "Addressing weaknesses in existing gun laws by expanding prohibitions for criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence, youth, and drug abusers, and closing the loopholes that allow prohibited persons to obtain guns can be effective strategies to reduce gun violence. It is important to note that making these changes to our gun laws would not disarm law-abiding adults."

Right-to-carry laws do reduce violent crime, and violent crime would be reduce further if we instituted "Constitutional" carry.  George Zimmerman reduced violent crime in Florida by plugging a violent, "unarmed" punk named Trayvon Martin who decided it would be cool to beat a citizen's head against a concrete sidewalk.  

Criminals -- yes, if someone is incarcerated, it would be a good idea to keep them away from firearms.  If someone has served his or her time, and it is deemed reasonable to release them back out on the street, how it is reasonable to restrict them from owning and possessing firearms?  If one is too dangerous to legally have a weapon, one should still be locked up away from society.  As an aside, since voting requirements are the purview of state governments, the states can determine if those convicted of felonies should be allowed to vote.  Not so, in my opinion, with the right to self-defense and the possession of arms.

Youth -- these dolts do know that the majority of "boys" fighting in Vietnam were under 21, right?  Do they also know people are allowed to drive 4000-pound guided missiles at 16 and influence international affairs with a vote at 18?  But firearms are too dangerous.  Give me a break.  I started shooting firearms -- under supervision -- before I started school.  I haven't killed anybody yet, and the same is true of millions of youthful shooters.

Substance abusers -- shades of Reefer Madness!!!!   You know the substances most likely to be associated with violence?  Alcohol and psychiatric drugs prescribed by medical doctors.  Schools shootings are very often linked to psychiatric medications.  As Lynyrd Skynyrd said, "If you like to drink that whiskey, you might even shoot yourself."  Alcohol and guns do not mix but both are legal, and we have already seen the ugly, unintended consequences of alcohol prohibition.  People have to be responsible and held accountable for their actions.  I'm sure meth is probably associated with violence as well, but, like many drugs, more in the distribution than in the use. 

The mentally ill -- especially the ones under the care of doctors who prescribe medications that divorce the users from reality. 

The report quotes the usual statistics that include situations of self-defense and police shootings.  If a human is killed by violent means there are three possible causes of death:  accidental, suicide, or homicide.  In other words, homicide is not the same as murder.  It is simply death at the hands of another person, but propaganda like the report above uses it as if it means the same thing. 

Just the other day there was a report of a twelve-year-old girl who saved herself from likely abduction with the use of a firearm.  I'm sure that the "doctor" of ScuDs and Miles Per Hour, Daniel Webster, would have much rather the little girl had been dragged out of her house, raped, strangled and left in ditch rather than risk another "homicide" of a pervert. 

These are not sensible restrictions.  Criminals will get guns because they have no respect for the law, just as people will drive drunk.  The shooter in Colorado could have killed as many or more people with a couple of Molotov cocktails.  Should we restrict segments of the population from possessing flammable materials?