It’s a very simple question, short, to the point, and critical to sane discussion of “gun control.” Yet, with very few exceptions, victim-disarming people controllers will not answer. And they’ll try to disavow the honest lunatics who do.
That’s it. That’s the question. When the question isn’t just ignored, they deflect. “You’re just saying criminals don’t obey laws again. That isn’t worth addressing.” Or, “I told you; we’ll pass a law.”
“Pass a law” is the what. I want to know the how.
Stephany Rose Spaulding, “the underdog Democrat challenging incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn for Colorado’s 5th District,” wants more gun people control.
That responsibility could come in a federal mandate that anyone seeking to buy a firearm would have to pass a background check, Spaulding said.
Spaulding, backed Moms Demand Victims’ Shannon Watts, purports to believe that universal background checks preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint would cut the “number of suicides, domestic and police shootings across the country” in half.
I asked her, “How?” Specifically, when no more than 6% of criminals using firearms obtained them through lawful channels, how would you implement such a requirement to ensure compliance? How do you get those criminals to comply with NICS checks? (It seems to me that making them undergo NICS checks would necessitate eliminating the black market in firearms completely. Again, “How?”)
Spaulding wants a national “red flag” law, too.
How? How will her law work? Would this be the typical “red flag” legislation that allows confiscation before due process, and leaves this alleged dangerous person on the street, and now angered by the taking?
Spaulding also said she wants to expand the definition of domestic violence, a significant indicator of those who might commit gun violence. In tandem with that legislation, she wants to ensure that those convicted of domestic violence could not own firearms.
Expanded to include what? Those convicted of domestic violence are already prohibited persons, so what additional means would she implement to prevent tham possessing firearms? How?
“We have eroded the responsibility of what it means to be owners of firearms,” she said. “And for me that is not ‘Can I take away?’ or ‘Should I take away your guns?’ but asking people to be responsible.”
How? How is “responsibility” strengthened by taking the responsibility from the people and putting it in the hands of government?
Parroting talking points is easy. Policy is…
…actually not that tough. That’s how to end “gun” violence. Admittedly, implementing it will require hard choices that most politicians are incapable of making.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)