A Little Logic On Gun Control, Please

In the wake of the attempted murder of a sitting Congressman by someone who all agree is a raving lunatic, the reactions range from a disgusting attempt to capitalize on murder to advance a political gain to Congressmen panicking and envisioning widespread targeting of lawmakers. And the legislation they want passed helps us see who is disgusting and who is merely afraid.

McCarthy is an opportunist. Gun control advocates seem to love these kinds of events, because they show no hesitation in using them to advance their agenda. McCarthy want to ban large capacity magazines. A useless gesture as it wouldn't have changed a thing. There are MANY such magazines already manufactured and sold... those would be readily available via private sale. Or steal them. Or just carry two guns. Or just get better at reloading quickly.

Rep Robert Brady (D-PA) thinks that this actual shooter isn't REALLY to blame. No, what's really to blame is people talking about "targeting" lawmakers for defeat, or showing maps with croshairs on states to show Democrat seats that can be won by Republicans. That's what caused the shooting, and it MUST stop! So he wants to make it illegal to use that kind of language in reference to lawmakers.


I don't think I've heard anything so ridiculous in quite a long time. That kind of language is ingrained in our culture. Companies run TARGETED ad campaigns so their products appeal to their TARGET demographic groups. Political campaigns have volunteers in the FRONT LINES trying to get votes. Companies run an ad BLITZ to get the word out about a product quickly. You see? The terminology is in wide use, and doesn't mean somebody will get shot.

Brady needs to grow a spine and stop trying to trash the first amendment. Speech advocating violence against somebody is ALREADY punishable. We don't need to make ordinary, non-threatening speech a criminal offense just because Brady has the courage level of a three year old girl.

Another lawmaker wants to put a Plexiglas bulletproof shield over the gallery in the House, so that ordinary people watching a session can't drop bombs or something on lawmakers as they work. Hmm... that has happened precisely ZERO times, so he's trying to implement a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Worried? Tighten up your already tight security for visitors to the House gallery.

But the most illegal of all proposals from one of these scared little girls is to ban guns within 1,000 feet of a lawmaker at one of these meetings. Essentially, it would create a 1,000 "bubble" of theoretically gun-free zone around wherever a Congressman happens to stop to speak to constituents. If I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I am, the courts have already ruled that kind of thing illegal.

I don't have the court case in front of me, but it overturned a similar law years ago that created gun-free "bubbles" around schools. No guns could be possessed within a thousand feet of a school. The problem with it was that the gun-free zones could include people's homes, as well as folks just driving around who didn't even know a school was THERE. These "bubbles" of gun banning were already overturned once.

In this case, the "bubbles" would appear and disappear without warning, and people could be in violation of that law and subject to punishment without having any way of knowing what was happening, or why. A person pulled over for speeding a block away could be arrested for violating the newly appeared gun-free "bubble", whether the driver knew the Congressmen was going to be there or not.

This is clearly illegal. A law isn't reasonable if we don't have a prayer of knowing when we are and are not in violation of it. Any attempt to pass such a law is a panicked overreaction that wouldn't help, either.

I mean, seriously, does he really think that Loughner, or some other maniac, would actually OBEY such a law? How are you going to enforce it, strip search everybody in the "zone" once the Congressman stops? Since Loughner shot a bunch of people and is facing six counts of murder, I don't think an additional charge of "carrying a gun in a gun-free bubble" would have proved much of a deterrence... and it certainly wouldn't add much to his sentence.

You must keep in mind that laws NEVER stop crimes, they just give society the ability to punish those who commit crimes. And the shooter's actions are already illegal under existing laws

Here's my advice to lawmakers: Stop trying to write or propose laws right away. There is no urgency to pass laws, as this shooting wasn't part of an organized effort... he was a lone madman. Take the time, study what happened, and use sober reflection to determine what, if anything, might have made a difference. If any proposal wouldn't have stopped the shooting, then abandon it. Otherwise, we'll end up with a series of stupid and possibly illegal laws that were passed as a panic reaction to a one-time event... though a tragic one.

UPDATE: Here's an article on the gun-free bubbles I talked about.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/137221-king-announces-legislation-for-tighter-gun-restrictions-at-events-with-federal-officials

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to ban people from carrying weapons within 1,000 feet of federal officials at public events.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said he would propose a bill in the coming weeks that would ban the carrying of guns within that range for the president, vice president, members of Congress and federal judges.