Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Why isn't Human Nature Ever Considered When it Comes to Gun Laws?

Posted by on Apr. 10, 2013 at 12:37 AM
  • 10 Replies

 

In 1983 when President Reagan ordered the deployment of missiles in Europe as part of his "peace through strength" strategy to counter the Soviet Union, the very liberal town of Takoma Park, Md., declared itself a "nuclear free zone." City officials passed an ordinance known as The Takoma Park Nuclear Free Zone Act, which said, "...work on nuclear weapons is prohibited within the city limits..."

If North Korea follows through on its threat to nuke the United States (or had Russia in the '80s launched a nuclear attack), Takoma Park would not be "nuclear free" for long, but the ordinance made some people feel as though they were doing something constructive, something meaningful, about the nuclear threat, and wasn't that their point?

Today, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and Maryland, who must be seen to be doing something important about gun violence, are congratulating themselves for passing some of the "toughest" gun laws in the nation. 

Guns can never be completely outlawed, and human nature can't be changed by politicians.

These states already have tough gun laws, which in the case of the Newtown shooting last December did not deter Adam Lanza from grabbing his mother's legal weapons, murdering her and then killing 26 people, most of them children. 

Tough gun laws in Maryland have not deterred the mentally ill or criminally minded intent on getting guns, especially in Baltimore and Prince George's County, where reports of gun crimes often lead each night's local newscast.

Downplayed in this national debate and in efforts by the Obama administration to get Congress to pass "tougher" federal gun restrictions is a conversation about human nature, including better laws that allow for involuntary commitment or mandatory treatment of the mentally ill and tougher sentencing for criminals. But if laws alone were effective in regulating criminal behavior, prisons would be empty.

Life has become cheap and things are now expensive, but I remember when the reverse was true. 

Today, we seem to value stuff more than human life, which is why public storage units are full. Many began losing their moral compass years ago when "anything goes" began to replace a respect for the law and other people.

Authorities in Connecticut have revealed that Lanza spent a lot of time researching potential targets before his murderous rampage. He picked Sandy Hook Elementary, we're told, because it appeared to him to be an undefended soft target. 

The question that should suggest itself is this: Suppose Lanza knew Sandy Hook had an armed guard and other security measures? If that were the case, he might well have gone elsewhere, or not committed his evil acts at all.

The new "tougher" gun laws in Maryland and Connecticut appear to be the result of high emotion, not logic and clear thinking. 

We all ache for the parents and loved ones of the Sandy Hook victims, but the Newtown tragedy shouldn't be used as a prop for anti-gun proponents, the most extreme of which want to register or ban all weapons, except those for police and certain security people. 

What will more gun laws really accomplish? Will they keep one criminal bent on carnage from a single school door?

In 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a leading force in the failed 1994 assaults weapon ban, told CBS' "60 Minutes" that: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up (every gun) ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in. I would have done it." Then what? Do we ban knives next? No law, no ban, no restriction will ever stop evil.

What will happen in Connecticut and Maryland when there is another shooting at an undefended target? Will politicians call for even "tougher" gun laws? There is much debate and anecdotal evidence about whether concealed carry laws deter criminals, but logic would seem to suggest they do. Isn't that why many homes have burglar alarms and security systems, as well as guns? If a burglar knows a home is defended doesn't logic suggest he might try a house that is unprotected?

Guns can never be completely outlawed, and human nature can't be changed by politicians. More laws aren't the answer. Perhaps, as the old saying goes, "The best defense is a good offense."

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/09/why-isnt-human-nature-ever-considered-when-it-comes-to-gun-laws/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2Q22vzDEF

grandma B

by on Apr. 10, 2013 at 12:37 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
DestinyHLewis
by Destiny on Apr. 10, 2013 at 12:52 AM

I completely agree with this OP. 

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM

 I too agree with what Cal Thomas has written in this article.

Here in IL, you cannot conceal and carry, although that law was shot down, finally, by the SC last fall.  The state has six months (which will be up in June) to redo their law and start issuing c&c permits.

The Chicago Tribune ran a story of a study they performed on the efficacy of the law here.  The glaring failure in it was in regards to stopping the mentally ill from getting guns.  Each county clerk is supposed to submit a list of people, each month, who have been arrested and declared mentally ill or extremely violent and those who have been in psych wards in hospitals.  They found that not one of the nearly 50 county clerks had ever done this, and that there were something like 40 people who got their FOID (firearms owner ID) card who had fit that criteria.

So, what good is a law that was designed to make it hard for some one to get a liscense, when the people responsible for upholding that law don't do their job? 

I just posted an excerpt from a cnn.com article regarding how the states are not reporting the mentally ill to the federal data base.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 1:35 PM
1 mom liked this


Quote:

Guns can never be completely outlawed, and human nature can't be changed by politicians. More laws aren't the answer. Perhaps, as the old saying goes, "The best defense is a good offense."
That's a scary thought. More guns is not the answer to our gun problems. Unless the goal is to have more accidental shootings, more suicides, and more "stolen" guns into the hands of criminals. Then it is a bloody good idea.

The only two options are not, "No guns", or, "More guns!". There are lots of options in between those two thoughts.
mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Rolling my damn eyes - IT"S THE BEST OFFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENSE not the other way around.

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM

 Good, did those eyes pop out of your head yet?

Quoting mikiemom:

Rolling my damn eyes - IT"S THE BEST OFFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENSE not the other way around.

 

grandma B

AMBG825
by on Apr. 10, 2013 at 5:24 PM
1 mom liked this

 I do agree with the author. I don't necessarily think that gun laws are a bad thing. But I think we would do a better service to society by enforcing existing gun laws rather than making new ones.

 

Passing a new gun law NOW would do more damage than good. Our country has this really bad habit of becoming emotionally charged about a subject then turning around and passing bad laws. I mean really, how much good has TSA really done or the patriot act. Then if the laws passed are damaging or go too far, they are completely ineffective. (The amber alert is a good example of this one.)

 

Passing a law because you're emotionally charged and scared rather than calm and logical is a really bad thing to do.

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 8:07 PM

 

lol it sucks because the ignorance of some of the people on this site is no longer shocking me.

Quoting grandmab125:

 Good, did those eyes pop out of your head yet?

Quoting mikiemom:

Rolling my damn eyes - IT"S THE BEST OFFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENSE not the other way around.

 


 

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM

 You really shouldn't insult yourself.  It shows a lack of self esteem.  And your right, the ignorance of some, being the left wing nut jobs, is no longer surprising to me.

Quoting mikiemom:

 

lol it sucks because the ignorance of some of the people on this site is no longer shocking me.

Quoting grandmab125:

 Good, did those eyes pop out of your head yet?

Quoting mikiemom:

Rolling my damn eyes - IT"S THE BEST OFFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENSE not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

grandma B

AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 8:48 PM
1 mom liked this
Somehow people are violent and dangerous unless surrounded by a bunch if other people with guns and then everyone becomes safe and reasonable because the presence of multiple weapons has a calming effect on people. If that were true, the old west should have been safe and reasonable with lynchings and murders over card games were unheard of. Everyone packing heat doesn't make people safer. If it were true, Alaska, Texas, south Carolina, the big inner cities and the south in general would have negligible violent crime rates. They don't. Takes more than guns to make people good.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
AMBG825
by on Apr. 10, 2013 at 9:21 PM

shooting someone over a card game was unheard of back then too.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

Somehow people are violent and dangerous unless surrounded by a bunch if other people with guns and then everyone becomes safe and reasonable because the presence of multiple weapons has a calming effect on people. If that were true, the old west should have been safe and reasonable with lynchings and murders over card games were unheard of. Everyone packing heat doesn't make people safer. If it were true, Alaska, Texas, south Carolina, the big inner cities and the south in general would have negligible violent crime rates. They don't. Takes more than guns to make people good.

 






 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN