Are you aware that if you fire a high power pistol (or rifle) the bullet can go through the target and through the wall behind them and kill someone sitting in the room next door?

I’m also aware that a high caliber pistol can do the same.

the only reference I could find to this was Seattle and their high gun tax was allowed by the courts.

So far. These ideas have been suggested in various municipalities for decades, and generally get pulled back because the muni’s lawyers tell them they won’t hold up in court.

Here’s an analogy: Telling somebody they have all the free speech they like, they just have to practice it in a auditorium with nobody there. Or, a journalist can write whatever they like, it just can’t be published.

Create the analogy you like. Point is that what you’re suggesting creates what we could call, for lack of a better term, an “empty right” where everyone agrees that the Constitution enumerates the right, but you’ve made it impossible for anyone to exercise it.

But, there’s another issue to be concerned about. If the cost of firearms is inflated by tax and regulation, then you fuel a black market into those firearms, resulting in an even greater proliferation of weapons which may very well be poorly made, making them even more dangerous. And since we’re getting to the point now where anyone with a 3D printer (crashing quickly in cost) can make a firearm……..hmmmmm.

not enough to allow safer guns like trigger locks, or guns that can only be fired by the owner.

I actually have no quarrel with anything like that as long as it does not increase the time required for me to use my sidearm.

The larger question, however, is how impactful those things can be.

FACT: Trigger locks don’t impact somebody who wants to commit a Vegas style sniper attack or a Parkland -type shooting. You save the occasional unfortunate death from a mishandled or misstated firearm in the home, but you don not impact criminal gun violence or mass shootings.

FACT: The cities that have the most gun violence are almost always cities with the more stringent gun control laws.

FACT: Back in the 50’s, you could mail-order an “assault rifle” for about ten bucks with no background checks; and yet, there were no mass shootings.

FACT: We tried the “assault weapon ban” in the 1990’s; Congress let it expire in the 2000’s. There were double the number of mass shootings in the 90’s than there were in the 2000's.

If those two factoids don’t make you go “hmmmm” and lead you to reconsider your conviction that stringent gun laws are the solution to gun violence……there’s no much hope for a discussion, I’m afraid.

The problem is this:

  • If the restriction is Constitutional, it will, for the most part, be ineffectual, and….
  • If the restriction is effectual, it will most assuredly be unConstitutional.

So if they and you care about the body count why fight regulation?

It should be clear to you now. Ineffectual regulation does nothing but create a bureaucracy; a bunch of paper pushers thinking they’re doing something when they're not, and sucking up taxpayer funds to not do it. Politicians get to walk around with puffed up chests because they can say they did something, when they didn’t. And nibbling away at Constitutional rights just so activists can feel good does not, historically, end well for the average person.

Convince me that a CONSTITUTIONAL regulation will be EFFECTUAL, and then we’ll talk.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store