Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Are all politicians dumber than dirt ???

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    The down side to such thinking is unbelievably devastating for NON-gun owners when you think about it. Why not just paint bulls eyes on unprotected homes?
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The down side to such thinking is unbelievably devastating for NON-gun
      owners when you think about it. Why not just paint bulls eyes on unprotected
      homes?

      The single dumbest gun-control measure ever proposed
      With extraordinary shortsightedness, Connecticut lawmakers want to
      publicize the addresses of handgun owners

      By Jeb Golinkin | January 4, 2013












      The Connecticut state legislature is _about to consider changing the law_
      (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc
      -handgun-permit-foi-0104-20130103,0,6372731.story) to make the information
      and addresses of 170,000 Connecticut handgun owners public. Aside from
      potentially being unconstitutional on the grounds that such a law would
      violate (somewhat ironically) the right to privacy first enumerated by the
      Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, this proposal would, if passed, prove a
      boon for criminals, a disaster for unarmed Connecticuters, and would
      eventually lead to the proliferation of handgun ownership throughout the state.




      That was not a typo: I did, in fact, write that the law would most harm
      people who do not own handguns. Of course, the gun-rights crowd is
      emphasizing the harm the proposal would do to gun owners' privacy. And they argue
      that it would put handgun owners in more danger. It's certainly true that the
      law would invade the privacy of Connecticut residents who own guns. But it
      wouldn't put them in harm's way. It would actually maximize the utility of
      owning a firearm — to the detriment of people who don't own guns.
      Think about it. What idiot is going to choose to rob a home where he knows
      the owner is packing heat? Criminals tend to be stupid, but not that
      stupid. On the contrary, owning a registered handgun would dramatically decrease
      the likelihood of your home being targeted, all things being equal.
      Here's what would happen: Someone, probably some ridiculous newspaper that
      does not think the consequences through, will FOIA the gun ownership
      records and publish them online in an easily searchable database. Would-be
      robbers would then visit this website and figure out which houses do not have
      residents who own registered handguns. Those will be their targets. In other
      words, this law would screw the very people it is aimed at protecting:
      People who do not own handguns.
      Civilians will quickly catch on to this logic. It turns out that if you
      are a civilian and you are worried, you probably are going to want to be on
      that gun owner list, if only because you do not want to be among the crowd
      most likely to be targeted. At this point, the proposal's most perverse
      consequence of all becomes clear: If this bill becomes law, Connecticut would
      likely see first-time handgun permit requests and handgun purchases skyrocket
      as people who never had any reason to desire a gun flock to stores so that
      criminals will be more likely to leave them alone. And because the
      proposal exempts rifles, people who already own guns for sporting purposes will
      also probably head to the store and pick up a handgun that they neither
      wanted nor needed.
      This proposal, which appears to have received almost no critical thought pr
      ior to its introduction, is a perfect example of why legislators need to
      think long and hard about how they seek to regulate firearms. If they do not,
      ill-conceived proposals are apt to do exactly the opposite of what they
      were originally designed for. For _historical evidence_
      (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/lessons-in-politics-and-fine-print-in-assault-weapons-ban-of
      -90s.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&) , look no further than the Assault Weapons
      Ban of 1990. The ban eliminated high-capacity magazines... but only for a
      limited time. Furthermore, the law grandfathered in all pre-ban magazines
      and failed to ban their importation in certain circumstances. Thus the
      number of high-capacity magazines actually increased while the ban was in place.
      Additionally, the ban limited supply and, in the wake of the ban, demand
      skyrocketed. Gun companies like Glock cleverly arranged to have many of the
      police departments that use Glock trade their old weapons (with their
      pre-ban magazines) in for new weapons. Glock then resold the old guns and, more
      importantly, the pre-ban magazines at a considerably higher price, creating
      a windfall for the company. And then, of course, when the assault weapons
      ban expired, Glock resumed production.
      If legislators are going to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, they
      would do well to develop a more pronounced appreciation of the law of
      unintended consequences.
      Jeb Golinkin is a 3L at the University of Texas School of Law. From 2008
      to 2011, he served as an editor and reporter for FrumForum. Follow Jeb on
      Twitter: _@JGolinkin_ (https://twitter.com/jgolinkin) .



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.