In the case of the VT tragedy and the increase in shootings in Boston over the last two years, Democrats have called for stricter gun owner ship laws. Forget the fact that the vast majority of the weapons used in these shootings are obtained from illegal means. Instead of doing things like increase the penalties for trafficking illegal weapons or possessing illegal weapons or committing a crime with a weapon, the Democrats response is more restrictions on legal gun ownership. One example:
Mayor Thomas M. Menino urged the Bush administration yesterday to tighten gun control laws and stand up to the National Rifle Association in the aftermath of the massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech.
“The federal government could take action . . . by getting the NRA to back off these issues,” Menino said in a telephone interview. “Young kids have guns today. . . . How is this being perpetrated throughout the country? It’s not just a Boston problem. It’s a national problem.”….
Menino pointed out that the guns Seung-Hui Cho used to kill 32 people and then himself were bought legally in Virginia. He said looser gun laws in Southern states such as Virginia cause the streets of Boston to be flooded with illegal guns….
“A young person goes to one of those Southern states with liberal gun laws and brings them to Massachusetts and sells them out of trucks,” Menino said. “Why isn’t the president doing something about it?”
So instead of punishing the people that are selling the guns illegally, Menino wishes to limit access to guns by people who are not breaking the law. Does this really make sense to anyone?
Yes, the tragedy at VT was committed with legally purchased guns. However, the problem in this case was that the required background checks did not reveal the mental health issues of this nut job. We should fix the gap in the system that didn’t allow the gun dealer to know about the mental health issues, not further limit access to guns to law abiding citizens.
In the case of the “Ban the Bag” debate, a Boston city councilor is seeking to ban plastic grocery bags due to the littering of the bags. Again, why ban the product that is more environmentally friendly instead of punishing the offender. If this is to push an environmental agenda, fine. But then the focus should be to ban (or tax them as Bob suggested) all disposable bags, paper and plastic. However, that is not the reason the city councilor gave for the ban:
“They end up everywhere,” said Councilor Robert Consalvo . “They blow in trees, they’re floating in Boston Harbor . . . They’re an environmental nightmare. We need to rid our city of these plastic bags.”
As pointed out by stomv, the environmentalist’s mantra is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. If this is an environmental agenda then the push should be to reduce the use of all disposable bags. If this is being perused due to the littering aspect then why isn’t the focus on the litter?
Finally, this brings me to the latest topic from today’s Globe:
Lawmakers are exploring whether to push for a statewide ban on pit bulls, with some urban legislators saying Massachusetts needs to overhaul dog- control laws to reduce attacks by combative canines.
Again, instead of blaming people who breed animals to be aggressive, either for fighting or as attack/guard dogs, Democrats are suggesting we ban pit bulls and other “aggressive” breads like Rottweilers. By the way, Rottweilers were originally bread as herding dogs, not guard dogs; they are not aggressive by nature. The same holds true for pit bulls, Doberman pinchers, etc.
“The number of pit bull attacks raises concerns,” said Representative Vincent A. Pedone, Democrat of Worcester, who has informally discussed a ban with committee members. “These dogs are kept specifically for fighting or as weapons, and I don’t think they have any place in civilized society.”
He rejected arguments that dog owners are more to blame for problem animals.
“That’s the same argument that opponents of restrictive gun laws give us: It’s the person, not the gun,” he said.
“But the fact of the matter is that if you reduce the availability of a weapon, whether it’s a pit bull or gun, you reduce the number of incidents.”
Nice “fact of the matter.” I would like to see some statistics on that. Here in Mass we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet gun violence is increasing.
With guns, pit bulls (not so much for plastic bags) or any other contraband, if you restrict legal access to these items, this will not deter people who are willing to break the law. Criminals will continue to acquire guns while law abiding people will not be allowed to own them. The same already holds true for banned animals. Alligators are illegal in Mass but are often found during drug busts.
It seems to me that Democrats do not want to hold the person(s) that actually commit these crimes responsible. Whether that be litters, the shooters or irresponsible dog owners. Why is there this reluctance to blame the offender?
Cross Posted on Red Mass Group.