This is my first blog on the big "Gun Control Debate", but it may not be my last. I have been watching the debate and keeping my comments to myself so far. This debate is a very good example of the mental state and mental capacity of our population and it is not good. The debate has ranged around and has now boiled down to this key point. A large percentage of the USA population seems to favor more extensive background checks before a person can buy "another" gun. Notice that I say, "another" gun since all the proposals do not propose to take any guns away form those who now have guns. I don't have the exact number, but there are now many millions of guns in the hands of citizens here in the USA. Most of those people who favor more extensive background checks think that checks will have the affect of reducing shootings like the one at Sandy. They also think that more extensive background checks have "no" bad affects. Let's take a more detailed look at the facts and see if our population has it right.
Most of our citizens think that we need to keep guns out of the hands of "nuts". First, we need to see if we can agree on who is one of these "nuts". Try this. How would you predict which one of these "nuts" would use a gun to commit a crime? What do you think your batting average would be? How high do you think the prediction would have to be before you would deny one of our citizens who has not committed any kind of crime from owning a gun? In the case of a person who is on trial for murder with a gun, how sure does the jury have to be before they convict that person? If the person on trial can not afford a lawyer, how much should tax payers have to spend for his lawyer? Now back to the "nut" who has committed no crime but is not allowed to buy a gun. How much should us tax payers have to pay to defend that "nut's" constitutional right to buy a gun? I don't think you think that some government clerk should be able to deny a citizen who has not committed any crime from owning a gun do you? If a government clerk can deny you any of your constitutional rights do you think that is a road that we want to go down? I don't think so.
Who is going to examine the "nut" and recommend to the government clerk that the "nut's" right to buy a gun should be denied? Is it your preacher, a cop or a psychologist. What kind of batting average do you think cops or psychologist would have in "predicting" who, if they bought a gun, would then go out and kill someone with it? Let's take a group of 1,000 of these, so called, "nuts" who want to go out and buy a gun and see how many many would go out and kill someone. Out of that group of 1,000, let's assume that 1 would eventually go out and kill someone with the gun. With me on this one? The government clerk would deny 999 of these, so called, "nuts" the right to buy a gun who would never use their gun to commit any kind of crime. What if you were one of these 999 people who had some kind of mental problem, like depression or anxiety, would you go see a doctor if that doctor could "turn you in"? Who would defend your constitutional right against the government clerk to own a gun?
The "nuts" are not the "nuts" mentioned above, they are the "nuts" who want to deny people who have committed no crime their constitutional rights. You can not be put in jail or have your rights denied because of what you are thinking nor for your exercising your free speech. Part of the price we pay for free speech and the right to own a gun is that you have to also extend those same rights to a few "nuts". Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
