Gun control: what you do instead of something

In Philly and Baltimore, they have passed (or are passing) laws that make it a crime not to report that a gun has been stolen.

These stupid laws do nothing but make life harder for law-abiding gun owners. They will not prevent a theft, increase the efficiency of tracking down a stolen gun, or, frankly, accomplish anything other than punishing people for gun ownership.

17 Responses to “Gun control: what you do instead of something”

  1. tgirsch says:

    They will not prevent a theft, increase the efficiency of tracking down a stolen gun, or, frankly, accomplish anything other than punishing people for gun ownership.

    OK, so what will? Please be specific.

  2. SayUncle says:

    OK, so what will? Please be specific.

    No. I don’t have to offer a solution to note something does not work.

  3. Robert says:

    These are VERY dangerous laws. The anti-gun forces may not be able to go forward at this point, but they know how to shift laterally.

    When confiscation is passed, this law will make: “I sold it, I gave it away, I lost it, or it was stolen” an arrestable offense.

    And once this kind of trash gets passed, it will never go away and serve as part of a platform for WORSE law and bureacracy.

  4. Jim W says:

    OK, so what will? Please be specific.

    Nothing will.

    Baltimore has a crime problem, not a gun problem. The problem isn’t that guns are being stolen or trafficked more in Baltimore. In fact, I would bet good money that it is way easier for a criminal to get a gun in places like Florida or Texas where they practically grow on trees. The difference is that there are less criminals in those places.

    If Baltimore is anything now like it was when I left in 2000, the problems are:
    -excessive taxation driving businesses and skilled workers out
    -coddling judges and prosecutors not keeping criminals locked up
    -law enforcement resources wasted discouraging victims from becoming armed and punishing them when they defend themselves
    -generous govt handouts encourages the worst to breed, ensuring the problem grows
    -this problem has been festering for 30 years. The police have become corrupt and most of the good people left years ago. I wanted to stay around after I graduated college, but the place is such an abominable shithole I couldn’t do it.
    -because of how bad things have become, the drug trade continues to flourish, making the city a magnet for more scum. Heroin and syphillis capital of the US baby.

  5. Jim W says:

    How do you get the quote thing to work?

  6. SayUncle says:

    Use the b-quote function. Highlight text and hit b-quote. If you can’t see b-quote, hit the little arrows above the comment box.

  7. Jim W says:

    Oh, I forgot to turn on javascript for this site. Thanks.

  8. tgirsch says:

    I donít have to offer a solution to note something does not work.

    Of course you don’t have to. But the fact that such solutions are rarely proffered tells me that figuring it out really isn’t much of a priority.

  9. karrde says:

    One thing of note:

    There is a gun-theft reporting law in my home state, and there has been for years.

    However, it requires reporting within five days of the owners discovery of the theft.

    These new theft-reporting laws require reporting within 24 hours of the theft, and don’t appear to allow for the owner to discover the theft at some later time.

    Some questions:
    (a) what happens if the owner is out of town for a weekend and at least 24 hours transpire before he discovers the theft?
    (b) are there any cases where people admit to not telling the police about a theft of a valuable, portable good within 24 hours of their discovery of the theft? (you can ask this about guns, jewelry, or electronics…)
    (c) is there any evidence that laws requiring report of stolen goods will speed up recovery of said goods, or prevent their misuse?

    One problem with these questions is that it is very had to gather data on stolen items which were not reported. So you don’t have much evidence to argue with. All you have is motivation, and claims about what would appear to work.

    But the difference between being required to report theft, and required to report discovered theft is significant.

  10. Cactus Jack says:

    “These stupid laws do nothing but make life harder for law-abiding gun owners.”

    I’m sure that that’s exactly what the so called law makers have in mind.

  11. Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

    Of course you donít have to. But the fact that such solutions are rarely proffered tells me that figuring it out really isnít much of a priority.

    Or that it just muddies the issue.

    The things that reduce gun thefts are the same things that reduce all thefts and thus there is no need to single them out.

  12. tgirsch says:

    The things that reduce gun thefts are the same things that reduce all thefts and thus there is no need to single them out.

    Nobody said they ought to be singled out.

  13. Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

    Then why the law to make it a crime to not report *gun* thefts? Why not a law making it a crime to not report *all* thefts?

  14. Linoge says:

    What will prevent theft? Well, obviously, laws against stealing things, breaking and entering, and all the rest of the illegal activities that could transpire when someone lifts a gun from someone else’s house are not stopping it. So, by what logic does passing more laws seem like an effective course of action?

    Do not misunderstand – the laws we have now are useful for prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators if they are captured, but these laws mentioned in Baltimore and elsewhere make the victim the criminal. How is that right?

  15. straightarrow says:

    I am not required nor inclined to discover what will work. We know what will work. Strict adherence to the second amendment will work.

    Nowhere in this nation do we have that, but everywhere we have something closer to it we see what will work, because in those places that are more closely tied to strict adherence to 2a are those same places where what works is working most effectively. And for every gradation less than strict adherence to 2A we see similar and proportionate worsening of the crime problem.

    So, it is not necessary to answer your simple-minded question of “What will work?” The answer already exists and is obvious in its fully demonstrated effectiveness to the exact same degree that full adherence to second amendment is approached as official policy.

    Somehow, I expect you are not ready to embrace this undeniable truth.

  16. Lyle says:

    “They will not [do] anything other than punishing people for gun ownership.”

    Exactly. Hasn’t that been the whole point all along? Yeah, I know all the rationalizations but taken in total, all gun laws do is punish gun owners for the crimes of others. That and in extreme cases such as “gun free zones”, provide a safer operating environment for criminals.

    tgirsch; “But the fact that such solutions are rarely proffered tells me that figuring it out really isnít much of a priority.”

    Figuring what out? Ending all crime and danger forever? Not gonna happen. The priorities are freedom and justice. The solutions offered are right there in the Constitution. The problem is; too many people have been led to believe that there is a better way– an alternative to freedom that will make everything all better. It’s a pile of crap right from the get go, so any “solutions” offered under that mindset are also pure crap.

    It seems to me you’re falling into the “we must do something” trap. So what the hell, lets spend millions of dollars harassing some gun owners and we’ll all feel better. Meanwhile the criminals are laughing their asses off.

    No. The purpose of this republic is to protect our liberty and bring justice in cases where we have been wronged. No one ever guananteed our personal safety. That’s our responsibility as individuals. As such, we should always be looking out for our personal liberty.

  17. Lyle says:

    Oh; looks like straightarrow beat me to it. Different words, same meaning. Great minds obviously think alike. ; )