68
by kklein
A few quick points:
1) The first one, I think, falls for the current media narrative that gun crime is caused by the mentally ill. Of course, the devil is in the operational definition of "mentally ill," but if we are taking it to mean something like bipolar, schizophrenic, clinically depressed, etc., then no, most gun crimes are not committed by those people, and only a tiny tiny tiny fraction of that population is dangerous. I feel like we gun ownership supporters are just finding a bogeyman to pin the blame on. "It's the crazies! No one likes them!"
Of course I support improving mental health care, but it has nothing to do with gun crime.
2) The second one is a bit of a head-scratcher for me. What existing regulatory schemes? Where? What state? What city? Some strike me as very reasonable; others not so much. "We're okay with the bad laws that have been enacted already, but no more!" It's just not very meaningful. I know that the purpose of these things is to say something that is vague enough not to offend the fractious, non-conforming "left," but if that's the case, why say anything at all? This doesn't mean anything. What are the concepts this organization supports?
This is perhaps more of a critique of the left at large than of this particular statement. The endless striving for consensus ensures that nothing gets anything done at all.
3) This one bothers me the most, as some of the prohibitions seem to me to be unfair and unwarranted. I am not alone in this, of course, because states also make their own interpretations of the prohibitions. If states all got in line and did the same thing, local areas could not adjust regulations to fit their own populations. Despite the fact that I'm in favor of gun ownership wherever, I can't in good conscience propose the same regulatory framework for New York City as I can for Casper, Wyoming.
I am originally from Colorado (I live in Japan now, but became a member of this organization because I am a pro-gun left-leaner—in fact I am pro-gun because I am a left-leaner), where we just made marijuana legal (hooray, despite the fact that I hate the stuff). However, it's still illegal nationally. Someone who is legally partaking in marijuana in Colorado could be prohibited gun ownership based on the GCA/NICS list of prohibited people. Why? I'm not worried that a stoner is going to pop a cap in my particular ass because I don't like Bob Marley. The jailtime prohibition is similarly problematic, because there are a lot of things you can go to jail for for over a year that I either do not support, or that do not reflect on one's ability to safely own a firearm. Commitment to a mental institution, as well, is not necessarily an indication of danger, without knowing the particulars. And finally, being dishonorably discharged from the military seems to be completely unrelated.
Why would we want to support the expansion of a system that is flawed? Most of these prohibitions seem not to be aimed at denying gun ownership to dangerous people, but at denying them to anyone but upper-middle-class white people.
This is perhaps an extension of my concern about the "no new laws" point; the existing laws are not especially good; why propose further enforcement of those as an alternative to new, worse ones? "No, Master, don't bring in the car battery; just hit me harder with rubber hose!"
4) This is great.
5) This is good too, and I don't have any problem with the "states' rights" phrasing. Just because anti-abortionists and slave-owners use these two words doesn't mean they are bad. I don't see supporting states' rights as being contradictory to my overall liberal ideology.