If not Gun Control – then WHAT?

The Political Great Whine (PGW) received a strong negative reaction to the post titled The Right to Bear Non-Semi Automatic Arms from those who view any attempt to regulate the use of arms as an encroachment upon the right to bear arms. Despite the post’s title, a barrage of comments came in blasting the Political Great Whine for suggesting that legislation be drafted to restrict the purchase of semi-automatic guns only.  Many comments even told the PGW to “leave my guns alone”.  For the purpose of over-clarification– the Political Great Whine is NOT anti-gun and does NOT suggest that guns be taken away.  Rather than address each comment individually, this post is dedicated to all law-abiding Americans who love their guns and want to keep them. To keep things short and sweet, only four (4) points will be made.

#1 – Renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)
It is time for there to be to be bipartisan effort by both Democrats and Republicans to successfully renew the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act that expired in 2004.  The use of assault weapons should be restricted to law enforcement and military personnel.  The Political Great Whine does not claim to be a gun-expert on the specific types of semi-automatic weapons that may still be available for purchase, but those experts should be consulted with to update the original list. The lack of national legislation banning assault weapons negates any effort on behalf of local government to address the issue. If one local jurisdiction chooses to ban assault weapons but another one does not, then the effort to reduce the number of deaths due to those weapons will be minimal.

#2 – Chicago: The Case for Banning all Firearms
Many comments were received saying things like gun control “won’t work” and pointed to Chicago as an example of how it is failing.  Assault-weapons (e.g. semi-automatic weapons) are banned in Chicago yet the murder rate has sky-rocketed.  Unsurprisingly, it is never mentioned that most  of the firearms used in those homicides were purchased legally.  Also important is that while you cannot legally purchase a semi-automatic weapon in the city of Chicago you only need to drive  an hour to Indiana or Wisconsin to purchase them. Everyone can agree that if you are a criminally-minded individual who lives or operates in Chicago, it would be worth the drive.  Finding a resident or using a fake address to make the purchase would not be difficult.  In fact, Chicago is a good example of why national legislation banning assault weapons may not be enough.

Gun-control advocates and opponents should read about the 2014 study titled Tracing the Guns: The Impact of Illegal Guns on Violence in Chicago which provides some insight into the issue.

#3 – People kill People – So don’t give them guns
As gun control opponents point out — “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” so people should not have guns. The guns are innocent and blameless victims in all of this. It is time we rescue them from the hands of people who, without any provocation or apparent motive, can just use them to inflict harm on other people.  Poor, poor innocent guns…maybe its time to start a gun liberation movement and free the guns from the hands of people. Vive Les Armes!

#4 – Nothing will happen without support from the NRA
We can forever debate the need for gun control every time a mass murder is committed.  Until the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its membership recognize the importance of restricting use of the most dangerous guns to law enforcement and military–nothing will get done.  In an effort to protect the right to own guns for protection and/or sports, restriction of the most dangerous weapons to only law enforcement and military is needed.

It is ironic that those who claim to support  “law and order” do not like laws and regulations. If we want to protect the right to “bear arms” then only our law enforcement should have the capacity to quickly subdue those who abuse that right. Law enforcement personnel should never be in a situation where they are out-armed by those who are violating the law.  Restricting the purchase of assault weapons would not be a panacea for eradicating deaths due to guns, but it would help to reduce the number of innocent guns that get into the hands of bad people.

Don’t just comment on the discussion, be part of it. The Political Great Whine wants to encourage you to provide your thoughts on the topic by taking a brief 4-question survey. Depending on the number of responses, the results (real, not fake) will be summarized in a future post. Take Survey

Thanks for “listening” to me whine. Hopefully my whining has made you think. If so, tell your friends/family/colleagues that you heard it through the Political Great Whine!


3 thoughts on “If not Gun Control – then WHAT?

  1. All your points fail to address the fundamental premise the Founders espoused in the drafting of the 2ndA: Freedom from Tyranny. All the listed things MAY reduce GUN related deaths, but fail to address how the American Citizenry can maintain the upper or even hand against the US Government to ENSURE freedom and prevent oppression? And as for reducing deaths: Australia is often noted as the model, but the gun legislation of 1996 has not affected the number of mass killings (16 from 1972-1995/ 14 from 1996 through 2016) or the rate at which people are killed in mass killings (4/year). Knives and arson have taken up much of the slack. One surprising correlation is that the majority of gun related mass killings in both time periods are family member mass killing their own families (6 before and 3 after).


    1. The right to bear arms is in the bill of rights which was part of the Articles of Confederation. During that time, the States were strong but the central government was weak. Still the founders wanted to ensure that the States and its citizens could not be overthrown by an overarching federal government hence the “A well-regulated militia…” beginning. It was not intended for common individuals, who are not part of a militia to protect the State, to revolt against the very government they were setting up! Tyranny of the people was feared too which is why a representative government was set up..not an ideal democratic one. In fact, the founders did not trust the common man and did not believe they were all suited to participate in politics. I will do a post on that because many people inaccurately think the 2nd amendment is the people’s right to revolt. Check out: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/


  2. youre foolishly wrong on every point

    freedom is more important than your distorted sense of safety

    get outside your bubble and consider more than your sheltered sources


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s