What good are laws if you do not enforce them?

Time and time again, we are told the best way to reduce ‘gun’ violence is to toughen gun laws, as if violence doesn’t exist unless a firearm is involved. It’s repeated ad nauseum that a primary reason violent people commit crimes is because they have easy access to firearms and that extra tough gun laws would diminish their capacity.

Here's a story that illustrates why they are wrong.

In the melee, Beasley clutched a gun in each fist, blasting away. More than 40 shots were fired as neighbors huddled in their homes and bystanders were only yards away.

James Allen III was struck by six bullets, including a fatal shot to the head. Yet another name was added to the long list of Indianapolis murder victims — a toll that accelerated this year causing the community and public officials to join in discussions and seek answers to a deadly surge in gun violence.

Now, the gun banners are going to salivate as they put on their dancing shoes so they can scream from the hilltops about how Beasley had high capacity assault clips of extraordinarily dangerous calipers. They’ll go on at length about how if there were just more background checks that this guy would be behind bars for trying to purchase a gun when he wasn’t allowed.

Which, of course, is complete and utter bullshit.

And, while many agree that attacking root causes such as poverty, despair, poor parenting and educational failure can help, Beasley's case points to a more immediate, more pressing question, one uncovered in a recent Indianapolis Star investigation.

Why wasn't Beasley in prison that day?

Emphasis mine, because that’s the $50,000 question that the anti’s never seem to answer. This guy has twice been caught with firearms as a felon, both times carrying a 20 year sentence, and yet… he was still on the streets. He’s not alone, they let the violent roam free all the time.

Beasley, 33, had all the hallmarks of why the law was written. At his sentencing hearing, the prosecutor noted that Beasley had a juvenile record and seven convictions as an adult, with 19 arrests.

"He's had many chances," the prosecutor told the judge.

Beasley had a long rap sheet that included multiple drug and gun arrests, including two convictions for carrying a handgun without a license.

And yet he walks among people, free to commit mayhem and murder, and the anti’s answer to it is to punish me.

This is what pisses me off about background checks. If a person is known to be too dangerous to own a gun (i.e. data that can show up on a background check) why in all that is holy do you think it’s ok to let them walk free? Why do you put your faith in a cash register to stop them from committing violence?

Here’s someone who was known to be dangerous, known to be violent, known to have no regard for any laws, and yet still managed to get out of jail so he could kill. Yet gun banning groups want me to accept that if I’d just give up my rights, submit to a police state, that somehow this guy would have been stopped?

If you’re an anti (and I don’t get many of them here, so it’s an open question), please answer these following questions

  • How would limiting magazine capacity for the law abiding prevented this?
  • How does licensing of a right stop these things from happening when twice he was convicted of not having a license?
  • Being that murder is already illegal, how does the threat of extra time for carrying unlicensed make criminals think twice?
  • How does a law that only harms innocent people affect criminals when they can just plea bargain out and walk free?

That last one is important. Criminals can plea bargain because they can snitch on others, help solve other crimes they’ve committed, etc. When Jane Smith purchases a gun for her own safety from a friend & doesn’t realize she has to have 9 different licenses, there’s nothing for her to plea to and she gets her kids taken away from her and tossed into jail for 20 years because it’s an easy win for the state.

I don’t oppose background checks because I want criminals to have guns, I oppose them because they are blatantly ineffective in their goal, burden the innocent, and are nothing more than a gateway to ban guns altogether to usher in a police state. If someone could show me where they actually have a beneficial effect, I’d change my mind, but Beasley’s story, along with thousands of others just like him, prove that they do not work.

posted by by Robb Allen @
Comments have been closed on this topic.