The "news" is out that the New York legislature has reached agreement on an "historic" gun control bill. (Historic is not my description; rather it was used by the AP.) Here are the key points of the agreement according to the media:
1. There will be further restrictions on the sale of assault weapons. Details have not been released.
2. Magazines will be limited to those holding seven or fewer bullets rather than the limit of ten currently in place.
3. It will become less difficult for a relative to have someone committed to a mental institution. Right now, such an involuntary commitment is extremely difficult in New York, so the change may not mean much.
That's it. That is the "historic" agreement.
So, aside from posturing politicians who want to be seen as "doing something" after the Newtown killings, what is the point of this "historic" agreement? Let's consider it carefully.
First, reducing the size of magazines from ten to seven bullets does nothing really. A determined killer would come armed with multiple magazines. That would still let a crazy killer like the one in Newtown kill a great many victims. Beyond that, there are already so many larger magazines in the hands of the public that this restricion will not affect much.
Second, the nature of the ban on the sale of assault weapons is unlikely to do much either. Here too, there are probably millions of weapons already in the hands of the public in New York alone. Further, if the restrictions are too broad, they will likely violate the restrictions set forth in the second amendment to the Constitution.
Third, the easing of requirements for involuntary commitment are unlikely to do much either. First of all, if it really becomes easy to commit someone needing treatment without his or her consent, the ACLU and the other civil liberty groups in New York will probably find a sympathetic state judge to declare the statute unconstitutional. Beyond that, unless the state is going to step in and actively look for folks who need institutionalization for mental illness, very little will change. Most families do not or cannot move towards institutionalization. And, of course, there is the cost, and item which will probably assure that few, if any, folks actually get put away.
I do not know what the best course of action is with regard to stopping mass murder. I do know, however, that having politicians who take meaningless steps in order to "do something" is worse than doing nothing. Too many folks will think that the problem has been solved. It has not been solved. Of that, there can be no doubt.
1. There will be further restrictions on the sale of assault weapons. Details have not been released.
2. Magazines will be limited to those holding seven or fewer bullets rather than the limit of ten currently in place.
3. It will become less difficult for a relative to have someone committed to a mental institution. Right now, such an involuntary commitment is extremely difficult in New York, so the change may not mean much.
That's it. That is the "historic" agreement.
So, aside from posturing politicians who want to be seen as "doing something" after the Newtown killings, what is the point of this "historic" agreement? Let's consider it carefully.
First, reducing the size of magazines from ten to seven bullets does nothing really. A determined killer would come armed with multiple magazines. That would still let a crazy killer like the one in Newtown kill a great many victims. Beyond that, there are already so many larger magazines in the hands of the public that this restricion will not affect much.
Second, the nature of the ban on the sale of assault weapons is unlikely to do much either. Here too, there are probably millions of weapons already in the hands of the public in New York alone. Further, if the restrictions are too broad, they will likely violate the restrictions set forth in the second amendment to the Constitution.
Third, the easing of requirements for involuntary commitment are unlikely to do much either. First of all, if it really becomes easy to commit someone needing treatment without his or her consent, the ACLU and the other civil liberty groups in New York will probably find a sympathetic state judge to declare the statute unconstitutional. Beyond that, unless the state is going to step in and actively look for folks who need institutionalization for mental illness, very little will change. Most families do not or cannot move towards institutionalization. And, of course, there is the cost, and item which will probably assure that few, if any, folks actually get put away.
I do not know what the best course of action is with regard to stopping mass murder. I do know, however, that having politicians who take meaningless steps in order to "do something" is worse than doing nothing. Too many folks will think that the problem has been solved. It has not been solved. Of that, there can be no doubt.
1 comment:
Thanks for your blog. Please see my song of protest for Connecticut... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVuiM5_ZDlU&sns=em
Post a Comment