Mark Kelly's Talks Gun Control

Mark Kelly has recently become a pretty loud voice in the latest popular push for tighter gun control. Mark told CNN that the current gun show loophole Makes No Sense, and that he believes that the government should instate a universal background check that all potential gun buyers should have to pass. According to him, that's the first step towards a tighter gun control.

Now, overall, Mark Kelly is a pretty interesting guy, he looks like Phil Collins and between NASA and 25 years in the US Navy, he racked up "375 aircraft carrier landings, 39 combat missions and more than 50 days in space." The space part is super cool. He never has really lived a civilian lifestyle other than the fact while being a gun owner, he "didn't think about guns or gun violence that much. [He] had other things to think about," and seemed to follow the typical American view of 'outta sight, outta mind'. Until his wife and six of her constituents became victims of gun violence in 2011.Now while his wife recovers from what should have been a fatal injury, he has become a very vocal advocate for gun control. He often sympathizes with other victims of gun violence, and tends to point out the last five or so reported gun related crimes to hit the news along with the most recent school shooting in New England. So I guess while he was floating in space he had a lot of time to think on guns, and apparently found some interesting math.

He claims research has found that:
40% of gun transfers went without background checks
80% of inmates who used guns got them without background checks
82% of gun owners like the idea of background checks
92% of all households like the idea of background checks
2 million people have failed background checks since 1994
100 die a day from guns, 33 of them murder
The US has 20x's the murder rate of other countries

First off, I just wanna know where he gets all these stats because I don't remember being asked as a household or gun owner if I like the idea of background checks. Because I do, but his logic is strange and unquoted from any source.

Second, I want to know which countries he is referring to when he compares the US, and also if he ACTUALLY compared policies, form of government, economy ect. to see if there was a difference. But lets go in and actually check his math. With his claim that 33 murders a day involve guns, meaning that there are 12,045 murders per year, which means that the unnamed 'other countries' only have a mere 602.25 murders by guns per year. Somehow I don't buy that stat, no matter what country...

Third, if 80% of the inmates involved with gun violence didn't get background checks when purchasing a gun, than that means only 32% of gun transfers happened without background checks to criminals. So, only 8% of that 40% of those with out the background happened to law abiding citizens.

 If you lie on that background check, you not only fail but you also become a felon, even though the BATF get a small number actually in custody. That kinda shows that criminals are gonna get guns, no matter what laws are in place. If there are checks now that aren't enforced well, the ones that Mark keeps pushing for better have some umph behind them to actually make a difference.

I will agree that in theory, a universal background check would help some. But who would bite the cost? The government? The company? The customer? I would guess the latter.

You Can Have My Guns When I Run Outta Bullets

Let's think of the most stereotypical image of a true Texan: big ol' hat, sweat stained shirt, shiny belt buckle that keeps a well worn in pair of Wranglers up, a dusty pair of snake skin boots, and a dark leather holster that carries his gun. C'mon, you ever see a John Wayne movie in Texas where he didn't look like that? If you stop at any gas station in this state, there is some shelf crammed full of little nick knacks with that man and little signs saying "You can have my guns when I run outta bullets". Texans are obsessed with guns, and anyone who says anything about it being a little much is just a wimpy yank.

So why on earth anyone is shocked about how violently Texans react to the possibility of a tighter gun control? The Associated Press's Will Weissert reports with The Austin American Statesman that Texas leaders take aim by creating a new bill that blocks any move by the Federal Government to tighten gun control.

   "All federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds with the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore, infringes upon Texan’s right to bear arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, any such law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus, is not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, is invalid in this State and shall be further considered null and void and of no effect in this State."

I'm going to just point out a few things. First off, our guns are already limited. You can't have more than three shells in your shotgun when hunting for dove (where you would load those shells is where Froggy was jammed in). Second, don't we already have to register our guns? Third, according to Mr.Webster, amendment means a change designed to correct or improve a written work. Meaning it can be changed again, if done properly. Just sayin. Fourth, didn't there used to be a ban on assault rifles from 1994-2004 anyways? Fifth, am I the only one that seems to remember that Federal Laws trump State Laws? Texans are pretty attached to their guns if they are ignorant enough to think this will work.

Now, President Obama himself has said that this whole campaign for restricting large magazines, assault rifles and creating background checks is due to the mass shooting recently in Connecticut. But I would have to agree with Governor Perry in that "no gun law could have saved those children". Criminals are criminals, if they want to go crazy and kill a bunch of people, they are going to do so, gun ban or not, with any weapon of their choosing because it isn't that hard to gain possession of contraband items. 

Besides, it is of my opinion that this country cannot effectively control guns. The truest gun control is to outlaw them completely, make a statement that all guns and ammo must be turned in. Therefore, anyone who has a gun is a criminal. Which, if you think about it isn't much different than today, the gun owners you're scared of are the ones pointing it at you during a robbery. But why would law abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves against the criminals want to turn in their guns? Police would still have to be armed in order to combat those criminals with guns, and there would be a death penalty for anyone in possession of a gun. None of this waiting on death row for thirty years, it would be straight up Judge Dredd style. If you have a gun, *bang*. End of story. Ok, maybe that's just a little crazy right? There is no way that this country would do that, nor would I necessarily agree with it anyways. Frankly, I live in the getto and would probably still keep my little pistol for defensive purposes. But something drastic is what it would take to create a tight enough reign in order to truly keep everyone 100% safe from gun violence.