Discussion Forums

Scott Struif

Oregon, where I live, has enacted what many are calling the most extreme gun control law in the US. If it survives pending legal challenges, based on constitutional “right to bear arms” provisions, it will require a permit to purchase firearms. Permits, good for 5 years and unlimited gun purchases, will be issued, by the local sheriffs of the 33 counties, to applicants without history of felony, violent crimes, or mental malady, who pass a course that teaches them how to load, fire, unload and store firearms safely, whom the sheriff believes would pose no danger to themselves or others. The law also bans sale of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Owners of higher capacity magazines can keep them, but their use is restricted to private property, including shooting ranges. Pre-owned high-capacity magazines can’t be transferred. There’s no government buy-back plan. Those who think high-capacity mags are essential to existence would be hard pressed to come up with an argument why a law requiring them to keep them for their own survival is bad.

The sheriffs are livid, ostensibly because the cost of issuing the permits will not be defrayed by the permit and course fees. They say they’re mad because they will required to tap into their already tight budgets to allocate resources to administer the law. I say “ostensibly,” because that’s the pretext they’re presenting to the press. It’s unknown at this point whether the state will allocate funds to them to cover their costs. If it does, their argument would evaporate, but I doubt they would change their tune. Sheriffs are elected. Thus, most of their constituents are rural gun-toters. If they were half-way honest, they’d say they don’t want to lose votes. But even if they were half-way honest, they’d still be guilty of prevarication.

For some reason they painstakingly avoid the obvious argument that law enforcement should be making. A law that requires gun owners, especially first-time gun owners, how to safely handle firearms is a good law. But it’s delusional to think such a law will prevent mass-shootings, defined in the US as any incident where 4 or more people are wounded in a shooting incident.

I’m against gun control laws enacted by clueless, reactionary liberals who think firearms are evil, and mass shootings can be reduced by limiting magazines to 10 rounds. Do the math! Law enforcement isn’t helping with its crying, milquetoast BS about being defunded.

The problem is, neoliberal policy over the last 40 years has created a state of relative deprivation that encourages young men to lash out at society in ways never seen before.