Sen. Gillibrand on Gun Control: Ineffectiveness + Redundancy = Synergy

Office of Kirsten GillibrandOffice of Kirsten GillibrandThe New York Times reports that supporters of new gun controls are quietly regrouping after this month's Senate defeat. Their task, according to an unnamed participant in a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and gun control activists, is "demonstrating that it's safe to do the right thing and politically unsafe not to." Judging from recent poll results, that could be a tall order. But it should be easier than demonstrating that "the right thing to do" is good policy, the difficulty of which is illustrated by a leading advocate of building bipartisan support for a legislative response to the Sandy Hook massacre.

"Let's be honest," says Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). "Criminals aren't going to buy a gun and go through a background check." She nevertheless backs legislation expanding background checks for gun buyers. But since that bill will not impede criminals, the Times reports, Gillibrand also favors legislation that would "criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm." That seems a bit redundant, since transferring a gun to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe falls into a prohibited category is already a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Apparently Gillibrand wants to make it even more illegal, which she says is "complementary to background checks." There you have the theory underlying the gun controls favored by President Obama in a nutshell: None of these measures on its own will do anything to reduce crime, but if we pass them all together...well, they still won't do anything, but they will create the appearance of doing something.

Gillibrand's candor regarding the ineffectiveness of the background checks she supports reminds me of a remark that Norman Seabrook, president of the Correction Officers Benevolent Association, made about New York's new seven-round limit on magazines. "As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years," Seabrook said in January, "I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law." Seabrook's concern was not so much that the magazine limit would have no impact on crime but that New York's legislators, in their haste to enact the gun controls demanded by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, had neglected to exempt retired and active-duty cops from the seven-round rule. Since criminals sure as hell were not going to follow that rule, Seabrook worried that he and other members of the law enforcement fraternity would be outgunned. What about the "regular citizen"? Screw the regular citizen. What has he ever done for Norman Seabrook?

Gillibrand likewise is completely unconcerned about the burden and legal risks that extending background checks to private sales would impose on law-abiding gun owners, who by her own admission are the only people who will worry about following the new rules. Her attitude is: Why not respond to the Newtown murders with a piece of symbolic legislation that could not possibly have prevented them and that will not reduce other kinds of gun violence either? What's the downside?  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    There you have the theory underlying the gun controls favored by President Obama in a nutshell: None of these measures on its own will do anything to reduce crime, but if we pass them all together...well, they still won't do anything, but they will create the appearance of doing something.

    As I've said before: these people are animists. They are that primitive, that stupid, that incapable of reason or logic. The bad object needs to be banned! Oooga Oooga! Or else it will get people!

    Fuck, these people are morons.

  • tarran||

    Not only that.

    There are a large number who hate people working outside the state. Legislators view their laws and the police/court system like a programmer views a library that he has authored.

    And when some asshole doesn't use the library but codes his own version of a function, they are pissed off.

  • ||

    Not so fast there Epi. They are not animists as much as they are appealing to animists to support their measures.

    They know fucking well what they are doing. They know fucking well these measures will only affect law abiding citizens, because those are the only people they are afraid of anyway. Criminals prey on us, not them.

    Again, the point of all gun control measures are to create a helpless population that they can lord it over. They may be morons, but they are truly evil morons.

  • BigT||

    "Let's be honest," says Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). "Criminals aren't going to buy a gun and go through a background check."

    Clearly proving SB's point.

  • Adam330||

    They don't want to ban the object. They very much want people around them to continue carrying guns.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    "Let's be honest," says Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). "Criminals aren't going to buy a gun and go through a background check." She nevertheless backs legislation expanding background checks for gun buyers.

    "Let's be honest," Kirsten Gillibrand is a POS!

  • UnCivilServant||

    It doesn't work - so we should do it anyway.

    /derp

  • LarryA||

    "And when that doesn't work, we should do more of it."

    Note that Connecticut already has most of the laws they're proposing including "universal background checks."

  • UnCivilServant||

    I didn't recognize the picture as the person I voted against. She still sounds like a brain-dead tart. Sadly, we don't have two senators from New York, we have two Senators from New York City.

  • ||

    Thanks for your input, Tulpa. It's valued as little as ever.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Why do you people think I'm him?

    Seriously, not everyone who shows up has come out of your revolving door of sockpuppets.

    I'm an asshole and a hypocrite, but I've never lied to you people.

  • Almanian!||

    you people

    RAAAAAAAAAACIST!

  • UnCivilServant||

    "You People" = Reason Commentariat.

    Unless you've applied for official recognition as an ethnicity, I can't sign off on your being a protected class under the "RACIST!" clause. We have some forms back here, we'll need them in triplicate. You may want a 54' trailer to haul them with.

  • Zeb||

    Aren't senators elected in geographical districts? How can there be 2 from NYC?

  • Brandon||

    You're thinking of Congressmen. Senators are elected by the whole state.

  • Brandon||

    You're thinking of CongressmenRepresentatives. My bad.

  • Zeb||

    Ah. I think living in a state with 2 Reps. confused me.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Yes, our Geographical District is New York State. The weight of the population = New York City overrides Upstate.

  • Drake||

    Before being appointed to the Senate (when Hillary left) - Gillibrand was a pro-2nd Amendment, Upstate Rep.

  • UnCivilServant||

    She changed into Schumer lite. Neither is platable. I paid more attention to policy when ascribing her to NYC. She seems to have merged with that crowd 100%.

    Thank you for reminding me that she didn't start there. That just pisses me off more. (Not at you, at her)

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    There you have the theory underlying the gun controls favored by President Obama in a nutshell: None of these measures on its own will do anything to reduce crime, but if we pass them all together...well, they still won't do anything, but they will create the appearance of doing something.

    But, but it's comprehensive gun control. Surely it will work as well as other comprehensive government solutions.

  • ||

    It isnt just comprehensive, it is sensible. How could anyone oppose sensible?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And common sense. If this isn't common sense, what could be?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    And it just makes good common sense to pass laws that will be absolutely ineffective at their stated intent. That's what common sense means, right?

    Oh, you disagree? You must be a childrapistmurderhatemonger.

  • UnCivilServant||

    "You must be a childrapistmurderhatemonger."

    I work for the governement. This would be different from my regular job duties how?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Less lube?

  • ||

    Her attitude is: Why not respond to the Newtown murders with a piece of symbolic legislation that could not possibly have prevented them and that will not reduce other kinds of gun violence either? What's the downside?

    None, for federal pols with armed guards.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    None, for federal pols with armed guards.

    Or for criminals; but I repeat myself.

  • UnCivilServant||

    It's not entirely redundant, not all criminals are federal pols.

    I mean we average two actual indictments/convictions a year of state pols in New York, and those are just the ones who steal outside the color of the law, the rest, well, you know their story.

  • sarcasmic||

    Once again, intentions trump results.

  • Almanian!||

    And "classy" trumps all. And everything I do is nothing if not "classy". Trump = "classy".

    /D. Trump

  • Almanian!||

    I could never understand why some people were so bitterly pissed off about the government.

    Now I do.

    Fuck. Off. Gungrabbers.

    Leave. Me. ALONE. I didn't kill your precious flowers, nor will I in the future. So back the FUCK off and leave me alone.

    I know you won't - hence another reason why I (and a shitload of other people) are stockpiling weapons and ammo. Nice work, fucktards.

  • Lord Humungus||

    ^^ this ^^ with the power of a thousand supernovas.

  • Almanian!||

    HERE's your bitter clinger. RIGHT HERE! HE'S the one you want! Leave m alone - GET HIM!

    *gesticulates at Humungus*

    /selfish bastard

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "Precious flowers" comes across, to me, as shittily dismissive of their murdered kids. Maybe some of the parents acted in a way to bring some of that on themselves but it still comes across poorly.

    But, yeah, ^^this^^.

  • RightNut||

    Maybe they should go after the people who murdered their kids instead of lashing out at law abiding, non-threatening, fellow citizens?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "Maybe some of the parents acted in a way to bring some of that on themselves..."

  • ||

    I disagree. They are using those tiny corpses as cheap props to wring every drop of emotional appeal they can get of them. They are the ones being dismissive.

    Using 'precious flowers' is simply being dismissive of their arguments, not of the children. Everyone on these boards expressed sickness when it occured. Well, everyone except the trolls. I dont remember hearing a peep out of them. I could be wrong, maybe I missed Tony's tears.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Their arguments are beaten with the rest of the comment. "Precious flowers" adds nothing and, imo, undermines the argument by coming across as dismissive.

    Regardless, I agree with the reasoning, if not that word choice. PoTAYto, poTAHto.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Regardless, I agree with the reasoning, if not that word choice. PoTAYto, poTAHto

    New York, Deep dish.

  • ||

    Point taken. I was actually hoping someone would be tempted to correct me or correlate my comment on the trolls.

    I remember that one of them....PB maybe? laughed when Sloopy was telling about his child's condition. What a revolting POS.
    I expect the same kind of empathy from them on the Newtown children.

  • RightNut||

    demonstrating that it's safe to do the right thing

    Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you and your self righteous moralizing bullshit.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Their task, according to an unnamed participant in a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and gun control activists, is "demonstrating that it's safe to do the right thing and politically unsafe not to."

    It's already obvious that this is the case. You're just wrong about what the "right thing" is.

  • ||

    You're just wrong about what the "right thing" is.

    Nothing says "right thing" like being afraid to use your own name.

  • ||

    If it is not obvious I am speaking of the "unnamed participant".

  • The Late P Brooks||

    None of these measures on its own will do anything to reduce crime, but if we pass them all together...well, they still won't do anything, but they will create the appearance of doing something.

    But if you could get them to speak honestly, these measures are essential as a foundation upon which the genuine gun control they want can be erected. Those universal background checks will bring millions of previously untracked and untrackable weapons into the database, and will allow them to permanently link you to every gun you own or have ever owned. And then...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm going to put this on every gun control reference, because I am convinced this is what is really happening; the overwhelming majority of the people working and cheering for this stuff are emotionally and intellectually stunted, and think they can escape the emotional pain of hearing about bad things happening to other people, because it makes them feel bad. It pisses me off.

    SAD STORIES ABOUT DEAD BABIES MAKE ME SAD. I NO WANTS DA SADZ. NO GUNS FOR U, GUN PEEPOLZ. NO MOAR DEDS, YAY!

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    So, I posted something like this on FB a while back and made an offer to my anti-gun friends. I simply asked the question "If the pushers of these gun control bills have outright stated that they would not have prevented Sandy Hook nor most crime, answer me this... What then, is the purpose behind creating this type of legislation?" I followed the question with the promise that I won't debate them, I won't try to refute anything they had to say, and I would delete any comments that tried to start a debate. All I wanted was the honest viewpoint from the other side.

    I have several friends that find it absolutely necessary to comment every time I re-post something from 2nd amendment, libertarian party, any pro gun post.

    Guess how many actually commented on my query...

  • UnCivilServant||

    Negative two?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I asked for a guess on how many commented, not their IQ...

    Although, given the number of people that have de-friended me for posting pro-2A items, negative two might actually be accurate.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If you asked Heidi Heitkamp, Wicked Witch of the North, I suspect she could name a lot more people who have been the victims of "farm machinery violence" than the gun kind. When will we have sensible corn picker regulation?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Nobody needs a wagon that can hold more than 7 bales of hay.

  • LarryA||

    Ther's a bill in the Texas Legislature that would legalize CHLs on college campuses. It's blocked in committee by one of our anti-gun Democrats.

    A separate bill that would allow concealed handguns in campus buildings is stuck in the same committee. Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, said he opposes it and has no intention of letting it advance.

    “After Sandy Hook and all the other tragedies we’ve seen in recent months, we need a cooling off period before we start approving guns in a lot of other public places,” he said. “I respect the status quo right now.”

    Hypocrite.
    http://www.statesman.com/news/.....ote/nXWsX/

  • film izle||

    I really love coming here to have a very good blog. chat

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement