Annetta Nunn speaks about gun violence
Posted on Aug 17, 2012 in Opinion
In the wake of the July 27th Colorado theater shooting, the debate about American gun control laws has come up in many discussions. While some believe that further restrictions on firearms will make a great impact on the American community at large, others take the stance that no such laws will have any effect on the state of gun violence.
Annetta Nunn, the former Birmingham chief of police, stated that she’s always believed that there should be further measures taken in the fight against gun violence.
Former Birmingham chief of Police, Annetta Nunn.
“We need to know who has the weapons,” she said, “what kind they’re purchasing, and who exactly is purchasing them.”
According to Nunn, even though federal laws are in place, there are loopholes in the laws, especially when buying offline.
“They don’t have to have a background check because they’re not licensed dealers, and that’s an area that needs to be addressed,” Nunn said.
The regulation of firearm purchases and registration of all gun carriers will, of course, have limited influence on the rate of gun violence. Referencing the Colorado shooter, Nunn said, “He had no record, wasn’t in the system for anything. There wouldn’t have been anything to stop him. He was going to get the guns anyway.”
Though Nunn has always had a strong belief that there needs to be stronger gun control regulations, she also acknowledged that the potential for violence is always present.
“When you get to somebody like that who’s bent on doing something crazy, a lot of times they know the law,” she said. “And they know how to work [around] the law, and they’ll get the weapons. There’s some shootings that no matter what you do, the potential is still there. It will happen. You can enforce every law, run every background check, and it’ll still happen.”
Some American citizens take this stance and further it by saying increased regulations on firearms is in violation of every American’s Second Amendment rights: The right to bear arms.
“You should be able to carry a gun wherever you please. It’s for your protection; you never know when you are going to need it. We have that right,” said a former U.S. Marine and UAB student.
The student even stated that making the purchasing process more strenuous for those that wish to make their firearm purchases legally will only result in them turning to illegal avenues.
“You can put extra taxes on the ammo, or make them take a psychological evaluation, and they’ll just get it off the street. There will always be people selling on the street,” he said.
All in all, it seems that most people are in agreement. Firearm regulations may seem like the solution, but more than likely they will have little to no influence on the number of gun-related crimes in America.
Erica Brock
Staff Writer
edydream@uab.edu
“We need to know who has the weapons,” she said, “what kind they’re purchasing, and who exactly is purchasing them.”
To me it sounds like former police chief Nun is advocating a Firearms Registry.
Oh but wait……look how beautifully that worked out for Canada and their recently abandoned long gun registry. 2.7 billion spent in creating and running the registry.
“From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms.” “during these seven years, there were only 62 cases — nine a year — where it was even conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291304/death-long-gun-registry-john-r-lott-jr
.
According to Nunn, even though federal laws are in place, there are loopholes in the laws, especially when buying offline.
“They don’t have to have a background check because they’re not licensed dealers, and that’s an area that needs to be addressed,”
Nunn said.
This is the infamous “gun
show loop hole”
I, as a law abiding citizen can sell a firearm to another citizen that is a
documented resident of my state. Why? Because it has nothing to do with “interstate commerce” which congress has the power to regulate.
Example: – If I have a shotgun for sale I can
sell it to a person who with the appropriate documents lives within the same
state as I do. All I have to see is a
valid state I.D. and I can legally sell
my firearm to the person.
This is more restrictive than selling an automobile.
Example
- I have a Lincoln navigator for sale. I have no duty to make sure the person
has a valid driver’s license. I sell the vehicle and the person who purchased
the vehicle drives into a crowd of people killing and inuring innocent
victims.
Explain to me how this is any different than the infamous
“gun show loop hole”.