Gun Show Syllogism Essay
The ‘politician’s syllogism’ states, “We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this”. This syllogism is referred to as a knee-jerk reaction to various political and social issues. (Black, Lodge, &Thatcher, Page 58) Proposed gun laws are often thrown together in an effort to be seen as ‘doing something’. I have been opposed to many of the gun laws proposed because they appear ineffectual, create more loopholes than they close, and add a burden of costly administration. I believe I would be supportive of legislation if I was convinced in the potential effectiveness. One of the current political hotspots is the sale of guns at gun shows. Hilary Clinton has repeatedly pledged to close the “Gun Show Loophole”, where
…show more content…
The National Firearms act, enacted in 1934, did not prohibit all automatic weapons and silencers as is often believed. It did enforce fees and registration of these types of weapons. It requires an individual to apply to own a Class III weapon, and to notify the law enforcement in their community of their ownership. "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives." This has probably reduced the number of people who would otherwise own a Class III weapon. And those who own an illegal version, are careful to keep them undisclosed because of the fines, jail time, and confiscation. But there are no measurements to show how this law has truly impacted our society. President Bill Clinton signed the ‘assault weapons’ ban into law on September 13, 1994. This law banned the manufacturing and sale of new guns with military features and magazine capacity of more than ten rounds. However, the law grandfathered in existing ownership for over one and a half million people. The political fallout was credited to this law’s passage when the Democratic Party experienced serious losses in 1994. Crime rates did fall after the ban, which later expired, but a detailed study was unable to prove that the law had any impact on the crime rate. The one measurable data point was that the number of assault weapons recovered by local police dropped from two percent to one percent.
The National Firearms act, enacted in 1934, did not prohibit all automatic weapons and silencers as is often believed. It did enforce fees and registration of these types of weapons. It requires an individual to apply to own a Class III weapon, and to notify the law enforcement in their community of their ownership. "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives." This has probably reduced the number of people who would otherwise own a Class III weapon. And those who own an illegal version, are careful to keep them undisclosed because of the fines, jail time, and confiscation. But there are no measurements to show how this law has truly impacted our society. President Bill Clinton signed the ‘assault weapons’ ban into law on September 13, 1994. This law banned the manufacturing and sale of new guns with military features and magazine capacity of more than ten rounds. However, the law grandfathered in existing ownership for over one and a half million people. The political fallout was credited to this law’s passage when the Democratic Party experienced serious losses in 1994. Crime rates did fall after the ban, which later expired, but a detailed study was unable to prove that the law had any impact on the crime rate. The one measurable data point was that the number of assault weapons recovered by local police dropped from two percent to one percent.