One Mass Legislator's Point of View on Gun Legislation

[ATSavvy82]

Guest Column in today's (Feb10) Sun Chrnoicle by State Rep Paul Heroux (Dem, Second Bristol) on guns.

"There has been a lot of legislation filed concerning guns. The bills have to go through committee. While there they will be re-written and sometimes dropped. At this point in time, state reps don't know what we will be voting on in the coming months.
For now, here is my standard. I don't support feel good or evidence-free legislation no matter how well intended. I am looking for evidence that there will be a reduction in gun offenses based on what has worked somewhere else. Not just what has been done somwhere else and not just what sounds tough, but what has been empirically evaluated to successfully reduce gun offenses.
Cable TV pundits always miss the point when we are talking about reducing gun offenses, we have to take into consideration that a gang shooting is different than a suicide with a gun or an accidental shooting.
High-profile crimes are high-profile precisely because they are unusual and unlikely. Making policy based on high-profile crime is a surefire way to overreact and make inefficient and, worse, ineffective policy. A high-profile event is a good time to find out where a shortcoming of a policy or a failure of a policy might reside, but a high-profile event is not necessarily what policy should target. Doing so would result in the majority of cases being marginalized and a strategy designed around an unlikely event.
I want to reduce gun offenses. I have an obligation to vote for effectiveness and not entertain feel-good measures."

[email protected]

 

[warwickben]

That's sounds good to me ...

 

[GunGrey]

Sounds good but..........


This Mass I take everything politicians say with a grain of salt

 

[not new guy]

State Rep Paul Heroux should be commended for at least appearing to take a calm, rational view of the issue instead of capitalizing on a tragedy.

 

[spcantwell]

High-profile crimes are high-profile precisely because they are unusual and unlikely. Making policy based on high-profile crime is a surefire way to overreact and make inefficient and, worse, ineffective policy. A high-profile event is a good time to find out where a shortcoming of a policy or a failure of a policy might reside, but a high-profile event is not necessarily what policy should target. Doing so would result in the majority of cases being marginalized and a strategy designed around an unlikely event.


[email protected]

One of the best statements on ANY sort of law I have ever seen.

 

[neum69]

Okay, but not good enough. What's so special about "gun offenses?" Like "hate crime", there is really no difference between them and "standard" offenses. Would you rather get killed with a gun or with a shod boot? Would you rather get held at gunpoint or knifepoint? Would it be okay if someone murdered you because you had a hundred dollar bill in your wallet, versus not liking your skin color or life choices? Is there really a difference?

Allowing people to distinguish between gun crime and other crime is the gateway to acceptance of misleading crime statistics in geographies where gun restrictions have been put in place. For example, in the UK after heavy gun restrictions, gun crime is way down but violent crime regardless of tool is way up. See what I mean? The term "gun crime" is a device used by the left to manipulate the statistics.

 

[RockIt]

Like several other people on this forum I have emailed back and forth with Mr. Heroux a few times. He does come across as a thoughtful person and not a knee jerk type.

Interestingly, in this statement he openly states that he is looking to reduce gun offenses. "I want to reduce gun offenses." He states earlier :

"I am looking for evidence that there will be a reduction in gun offenses based on what has worked somewhere else. .....what has been empirically evaluated to successfully reduce gun offenses."

Obviously gun offenses can be reduced by confiscating all guns. They can also be reduced by making it virtually impossible to own one, even though it might be theoretically possible to possess one. (which is the case in the UK) We have already seen evidence of that here in MA. Everett has earned a reputation of delaying the issuance of permits for months on end, to the point they are now being sued.

Evidently Mr. Heroux believes that something further can be added to MA gun laws.

Like many gun owners, I keep asking myself: Why has this gun "problem" descended on the lawful gun owners of this state?

This "problem" did not seem to be a "problem" before Sandy Hook, now it has become a "gun offenses" problem that needs to be solved. Prior to Sandy Hook, our politicians liked to brag about MA low murder rates, now we have a "problem".

Mr. Heroux has not written about any solutions that focus on criminals, to my knowledge (sorry if I missed those articles, I am sure you will correct the error of my ways). Nor have I seen a raft of bills heading in to the legislature aimed at criminals who commit gun crimes like we are seeing aimed at law abiding gun owners.

Mr. Heroux feels that there is some "middle ground" that we can all agree to meet upon in this gun control issue. Why does he automatically assume that gun owners have to give up some of their rights (or were not entitled to them in the first place) because in the opinion of the legislature, we now have a "gun offense" problem (which would be an enforcement problem, not a problem with legal gun owners).

This meeting at "middle ground" is a standard tactic used to achieve an eventual goal. It initially sounds like both parties compromised. But in the matter of gun control, only the gun owners compromise. Exactly what did the anti gun side "give up"? NOTHING. They lose no rights, incur no new costs, no new inconveniences.

Mr. Heroux, we are aware you read this forum, if you care to respond, please do so. Please do not respond via my email. It is time we all discussed this publicly.

 

[Serapis]

Okay, but not good enough. What's so special about "gun offenses?" Like "hate crime", there is really no difference between them and "standard" offenses. Would you rather get killed with a gun or with a shod boot? Would you rather get held at gunpoint or knifepoint? Would it be okay if someone murdered you because you had a hundred dollar bill in your wallet, versus not liking your skin color or life choices? Is there really a difference?

Allowing people to distinguish between gun crime and other crime is the gateway to acceptance of misleading crime statistics in geographies where gun restrictions have been put in place. For example, in the UK after heavy gun restrictions, gun crime is way down but violent crime regardless of tool is way up. See what I mean? The term "gun crime" is a device used by the left to manipulate the statistics.

Democrat State Rep? Good enough statement for me. You are not ever going to make them see your way 100 percent of the time. Take what you can get