Active Users:264 Time:15/05/2024 08:04:55 PM
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed Joel Send a noteboard - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM
I can't believe pro-gun folks haven't mentioned this. In 1997, during the height of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 in the strictest state in the Union, California, two men had illegally purchased automatic weapons, with illegal extremely high capacity drum magazines with armor piercing bullet and shot up half of the LA police force. Gun control couldn't get more strict than the environment these two procured their weapons in. Yet the bad guys still managed to do bad guy things.

Additionally, the DC snipers used a regular hunting rifle to kill a ton of innocent people and even children.

The only effect that gun control is going to have is to limit the number of guns good guys can get legally. If people expect their target audience of "bad guys" to be effected, they are living a pipe dream. History proves that bad guys will still find a way to commit mass murders.

Laws against robbery did not stop them either. Hell, EVERY law has been broken at one time or another; since breaking the law proves it restricts freedom without preventing crime, we should remove them all. *nods*

The point is not preventing all crime, but a far more complex multilevel one. First, it REDUCES the applicable crimes impairing the means and opportunity to commit them, thereby diminishing motive. Criminalizing the means for those with criminal history/proclivities allows their arrested the moment they are caught with a gun even if they have not yet committed OTHER (violent) crimes with it. Registration helps cops identify stolen guns before they are used in crimes. Even when those stopgaps fail to prevent gun violence, the ability to stack a half dozen charges on the perpetrator helps keep them in prison for an extended period even if they "only" kill one or two people instead of dozens. Mass shootings get the headlines, but liquor store robberies kill far more people.

In the case of mental health screening, gun control aids diagnosis, and therefore treatement, of dangerous mental illness, again before anyone is harmed. Not everyone who shoots people is a "bad guy" who will always get a gun and thus needs to a citizen-hero to shoot them. Many are just very mentally unstable people who do not need to be shot or possess anything more lethal than safety scissors, but do need medical supervision.

Of course, some aspects of gun control are not aimed at crime in ANY way. Mandatory training and certification is not designed to prevent crime, but accidents and misuse, which are common and dangerous with untrained gun users. When gun control advocates lament children finding their parents gun and injuring or killing themselves or others, gun rights advocates angrily and rightly respond that the parents should not have made the gun so easily accessible—it sure would be nice if someone mentioned that to the parents BEFORE their children grabs their gun. Now, you might say no one should need to be told something like that, but then we are back to "mandatory screening, training and certification for gun ownership."

There is FAR more to this than "laws intrude on personal freedom without preventing crime, therefore they are ineffective infringements we should repeal."
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 22/12/2012 at 06:14:27 AM
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1474 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 938 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 860 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 813 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 965 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1123 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 499 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 793 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 805 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 828 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 805 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 868 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 762 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 778 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 830 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 813 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 803 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 830 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 805 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 842 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1004 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 743 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 791 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 713 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 885 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 935 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 533 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 755 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 472 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 861 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 656 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 830 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 889 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 830 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 751 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 832 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 751 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 553 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 846 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 826 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 770 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 739 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 724 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 734 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 475 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 743 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 459 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 922 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 729 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 728 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 475 Views

Reply to Message