[quote]it's the access that the law-breaking citizens have that causes most people trouble
This is now totally cliched and worn out, but it's also true:
The problem with aiming laws at criminals, is that criminals by definition don't obey laws. If you try to keep criminals from living in a certain neighborhood, or owning certain products, etc., you will find that they don't work. If you keep that mindset, that idea of controlling what criminals do, the natural path is to make those laws more and more stringent, then draconian, then crushingly facist, until EVERYONE is hurt. This has happened with alcohol, with drugs, with food (SWAT raids of farmers selling raw milk? It has happened.), with guns, with post-incarceration disenfranchisement, with EVERYTHING that has ever been approached with a goal of controlling what criminals do. That is the logical/inevitable result of such laws.
In order to avoid that spiral, laws need to be built to address specific acts that society truly agrees are wrong. E.g. instead of passing laws against guns, pass laws against murder. Not "murder with a gun" unless that is considered extraordinarily heinous (which it shouldn't be, IMO, but YMMV).
One important point about that is that it avoids creating an oppressed underclass (and therefore increasing socioeconomic disparity/driving people to crime). Frederick Douglass said, "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." Well, what do you think laws targeting criminals are, except the embodiment of exactly such an organized conspiracy? What else can be said when anyone who has been convicted of a crime and could have been sentenced to 1 or more years in prison - whether that crime was violent or not - is legally barred from even living in the same house as a gun owner, as just one example?
Criminalizing the potential (e.g. ownership of something that can be used during a murder) creates underclasses and diminishes justice. Criminalizing the behavior (e.g. murdering) provides justice...but has a higher risk. Personally, I'd rather accept a higher risk in return for living in a more just society. Unfortunately, most Americans are a bunch of f'ing cowards and control freaks...and arguably most other places are worse. :(
[QUOTE=JoanieL;1023838]They won't. But we could fight back, and I really think just a few news stories about little old ladies offing muggers would start to deter the behavior. Also, any time you make something illegal, you open up a black market. People will buy what they want. They can either do it in the open, or they can deal with criminals.
But you're correct, people that feel they have some right to steal my stuff, or the right to hurt me physically will still feel that. No amount of legislation or lack thereof can change people's misguided (or right minded) thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I'm not one to push my views on others but this one just irritates me. Now while I'm sure we could all come up with select examples to support our views, I think this one supports mine very well. This could have ended very badly for the targeted family if someone was able to protect them from the boogeyman..
[url=http://tpnn.com/the-best-gun-story-youve-heard-in-a-long-while/]The Best Gun Story You've Heard In A Long While - TPNN | The Tea Party News Network[/url]
The football player guy would've killed his gf/wife, whether or not he had a gun. Had he had no gun, he might have used his fists, a knife, an end table, or whatever. It would have been harder to off himself though, unless he was willing to slash his own throat.
I have heard the name "Bob Costas", but don't give a rat's booty about football, or his opinion.
I am a responsible gun owner, and fully embrace the 2nd Ammendment. I am not for "gun control" because it only affects law abiding citizens. Why the ultra libs think that criminals are going to give up their guns (which they got illegally) is just beyond me.
An armed society is a polite society.
Bob didn't talk about the dangers of drinking or cars this Sunday.
Sad what happened in Oregon tho
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/]Several people shot as gunman opens fire at Oregon mall - CNN.com[/url]
[QUOTE=kenn;1029885]Bob didn't talk about the dangers of drinking or cars this Sunday.
If only we didn't have a culture of driving. We could save lives.
[QUOTE=primalrob;1023839]i totally understand that reasoning, but that's the thing...evil people aren't deterred by guns. not all, but some rapists, muggers, criminals, etc. live their daily lives under the threat of death in one form or another. handguns, concealed or not, don't seem to be a deterrent. [/QUOTE]
they don't need to be deterred by the gun. they need to be shot by it. the death penalty doesn't deter lunatics from killing people. it kills them. eliminates them from the planet.
this argument is so insane to me. this lunatic, just like countless other ones, was a criminal. he killed his mother, stole her guns and shot up a school. how would further regulating legal gun purchases stop something like this from happening? come on antis, let's hear it? so instead of his mother being a target shooter, lets just say she was a hunter. she owned shotguns and bolt action rifles instead of handguns and a semi automatic rifle. do shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles not kill kids as dead? the real issues has nothing to do with gun control laws.
I'd just like to state that both pro-gun and anti-gun people are stupid assholes.
[QUOTE=iniQuity;1035109]I'd just like to state that both pro-gun and anti-gun people are stupid assholes.[/QUOTE]
i have to agree. although i'm sure i'd be lumped in as a pro gun person. because i am. but anyone who so strongly pushes an agenda one way or another is typically an asshole. unfortunately, just like every other hot topic in this country, you have to take a side and defend it. if it was up to me, i'd just as soon be left alone to purchase whatever firearms i'd like to, so that i can hunt and target shoot whenever i'd like. i would never in a million years hurt a person with them, and they stay under lock and key at my house, they aren't accessible to anyone else.
its sad to me that the real issues of this situation (mental illness/bad parenting/etc) will be swept under the rug by some suit with an agenda trying to make it even harder for me to purchase a new hunting deer rifle, so that the streets can be so much safer. as it is in nj, anyone convicted of a domestic dispute can't purchase, anyone who has ever had a restraining order against them can't purchase, anyone guilty of an assault can't purchase, and anyone who has ever been an inpatient in a mental treatment facility can't purchase. background checks are done, fingerprinting is done, etc. i have no problem with any of that. but that can't stop a crazy person from stealing my guns, killing me and then using my guns against other people. as was the case in connecticut