Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Move gun control up a couple clicks to just above elder care tax breaks and move prayer in schools to the top of the list and scooch hate speech just under homosexual marriage.
...
I do not wish to enlist in the list wars, but on the theory that it is more cost-effective to prevent violence than to clean up afterward, I might be tempted to push gun control up a few more notches. Yes, it is true that most criminals will get guns despite gun laws, but gun laws give law enforcement a tool for getting some repeat offenders off the streets, and since repeat offenders make up a large percentage of criminal activity, this is a resource I think we should exploit. Someone who is not allowed to simply buy a gun legally will be forced to take illegal routes, and when they take these other routes, there is a chance of catching some of them.
I don't think there is any practical way to stop first-time offenders, but the opportunity to stop even a small percentage of repeat offenders is probably going to yield an overall return on our investment, so long as we actually prosecute those who violate the laws.
I think these last few pages really goes to show the mentality of those wanting gun law reform. They want to save lives, which we all want to do. It's a truism.
Then asking a simple question: what's your priority list and what methodology do you use to rank them, and they break down. If it was about saving lives, we'd allocate the most money to what would save the most lives. And we all know that isn't firearms. They CAN'T admit that because they feel it goes against their agenda.
So instead, it's page after page of dodge, snark, etc.
Which is an answer in and of itself. They're not interested in saving lives.
I made a similar point and asked a similar question in another thread, but I don't recall ever getting an answer. In my case the question was about 6-year-old kids carrying guns, since, technically, children are citizens too. It think it is pretty obviously that the 2nd doesn't apply to kids, so obviously some interpretations and limitations are needed. The question is what limits to apply? I think that not allowing felons to carry guns, or young children, or people who have publicly announced their allegiance to a terrorist agenda, etc., are perfectly reasonable restrictions, and I suspect that most of the founders who originally supported the 2nd Amendment would agree (tho trying to figure out what historical figures would have said about this or that is generally a guessing game - not anything you can fruitfully use in philosophical debates).
Sure is nice to read something that doesn't involve the list requirement repetition, something a bit more inviting to thought and less bark, bark, bark...
Along those lines, I wonder about the restriction for "people who have publicly announced their allegiance to a terrorist agenda," because we all know (or I think we all should know), that one man's "terrorist agenda" is another man's cause for freedom and justice. How many organizations in the United States were deemed "enemies of the state" in our past that today don't sit so well from the standpoint of historical hindsight?
I already answered that question in post #179. Only a clueless person would think that way.
On the other hand, not including any kids, why the hell do we allow people, who we don't trust to own firearms, to live outside of prison or hospital? Somehow, we don't trust them to own guns but we trust them to be near our children and to possess knives, hammers, clubs, home made bombs, gasoline, poisons etc. etc. etc.?
That logic is beyond my comprehension.
I've known plenty of people in my day who I "don't trust to own firearms," but who also don't qualify for prison or a hospital. Interesting question or dilemma either way. Should a soldier with PTSD be allowed to own a gun? Poor guy can't sleep at night, and now we take away his gun?
Or can't sleep at night and thinks the backfire of a car outside is the enemy, so he starts shooting at it?
I wonder if there is a magic list that can help us figure this one out too...
I do not wish to enlist in the list wars, but on the theory that it is more cost-effective to prevent violence than to clean up afterward, I might be tempted to push gun control up a few more notches.
A good point, especially for some who view public policy strictly as a function of available resources, there is also the potential savings or costs to society to consider (not to strain the single-focused mind too much).
Anyone have a good cost estimate, better than what wikipedia offers?
"In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs."
I've known plenty of people in my day who I "don't trust to own firearms," but who also don't qualify for prison or a hospital. Interesting question or dilemma either way. Should a soldier with PTSD be allowed to own a gun? Poor guy can't sleep at night, and now we take away his gun?
Or can't sleep at night and thinks the backfire of a car outside is the enemy, so he starts shooting at it?
I wonder if there is a magic list that can help us figure this one out too...
A court needs to decide that not you. My point is if a court has decided that a particular person shouldn't own firearm, why should we allow that person to stay outside of prison?
A good point, especially for some who view public policy strictly as a function of available resources, there is also the potential savings or costs to society to consider (not to strain the single-focused mind too much).
Anyone have a good cost estimate, better than what wikipedia offers?
"In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs."
I have no issue to push gun control that is focusing on the criminals - that is if we are looking for the real solution.
I would be against any gun control measure that is focusing on the law abiding citizens.
A court needs to decide that not you. My point is if a court has decided that a particular person shouldn't own firearm, why should we allow that person to stay outside of prison?
I just don't get people who respond with this sort of reply. Of course we're talking what the law should do, not as you, me or any other "Tom, Dick or Harry" might decide! Please...
Are we not discussing what we think should be the law, or not?
As to your question, here is just one example that might help you with the answer you are looking for; if someone has been convicted of a crime, say a felony -- armed robbery -- and say he has done the time, now considered free to be back on the street. Do we have more good reason or bad to prevent that person from owning a gun?
Or say someone was once hospitalized, now better and now living on their own, but not exactly 100 percent...
I have no issue to push gun control that is focusing on the criminals - that is if we are looking for the real solution.
I would be against any gun control measure that is focusing on the law abiding citizens.
It is real simple, increase the punishment for using a gun in a crime.
That is common sense.
Instead you have anti gun liberals who want to reduce sentencing for criminal acts and restrict the civil rights of all Americans. An example, in California is used to be if you stole a gun you would be charged with a felony. A prop passed in the last couple of years that reduced that crime to a misdemeanor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Listless...
