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.
You still haven't told me what types of laws could prevent someone who is on a suicide mission to kill as many people as possible before taking their own lives. There are God only knows how many other methods, materials and objects that are commonly available besides using guns to accomplish that. Although not a suicide mission the Happyland Fire in 1990 that killed 87 people was caused by an individual and a gallon of gasoline.
I believe I have answered your question in more than a few ways more than a few times...
Again, there really is no law that can entirely prevent the crimes the law is intended to address. I've made it clear there are always other ways someone wanting to perform an act of terrorism can and will do so.
Is this an argument against laws making it illegal to commit murder, for example? Of course not.
The argument that is fair and proper is which laws, imperfect though they may be, impossible though it may be to stop all terrorism, may prevent or lessen the occurrence of any such act of terrorism? Also to what extent these laws (now or being considered) are both constitutional AND realistically effective?
Unfortunately, this gets us to the difficult part, because it is very easy to point at alternative ways to perform an act of terrorism as if that means any law that attempts to prevent any form of terrorism is unworthy. While at the same time it is very difficult to know what crimes have NOT been committed thanks to the laws in place to prevent them.
I can readily agree, it is impossible to come by any good proof that banning any type of gun is an effective way to PREVENT terrorism. Extremely difficult as well to prove any such ban can even lessen the number killed by acts of terrorism and/or gun violence all considered. For all sorts of reasons.
Which leaves our elected officials with quite the public concern/policy challenge...
I believe I have answered your question in more than a few ways more than a few times...
Again, there really is no law that can entirely prevent the crimes the law is intended to address. I've made it clear there are always other ways someone wanting to perform an act of terrorism can and will do so.
Is this an argument against laws making it illegal to commit murder, for example? Of course not.
The argument that is fair and proper is which laws, imperfect though they may be, impossible though it may be to stop all terrorism, may prevent or lessen the occurrence of any such act of terrorism? Also to what extent these laws (now or being considered) are both constitutional AND realistically effective?
Unfortunately, this gets us to the difficult part, because it is very easy to point at alternative ways to perform an act of terrorism as if that means any law that attempts to prevent any form of terrorism is unworthy. While at the same time it is very difficult to know what crimes have NOT been committed thanks to the laws in place to prevent them.
I can readily agree, it is impossible to come by any good proof that banning any type of gun is an effective way to PREVENT terrorism. Extremely difficult as well to prove any such ban can even lessen the number killed by acts of terrorism and/or gun violence all considered. For all sorts of reasons.
Which leaves our elected officials with quite the public concern/policy challenge...
The issue is people have bought in to laws are intended to prevent anything. Why do we believe this? I mean it's not just you, but a lot if people some incredibly smart people too think that laws prevent things. Reminds me of the apocryphal legend of Cnut the Great on the beach ordering the waves to stop.
In truth laws can only (and always have) merely punished those found guilty of violations of them. We don't prevent terrorism by calling it illegal and writing a clause in the USC, the USC has plenty of clauses that involve acts that are performed in the execution of terrorism that apply. The same applies to semi-automatic rifles, used improperly there's a whole list of laws the person using one improperly will violate, potentially including murder amongst others (and if the punishment for murder isn't going to stop someone nothing will).
If you want to prevent anything you need to be vigilant about it, some ink on a page or bytes on a storage device isn't vigilance. If you want to stop mass shootings you need to determine what common factors all venues had that experienced mass shootings, then determine what measures you need to put in place to prevent those venues being targeted, then what security measures you need to put in place at those venues to prevent such an attack. Then which vectors of attack your actively trying to suppress (not much point in trying to prevent a truck ram attack on the 15th floor of a high rise). None of these however require any new laws to be enacted, just good old fashioned threat assessment. Not a magic bullet either, but it will be more effective than some ignored ink on a page that's only looked at after another event you're trying to prevent.
Perhaps you'd be happier living in a country like Somalia without any rule of law.
That's why you criminalize it first so they are no longer law-abiding.
And there in one sentence is the crux of the matter. Gun control isn’t about reducing crime or saving lives, it is all about control. Government has a very hard time controlling law-abiding citizens. So they simply criminalize various actions/activities/objects until they have the control they need.
Repeal the second amendment, ban all guns except revolvers, double-barrel shotguns, and single-shot rifles. Start the process of taking them out of circulation, stop pretending it is impossible when most countries have successfully accomplished the same.
Do you understand the process to repeal an amendment, or adopt a new one? Do you really believe repealing the 2nd is possible?
This brings up a good question: How many wounded survivors of the Las Vegas shooting will be saddled with huge medical expenses that may break them financially? Isn't it time for legislation that provides medical care for victims of violence?
Absolutely not. Why should the government be picking winners and losers of the bad luck game?
Have ANY of you gun rights supporters taken the 15 seconds it takes to review the findings that the original poster linked to?
You can't keep arguing some of your insane arguments if you take a look at the FACTS. Fewer guns leads to fewer deaths. The fewer the guns, the safer things are for most people. Stricter gun control laws lead to fewer needless deaths. It's really not that hard.
Replace “guns” in your post with “cars” and try selling that. If you really care about fewer deaths, it should make perfect sense. But we know that’s not really what you care about.
We now must submit to searches and pat downs to gain access to planes, special events, hotels, and who knows what else. Your freedom to have your guns is infringing on my freedom from against unreasonable searches.
And we have another one who doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights, nor who is constrained by them.
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.
