Only 4 Gun Laws Needed - IMHO

[dburkhead]

I posted this thread basically because here in California, there is absolutely no way that we are going to reform our highly restrictive gun control laws without some kind of major compromise.

Now that's a bit of a different question. There's a difference between what I think should be and what I think is politically achievable.

However, I do think that "compromise" which amounts to cut off your right arm because they're asking for right and left. And then when they come back and ask for left arm and right leg, cut off the left arm. And when they come back and ask for both legs, cut off the right, is a bad idea no matter how politically achievable. It's that kind of "compromise" the anti-rights folk have been offering.

Instead of compromise, think of the same way the anti-rights folks stole the rights in the first place--small, achievable steps. Don't try to get everything all at once. Instead, find some small bit that's amenable to change and get it changed in the pro-rights direction. Then reentrench at the new position and look for the next small bit. And so on and so on. That's how we've lost our rights over the last 74 years (counting from NFA--although it could be argued that it started long before that). It's the same kind of approach that can be taken to win them back.

 

[chucksolo69]

Advocating strong penalties for use of a firearm in the comission of a crime is an excellent idea, however, isn't this kind of ex post facto. It is kind of like calling the police after the crime is commited, right. The police can't protect you.....so on and so forth. What I want to know is how the people posting here and advocating absolutely no restricton on gun sales or ownership to anyone, would keep the criminal element from obtaining weapons; I am understanding right, there should be absolutely no restrictions on anyone posessing or purchasing firearms regardless of criminal past; correct? So far only one person who posted addressed that question with a "You can't" comment. Is there no thought as to "prevention" of violent gun crime by criminals to begin with? See, this comes full circle. Many of you are going to come back and say, "Criminals don't obey laws so, gun control only affects law abiding citizens." How then, as law abiding citizens do we take responsibility for our gun ownership so that guns don't fall into the hands of criminals. I doubt that most of you keep ALL your guns in a safe. You must keep one or two out for defensive purposes, right? So if one of those guns falls into the hands of a criminal through theft, isn't it your responsibility since you failed to keep that gun secure? See where I am going with this. None of you have addressed what our responsibilities are as gun owners. Should there be penalties for being an irresponsible gun owner? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, "Crap happens."

 

[bclark1]

The flaw of the above reasoning is you are assuming a closed system. That's not the case. You can ban gun sales 100%, today, and crime using guns would persist. They would come from Mexico and the Carribean, they would be stolen from legal owners, police and military, they would come from somewhere. And if you dried them up around the world, people would use more shanks and clubs. Where there's a will, there's a way - and that rings especially true with those bent on thwarting the law.

We can't prevent violence. We've known that since Cain wasted Abel. "Gun violence" is in no way markedly different from any other violence, but for the irrational emotionalism attached to it by people who don't think the issue through. The real question is: How do we minimize the consequences of the lawless' violent intentions? Guns only come into the calculus as a peripheral technological equalizer - they are not a focal point of the discourse on violence itself.

 

[dburkhead]

What I want to know is how the people posting here and advocating absolutely no restricton on gun sales or ownership to anyone, would keep the criminal element from obtaining weapons;

That's like asking how to keep the sun from rising in the morning, or the ground from getting wet after a rain. You can't. The one thing that 74 plus years of gun control has taught is that gun control, for the claimed purpose of keeping guns away from criminals does not work. I mean, people make guns from scratch using hand tools and primitive power tools. All the efforts of the DEA, the Coast Guard, and various local authorities aren't able to stem the tide of illegal drugs. How can they possibly stem the tide of "illegal guns"?

You can't keep criminals from obtaining guns if they want them. I mean, look at Mumbai. India has all the gun control Sarah Brady could want and still a handful of individuals were able to obtain fully automatic weapons and spread fear and chaos in their wake.

Gun control doesn't work, at least not for its stated purpose. And, furthermore, the folk in office proposing and passing these gun control bills know this. And when the stated purpose doesn't work, one has to wonder what unstated purpose drives the continued efforts to pass more and more gun control.

 

[chucksolo69]

OK agreed. So anyone and everyone should be able to procure handguns, etc., correct?

 

[Al Norris]

Chuck, by your own admission, you started the thread under false pretenses. Added to that, you don't appear to want to engage in meaningful discourse with those that have actually pointed out the flaws in your "4 laws." You've had ample time to do so, yet you still insist upon "watching the thread to see what the responses are."

That sir is nothing more than stirring the pot.

Thread closed.