Rudy Guiliani

[Brett327]

Well, following that statement to its logical conclusion, any laws would be, by their nature, as fundamentally flawed as gun laws, so why bother passing them at all? I'm not saying that recent gun legislation hasn't been deeply ridiculous, and I'm not saying that better enforcement of existing gun laws wouldn't be far more effective, but "laws only affect the lawful" is a pretty weak argument against legislation.

Here's the important difference, and I think you understand where I'm going with this. Creating a set of restrictions on an object, like when/how/how many/what kinds of guns you can purchase legally does nothing to stop the criminal (or potential criminal) since said criminal does not acquire his gun in a legally sanctioned way. I'm not even going to go down the "But we're depriving citizens of their ability to defend themselves" road. It is flawed thinking when lawmakers believe that these restrictions will stop those who use guns in the commission of crimes. Your "logical conclusion" argument is weak for the following reason: A law should have a purpose and realistic aim. Murder, for example, is already a crime and those who kill are prosecuted. The prohibition against it probably deters some people from killing, but it is fundamentally a tool to punish perpetrators after the fact and that is a good thing. Gun laws are in a completely different category and do not limit the crimes they seek to redress either before, or after the fact.

Brett

 

[metro]

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of gun control advocates in that the laws they implement apply only to those that observe the law.

Exactly.

For example, before I owned any guns at all, I did not intend to commit a violent crime.

I now own several semi-automatic firearms. I still have no desire nor intention to commit a violent crime.

Now, let's change some variables.

Change: semi-automatic firearms to automatic firearms.

I now own several automatic firearms. I still have no desire nor intention to commit a violent crime.

Let's try another change.

Change: semi-automatic weapons to single-shot firearms.

I now own several single-shot firearms. I still have no desire nor intention to commit a violent crime.


Now, let's change the scenario from regarding me to regarding someone who has desire and intention to commit violent crimes.

Bob has no weapons to speak of, other than his bare hands. He intends to commit a violent crime.

Now another change.

Change: no weapons to speak of to semi-automatic weapons/automatic weapons

Bob has several semi-automatic weapons/automatic weapons. He intends to commit a violent crime.

Furthermore, Bob will go to any length to obtain what he feels is necessary to perform this violent crime, up to and including ignoring any laws restricting his ability to obtain/preventing him from obtaining it.

Conclusion:

Through the application of logic to the problem, it is understood that changing the subjective variable of how many/what type/characteristics of/presence of weapons of any sort does not change the situation of whether or not a person intends to commit a violent crime.

To quote the TV show "All In The Family":

Sally Struthers: Did you know that X number of people were killed by gunshots last year?

Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?



This sort of reasoning/logic is what anti-gun/gun control lobbyists either don't understand or choose to ignore. Considering the basic and simplistic nature of the line of logic, I find it hard to believe that they don't understand, and instead believe that they choose to ignore it.

Therefore:

Opinion: Continuing to allow guns to be available causes people to commit crimes.

Opinion: Removing guns from the marketplace will prevent/reduce crime levels.

Unfortunately, opinions cannot be proven. But facts can.

Fact: Restricting/banning firearms only restricts/prevents law-abiding citizens who wish to obtain firearms in a legal manner from obtaining them.

Sorry for the long, soapbox post, but (obviously) I feel very strongly about the issue.

 

[Cate]

Brett - Actually, in what is becoming an eerily frequent occurrence, we don't really disagree here. The presence or absence of a bayonet mount, f'rinstance, isn't going to make a whole lot of difference as to the use of the weapon itself (outside of some really contrived premeditated crime centering around a rifle-mounted-bayonetting, which strikes me more as an exception than a rule). Arbitrary laws like that don't, as you pointed out, do anything to prevent crime and only really restrict lawful hobbyists. However, that doesn't mean that gun ownership can't be responsibly and minimally regulated in the interest of public safety. My argument was just that gun laws should be applied and enforced only as and exactly as other laws are - because of the same "weak logic" that you a) just argued against but b) ultimately agree with, if you really think about it.

metro - I got bored about a third of the way through yours and stopped reading. Lots of line spaces, a couple of bolds, and an Archie Bunker quote. Whatever. We probably agree.

 

[Brett327]

Brett - Actually, in what is becoming an eerily frequent occurrence, we don't really disagree here. The presence or absence of a bayonet mount, f'rinstance, isn't going to make a whole lot of difference as to the use of the weapon itself (outside of some really contrived premeditated crime centering around a rifle-mounted-bayonetting, which strikes me more as an exception than a rule). Arbitrary laws like that don't, as you pointed out, do anything to prevent crime and only really restrict lawful hobbyists. However, that doesn't mean that gun ownership can't be responsibly and minimally regulated in the interest of public safety. My argument was just that gun laws should be applied and enforced only as and exactly as other laws are - because of the same "weak logic" that you a) just argued against but b) ultimately agree with, if you really think about it.

metro - I got bored about a third of the way through yours and stopped reading. Lots of line spaces, a couple of bolds, and an Archie Bunker quote. Whatever. We probably agree.

I'm glad we "agree," but you still skirted the issue. What more could I expect from a skirt? How is regulation in the public interest if those you're seeking to regulate are not subject to the regulation? For clarity's sake, I argue that those who commit crimes with guns, neither obtain them through legal (regulated) channels, nor are they likely to be subject to any enforcement of such regulations until after a crime has been committed. If you accept these premises (skirt notwithstanding), how can you honestly say that regulation serves the desired outcome of increased public safety?

Brett

 

[Cate]

Brett - And once again you bring back, in the context of gun control, that which is an issue for all laws - the fact that they only, in the end, apply to the lawful.

But I will clarify (ahem, and oh, Lordy): While regulation of legal channels can't eliminate gun crime completely, it can cut down on it. The NRA, f'rinstance, is completely against any licensing or regulation of private vendors and/or vendors at gun shows, but the NASGD says that it could cut down on gun sales to buyers who are specifically avoiding traditional venues (with background checks and/or waiting periods) because they're up to something. (Of course, I also think that the government should crack down more on the employers who regularly hire illegal immigrants, but that's another debate for another thread.)

There's also something to be said for preventing accidental death. This is, of course, a much slipperier subject, because it involves gun owners who are, for the most part, lawful, but may have been negligent. That having been said, federal manufacturing standards for trigger locks and mandated firearms safety courses could go a long way toward raising awareness. Again, this is legislation addressing not so much crime as general public safety, and it's contingent on Charlton Heston not going all "cold dead hands" on the idea of throwing the AK into a safe when the kids are around; done carefully and consciously, firearms can be minimally regulated without violating the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Beyond the actual acquisition of the firearm, everything else is just "crime." I'm not crazy about gun use as an aggravating circumstance because that really only demonizes firearms; any gun crime is really just a regular crime that happened to involve a gun. Murder is murder whether it's by shooting or stabbing, so putting more energy into fighting crime in general and less into deciding whether a handgun or a shotgun is worse would certainly free up our justice system.

I think that the most important thing at this point is for Congress to not try to pass any more gun legislation until they get a new study on the subject to know what the current challenges are and how effective past legislation has been. Most of the information floating around right now is outdated and/or biased and/or inconclusive - like the fact that, depending on who you talk to, somewhere between two and seventy percent of guns used in crimes came from unlicensed sellers. Real helpful, guys.

To finally answer your question (if I must), you pass punitive legislation for the unlawful and regulatory legislation for the lawful, but you do all of it smartly (which no one on either side of the debate has yet done) so that the lawful have an incentive to remain lawful and the unlawful are consistently punished for their crimes. This means passing regulations that aren't an overwhelming burden on well-meaning gun owners and dealers, and it means consistently enforcing punitive laws already on the books, and if you want me to get any more specific than that, it's going to take pages and pages and it's late and I've had a long day and my contacts are drying out and you can do the damn research yourself if you're peeing yourself for it right this second.

And what is it with you guys and my skirt and my shoes? Am I that much of a novelty? You have met girls before, right?

 

[raptor10]

Brett - And once again you bring back, in the context of gun control, that which is an issue for all laws - the fact that they only, in the end, apply to the lawful.

Great post, BUT,Three Strikes Laws don't apply to the lawful, and neither do fines for littering, speeding, etc, etc...

 

[raptor10]

And what is it with you guys and [...girls]

You need help to figure out why guys like girls??? F- for headwork Cate...

 

[Cate]

Great post, BUT,Three Strikes Laws don't apply to the lawful, and neither do fines for littering, speeding, etc, etc...

Wow. Way to ignore fifteen and a half column inches of post and zero in on the first two lines.

I bet you walked out on Casino Royale, didn't you.

 

[raptor10]

I read the last two lines too...:icon_cry:

and: never saw it but I'm downl... err planning to soon

 

[Brett327]

And what is it with you guys and my skirt and my shoes? Am I that much of a novelty? You have met girls before, right?

If you lift that skirt up, that will certainly be a novelty, assuming there's something worthwhile to gaze at. In that context, the rest of your post bores me. :sleep_125

Brett

 

[Herc_Dude]

Can we start debating abortion now .... maybe global warming too? :icon_cool (had to add the shades due to the world melting before our eyes .... or something like that. Where are my Al Gore talking points when I need them)

 

[Cate]

If you lift that skirt up, that will certainly be a novelty, assuming there's something worthwhile to gaze at. In that context, the rest of your post bores me. :sleep_125

Brett

No skin off my teeth. If I've learned one thing from political discussions here, it's that the sound of y'all abandoning the subject at hand to talk about my ass is the sound of debate victory.

 

[Brett327]

No skin off my teeth. If I've learned one thing from political discussions here, it's that the sound of y'all abandoning the subject at hand to talk about my ass is the sound of debate victory.

If that makes you feel better, you can think that.

Brett

 

[Cate]

If that makes you feel better, you can think that.

Brett

Hey, you've made it two and a half pages without calling me "sweetheart" or "babydoll." That's a victory in and of itself, peaches.

 

[raptor10]

Hey, you've made it two and a half pages without calling me "sweetheart" or "babydoll." That's a victory in and of itself, peaches.

Typical liberal skewing of the facts right there... I've got my profile set to 40 posts per page so by my standards... albeit higher and more "conservative," we've only gone a page and an eighth...