This is why new gun control laws won't solve much

[Speedy]

davester wrote:
[quote=Spock]
If one of our resident firearm advocates believes gun control laws won't solve much then banning all firearms is the only logical answer.

This is the only logical conclusion stemming from Racer X's post. Who knew that he would finally come up with something reasonable.
Yes, ban them all.

[cbelt3]

The Law only works as 'designed' when it is enforced and adjudicated equally and fairly. And it's our current 'system' of justice that is badly damaged. Politics and corruption is entrenched, and there is a distinct difference in how adjudication happens based on the wealth of the defendants.

It's a self-perpetuating loop. The legal profession enriches itself in an organized manner by designing laws (which is a lot like making sausage, but with dollar bills as the floor sweepings). Those with funds can bypass the law. The business of making and selling weapons is riddled with corruption and illegal acts. And it's deeply frustrating to those of us, like Racer X, who take shooting as a hobby.

Access and ownership of guns should not be a 'one issue voter' polarizing political problem. Laws that exist should be properly enforced. The flow of illegal gun purchasers and sellers should be cut off as the laws intended.

Enforcement and adjudication needs to be stepped up, and lives will be saved.

[deckeda]

No one wants new laws.
We all want better laws.

1. Think of them, and TREAT them, as replacement laws and you’ll begin to understand what makes a better law as opposed to just a chaotic jumble of random things that can never do anything.

2. Laws don’t exist in a vacuum and the best ones are self-policing. Instead of wishing for an army of others to perfectly police laws it’s best to have the same people who would otherwise commit crimes self-police. This can be done directly (change their way of thinking) or indirectly (remove temptation/opportunity.)

Here’s what’s ironic about that Yahoo news article.

“There’s enough rules and regulations on the books right now to take care of what needs to be taken care of. The gun shows ain’t the problem, and the gun stores ain’t the problem.”

Who wrote that? Racer X? Good guess, but it was the guy convicted of breaking an existing law he claims should be good enough to stop violence, because of course if he sells highly toxic chemicals it’ll never be his fault how someone uses them in soup.

So does that mean Caraway laments his own sentencing wasn’t harsher? Doubtful, because it’s ALWAYS someone else’s fault, it’s always someone else’s responsibility.

[SteveG]

mmm...small and strokeable

[S. Pupp]

Allow all guns. If there really are 390,000,000 guns in this country, anti-gun laws won't help.

Instead, regulate ammunition.

[deckeda]

S. Pupp wrote:
… Instead, regulate ammunition.

The Gillette razor refill model LOL!

[Ombligo]

We need to get off the ban guns stage - it isn't going to happen, stop deluding yourself. The second amendment is not going to be interpreted the way you want. While a new constitutional amendment could nullify the second, that is not going to realistically occur in my or my son's lifetime.

Remember that there are just as many people supporting gun ownership as against it. Further, the vast majority of gun owners are never going to cause any issue, they are law-abiding citizens.

Crackdown hard on violators and perhaps some of the problems can be overcome. Beyond that and you are fooling yourself.

[SDGuy]

Steve G. wrote:
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.

[SteveG]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=Steve G.]
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.
Hey, mine's got pictures!

[davester]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=Steve G.]
...mmm...small and strokeable

That's why I enjoy this side of the forum so much - for the thoughtful, well-reasoned, keen, and insightful arguments I can read here...not like other forums where folks tend to just do one-liner drive-by posts.
This problem can be rectified by placing about two people on "ignore".