01-29-2004, 12:20 AM
Not banned, but controled. Background checks, a registry with balistics test results for every weapon, and their owners vital information, bans on all fully automated weapons and hollowpoint ammo, all keep huge gun crimes down. Why? Simply reducing access. Black market weapons would obviously be available, but your average thug isn't going to get those just to make his penis look bigger.
How are the "it won't be a perfect solution, therefore we should abandon the entire concept altogether" people not laughed out of town when they support the wars on terror and drugs? It's the same thing, a cause that won't yeild perfect results, and certainly not istantaneously. Instead of tweaking to a working point, why not just stop and claim it's for the greater good?
Then there's the cascade people. They honestly believe that something like adding safeties to guns is going to cause a total ban. How? Search me, I don't understand that kind of irrational fear. Of course, there's always the boolean logic that it's either total ban or no control at all. Sort of a "for us or agaisnt us" we're-too-inept-to-consider-options argument. Controling legal guns gives police more to work with when somebody gets shot. The unique rifle marks on bullets found at the scene could be tracked back to the gun owner with a simple stroll through an electronic database. Finding a slug of illegal caliber tells them to not bother with a large amount of information. Does that remove guns from peoples possession, or restrict rights regarding ownership of firearms? Waiting periods while a background check goes on allows any history of violent crimes to come up. Getting rid of that allows more people who shouldn't own a gun have one, which is a cornerstone of anti-control arguments: "to defend you and your family [from people who shouldn't have weapons but do]". Okay, so maybe it was just a burglar with a butterfly knife, but they aren't dangerous beyond arms length.
There will always be criminals, and there will always be violent crime. That's just the way some people turn out. By being paranoid of losing gun ownership, people are willing to justify giving them guns with "but we'll have guns with which to defend ourselves". The short answer is not if they shoot first. That's the simple fact about guns; only the one who shoots first wins. When everybody has a gun, and someone breaks into an occupied house, they're just going to sit around a corner and get the drop on the homeowner. Petty break-and-enters are never intentional while the house is occupied. Sure "for self-defense" sounds good now, but that's only while you win the hypothetical stand-off.
Having a gun for a sense of security is a fallacy. You are no more resistant to bullets, and are dangerously more gung-ho. In a home invasion I can see a gun being much needed leverage, but on a street? What if you get into a really bad fight with a significant other or spouse? An a-hole driver (or would everyone owning a gun elimiate road rage)? Where is the self-control limit? How many people would get too pissed to think about consequences, and how many others would shoot them? What about a couple sick people who grab some fully automatic rifles and decide to mow down the kids in a school when they come running out after they set off the fire alarm? I could do it tomorrow if there wasn't a ban on that kind of weaponry. With the afforementioned registry, I would get caught even if I did it with legal arms. But we can't have that, since it constitutes a constitutional breach.
How are the "it won't be a perfect solution, therefore we should abandon the entire concept altogether" people not laughed out of town when they support the wars on terror and drugs? It's the same thing, a cause that won't yeild perfect results, and certainly not istantaneously. Instead of tweaking to a working point, why not just stop and claim it's for the greater good?
Then there's the cascade people. They honestly believe that something like adding safeties to guns is going to cause a total ban. How? Search me, I don't understand that kind of irrational fear. Of course, there's always the boolean logic that it's either total ban or no control at all. Sort of a "for us or agaisnt us" we're-too-inept-to-consider-options argument. Controling legal guns gives police more to work with when somebody gets shot. The unique rifle marks on bullets found at the scene could be tracked back to the gun owner with a simple stroll through an electronic database. Finding a slug of illegal caliber tells them to not bother with a large amount of information. Does that remove guns from peoples possession, or restrict rights regarding ownership of firearms? Waiting periods while a background check goes on allows any history of violent crimes to come up. Getting rid of that allows more people who shouldn't own a gun have one, which is a cornerstone of anti-control arguments: "to defend you and your family [from people who shouldn't have weapons but do]". Okay, so maybe it was just a burglar with a butterfly knife, but they aren't dangerous beyond arms length.
There will always be criminals, and there will always be violent crime. That's just the way some people turn out. By being paranoid of losing gun ownership, people are willing to justify giving them guns with "but we'll have guns with which to defend ourselves". The short answer is not if they shoot first. That's the simple fact about guns; only the one who shoots first wins. When everybody has a gun, and someone breaks into an occupied house, they're just going to sit around a corner and get the drop on the homeowner. Petty break-and-enters are never intentional while the house is occupied. Sure "for self-defense" sounds good now, but that's only while you win the hypothetical stand-off.
Having a gun for a sense of security is a fallacy. You are no more resistant to bullets, and are dangerously more gung-ho. In a home invasion I can see a gun being much needed leverage, but on a street? What if you get into a really bad fight with a significant other or spouse? An a-hole driver (or would everyone owning a gun elimiate road rage)? Where is the self-control limit? How many people would get too pissed to think about consequences, and how many others would shoot them? What about a couple sick people who grab some fully automatic rifles and decide to mow down the kids in a school when they come running out after they set off the fire alarm? I could do it tomorrow if there wasn't a ban on that kind of weaponry. With the afforementioned registry, I would get caught even if I did it with legal arms. But we can't have that, since it constitutes a constitutional breach.