Posted on 07/22/2012 9:22:02 AM PDT by frithguild
While I'm sympathetic to those who would wish to wave a magic wand to prevent tragedies like the one in Aurora Colorado, we all know that no such magic wand exists. I wish it did. I wish it were possible to simply pass a law and with its passing, prevent all future meaningless acts of violence - or all violence for that matter. If only such a thing were possible, I'd happily support it.
But since that isn't possible, we must tragically content ourselves to deal with what is. If we are to draft our laws based exclusively on what we wish for, then we intentionally consign ourselves to cope with the unintended consequences of poorly designed law. Past experience dictates that instead of doing so, it might actually be better to do nothing at all. But what we should really do is focus on the goals of the policy rather than the intent. And the only way to do that effectively, is to take into account both the benefits and costs of anything we consider. Anything else and we likely do ourselves more harm than good.
If it really would save lives and prevent all violence, then no one would be against the banning of all civilian firearm ownership. Regrettably, that isn't the case. Banning guns doesn't prevent violence, it only disarms the victims and empowers those who are still willing to flout the law. In microcosm, the theater in Aurora where the shooting occurred had a strict 'no firearms' policy. It was a 'gun free zone' as these shooting so often turn out to be. The victims of the shooting all obeyed the law and were unable to defend themselves while James Holmes, intent on murder, was totally unrestrained by it. Similarly, Chicago's strict gun control laws have done nothing to stem the constant flow of civilian blood in shooting after shooting after shooting.
Some are proposing the re-imposition of the Clinton era 'assault weapons' ban, but this is another red herring. Guns which operate identically to the one the shooter used could have been purchased legally under the Clinton era ban - as they are now in NJ, NY, CT and California where state bans are still in place. What's more, even an outright total ban of all guns, wouldn't have stopped this particular killing, which could have been accomplished with Gasoline and a match. The point is that if history has shown us anything, it's that someone intent on murder will always be able to find a way. The only question is, how easy do we intend to make it for them?
If we are going to pass a law which will restrict the rights of 300 million innocent and law abiding Americans, we shouldn't do it haphazardly. At the very least we should be certain that the law will achieve its desired effect. But no gun ban has even been shown to do so. On the contrary, by disarming only those who are willing to obey the law it has often had an opposite effect. Mandatory registration, background checks, psychological profiles and all the other laws which the left wants to pass, would also only effect the innocent and law abiding. Those intent on crime will not register their guns, and those that sell to them will do no background checks from the trunk of their car. These are all laws which punish the wrong people by design.
By all indications so far made public, none of those proposals would have done anything to prevent the Aurora shooting. So the cost to the innocent public would have been very high, and the benefit to the citizens of Aurora would be none whatsoever. That's the real tragedy of laws designed like these. It's simply a reality that passing additional restrictions on the innocent rarely restricts those intent on lawlessness - however much it might make us all feel better to pass such laws.
It's easy to craft policy that's really only designed to sooth our fears or our outrage, or our sense of self satisfaction. But that isn't how effective law is made. An effective law is one which accomplishes the goal it sets out to accomplish at a minimum cost, inconvenience, and reduction in liberty to innocent citizens. That is the world we live in. And it would add deep insult to an already significant injury to pursue the political goal of punishing the innocent, in a vain attempt to eliminate the guilty.
If the left has proposals which they believe are likely to achieve the goal of reducing public violence, I for one would be very interested in hearing them. But since all their past ideas regarding 'gun control' have all failed to accomplish what they set out to, I think it's time for them to begin thinking about new ideas. Punishing the innocent with restrictions has been tried and has failed... so it's time for them to consider something different that at least stands a remote chance of success.
You left off the sarcasm tag. Encouraging the ability to fight back will give people the tools to resist. Another law against something will just empower those who don't follow the law.
This is going to add fire to the Liberal and Obama specific Small Arms Treaty from the UN. The Liberals will let the dust settle and when the time is right let fly with the rhetoric about “ this is why we need the UN’s small arms treaty”. I feel it coming. They will milk this to the best of their ability. Be prepared my friends.
A tax on those who refuse to carry self protection devices. You must be a licensed pacifist or face a fine to cover the cost of providing security for you...
Which is my point in responding to the post I was answering. If Government is going to play any role here, it's to make those owners liable. Certainly, the patrons did not have to enter the property for the movie, but nor was the property owner forced to make disarmement a condition of access. If nothing else, the property owner has unequitably applied his policy. In this case, God only knows how many legitimate CCW permit holders voluntarily complied in the belief that the theater owner would enforce their ban. Holmes is proof that the owner(s) didn't.
I remember one September morning where 3000 Americans were murdered and firearms were never involved.
Another point to disagree with is that in preventing all violence it would also prevent violence against things like white-tailed deer, pronghorned antelope, wild hogs, bear and elk.
Preventing that kind of violence is immoral.
Let us take up the cause of banning all producers of needles and syringes...how many overdoses do we see in this quarter? If only needles and syringes did not exist there would be no heroin addicts and thus no overdose deaths. Better yet,....the Pharmaceuticals. Let us ban all medications...it is true that if one takes too many tylenol or aspirin it will kill. They would obviously say, used properly aspirin and tylenol would be helpful to patients and not kill. Would not the same thing be said of a firearm...if used properly, for what it was engineered and designed for, would not result in Joker massacres.
Here it come, thought, folks. Obama will seize the emotion of the left and Romney had better be ready. He needs to be ready to give a Constitutional reason why gun control is violative of Obamas oath to office. He needs to give a reason why it is more important now than ever not to be guided by the guile of emotion, but rather be deliberative and faithful to the Constitution. Emotionalism can be made to be a weak spot for obama if Romney just gives it a little thought.
Really? You rather that about 3 million of these are left on their own then? You mean you would rather that another Ted Bundy or James Holmes is left out there stewing in their demented mind?
There is most likely no way we could cover all..but is it worth it if we cover just one? I want you to go and ask the survivors of that killing if it would be worth it.
This used to be covered under local county administration. You are against that too?
Yep. Although Cyanide is sometimes detectable by smell, any number of gases would do.. Carbon monoxide, etc. It is simply a fact that in an enclosed area, it is quite simple to kill hundreds, probably easier without guns actually.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
The simple (and all too simplistic) answer is that anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm, whatever the cause, be it criminal behavior or mental defect, should not be running around loose. But confining them all is too costly.
On the other hand, having everyone who desires it armed and trained makes it likely that the damage inflicted by the miscreants will be minimized by those around them.
Well..they are running around loose and it is illegal for them to own a firearm.
And I was not talking about confining them. If you knew anything at all about the SMI, you would realize that there are several levels.
But then again, you couldnt understand, since you need to understand the simple answer.
And yes, if it was required that ALL LEGAL citizens of the country were armed..you wont get any argument from me on that point.
>Mentally ill people can get plenty of ideas and inspiration from violent “entertainment” in our pop culture<
And then, they are immersed in marxism and revolution by college professors and their peers. Sometimes, I am surprised we don’t have more of these atrocities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.