Ending Gun Violence: Common Sense versus Magic
Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 6 months ago to Government
"What passes for thinking about the prevention of gun violence is not thinking at all. Thinking (as problem-solving) is a search for means that can be reasonably expected to achieve a given end. By reasonably I mean that supporting arguments can be provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of reasonable people the connection between the means and ends. What we get from gun-control advocates is nothing like that; instead they operate on the magical belief that uttering certain words — codifying just the right incantation — will accomplish the end."
Their rampage was made all the more easy by the fact that the mayor - Boston born George Washington Collamore - had required all citizens firearms be locked up in an armory. He had made Lawrence a "gun-free" zone. It did not remain gun free for long.
Wanting to strip people of their means of self-de-
fense, and daring to label such stripping as "com-
mon sense", is not something we should allow to
go unchallenged. It is an actual insult.
To make new gun laws meaningful, the law enforcement community would have to expand enormously. More street cops would have to patrol high crime areas, which already complain that they're "overpoliced" as is. New cyber units would have to be more aggressive and invasive of personal privacy to prevent the growth of a robust black market.
Liberals don't like the idea of a police state, but they also don't want to admit that it's exactly what they're asking for with increasing the basis of criminal behavior in so many areas. Franco's Spain was a peaceful society, with a Guardia Civil patrolman armed with a submachine gun on every corner.
It works for them because the liberal media helps them lie, especially by only reporting negatives on the issue. The Uber driver being a case in point. He stopped a mass shooting with his concealed carry weapon, but that was not the focus of the coverage.
Every mass shooting, they lovingly cover how many guns the shooter, or his parents if that is who owns the guns, has. This recent incident and Sandy Hook were both cases of the parents having multiple weapons and the "kids" had access. Yet they always blame the inanimate firearm, not the irresponsible adults. I put kids in quotes in the previous sentence, since while the media kept referring to them as kids, they were both legal adults.
The problem is never the guns, it is always the people involved.
Neither I, my wife, nor the kids, have ever been involved in a shooting. Whether singular or a mass shooting. Of course were are responsible people with no severe mental issues. Other than the not being liberal one. I am sure they would love to make that an offense in and of itself.
Funny how that works, if you are not screwed up, you do not do screwed up things.
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/okay-...
.
My point is that this is simple at the idea level. It isn't when we implement it because we have something called emotions.
there would have been only one death -- the shooter's. -- j
.
.
Laws simply attempt to affix a punishment to an action sufficiently harsh that it dissuades the common man from evaluating such an alternative in a favorable light. The problem with this is twofold: first, that many current punishments for violence are unpersuasive: many current occupants of our prison system don't view incarceration as that big of a punishment in comparison to taking a life. It should be noted that as the death penalty has been reduced in use, the violent crimes which once warranted such measures have risen correspondingly. This is no coincidence.
The second problem is that the general populace who generally obey the laws have been systematically deprived of their rights to self-defense in the face of these crimes. The lawmakers have at once toned down the penalties for criminal behavior on the part of the criminals, and turned up the penalties on law-abiding citizens! What a perverse state of affairs!
Read: Spiral Dynamics by Ken Wilbur
The people who really understand this from personal experience are 60 and older, and most of them don't know how the first federal gun law was irrationally allowed to stand by the supreme court. That one judgement should be overturned and all the gun laws that followed it would be recognized as invalid and unconstitutional. No one in government has authority to redefine "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/0...