Like I said, the problem isn't that there aren't laws, it's that the 20,000 existing laws aren't ENFORCED.
And that we ARE too lenient on habitual offenders, and too willing to look the other way when things are unpleasant. If that 6-year-old had been isolated, removed from a clearly detrimental home environment, and treated after his FIRST or even SECOND suspension, all of that might have been prevented.
(Of course, you won't hear any of the 'social engineers' calling for that, as it's a 'forbidden' mode of thought.)
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Just in case things are getting too heated, let me remind you that I think you're a nice guy, First. Honest! Now, the hating can continue.
You still aren't making much of a case for the right to purchase a gun immediately, no questions asked. Look, if I'm in a bad situation and aware of it, then I need to take whatever steps I feel necessary. (The first of which should be to notify the police, but why do that when I might get the chance to shoot somebody? And yes, that was meant to be humorous, and yes I'm aware that confidence in The Law is by no means universal nor universally justified. Though with such a view I wonder what keeps us from simply taking the anarchist argument to heart.) But if whatever bad thing that is going to occur occurs with no prior warning, then being able to purchase a gun in five minutes will do me about as much good as being able to hum the entire score to "H.M.S. Pinafore" backwards and in perfect pitch. Besides, if my first exposure to a gun is when I buy it because a shady figure is following me down the street, I'm going to be more dangerous to myself than the bad guy.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
I agree with you, at least partially. The police, despite their clearly limited effectiveness, should be enlisted whenever possible.
Say you're a woman whose just gotten out of a bad situation. Now, you're maybe living with your sister till you can get back on your own feet.
Say your ex starts harassing you by phone or mail or other bad things. Your life is not yet obviously in danger. If you go to the police, they will tell you "Look, you can get a restraining order, but we really can't do anything about it until he violates it." But a smart person gets a restraining order anyway, since it's good evidence that you at least TRIED to stop the guy beforehand. (assuming he even gave you the chance to go and get a R.O. filed.)
Three things can now happen. One, the R.O. can be totally effective, in which case the problem is over. This isn't often the case.
Two, the R.O. keeps him away, physically, but the letters and phone calls keep coming, and he's getting bolder testing the physical limits of the R.O., because now he knows he's got you worried. After all, he reasons, the state can't afford a 24-hour watch on you and your house and your sister (who he has by now transferred at least some of his anger towards.)
Eventually, having no overt incidents to deal with, your case is moved to the back burner and most of your protection is withdrawn. Now is the time to strike. Even IF anyone notices or anyone calls, he figures it's at least 15 minutes until anybody shows up. Plenty of time for a good crowbarring.
In this case, a smart person MAY have had a few weeks to 'cool off' (although why would the victim need a cooling-off period?) before the gun was necesary.
Then there's the third possibility: That the R.O. is useless, and only serves to further enrage the guy. If you've gotten a police presence (a rarity), that doesn't matter to him, either. All that does is hurting you. So he waits for the car to go by, breaks in, and hurts you. Too bad you were only into the first week. Oh, well.
Background checks are pretty much all computerized now. They take place at nearly the speed of light. If you're clear, what's the problem in not having to wait? I can see making someone wait if there's something questionable about them, but that's not true in far over 90% of the cases. And when the fact that almost all murderers have a long string of criminal behaviour behind them (often including felonies), that should be picked up by the background check, as well.
It comes down to: how much are you willing to restrict the rights of the already law-abiding vast majority, in order to crack down on the minority of (already) law-breaking people? And, does the proposal in fact 'crack down' on ANYBODY? In effect, the proposal functions as thought police, attempting to punish someone BEFORE they have broken any law.
"If you are good, what harm does not being able to do this do you?" is a question which is essentially equivalent to "If you have nothing to hide, wouldn't you answer?" re: "The Drumhead."
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
To be fair, I've never put forth any proposal on how long a waiting period should be, because I simply don't know. What I do know, or at least have convinced myself to believe, is that the right to bear arms does not in and of itself consist of the right to get new ones as soon as possible.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
If you need a gun fast, come to West Virginia. I don't know how things have changed since I was selling guns at the department store in which I worked, but at the time, you could come into the store, lie on your forms, and walk away with a rifle.
------------------ Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!! Gandalf
posted
This is not a case of forms. The govt should have a registered central database which can be accessed to allow people to purchase weapons. Just an interesting stat for you. In the US on average there are 10950 shootings a year. In Australia there are on average 54 shootings a year. Does that tell you something. And before someone jumps the gun (hehe) and says "but we have a bigger population" I'll gut that theory whilst I'm here. Australias population is approx 19 million. The US's is approx 272 million. That means you have 14 times our population. So, if things were proportional you'd have 756 shootings a year, not around 11000. This telling you anything at all?
------------------ "Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
posted
>"The govt should have a registered central database which can be accessed to allow people to purchase weapons."
Germany, c.1936. No, really. You can look it up.
A centralized database makes rounding up and confiscating excessively easy, doesn't it? That's the down side to an otherwise potentially good idea. Generally the first thing an occupying army does, isn't it? Which civilians are armed and might put up a resistance? Let's see, here's the master list... round 'em up, boys.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Oh come on, First! I would have thought that sort of BS was beyond you. Shall I point out that the Nazi's also had a Post Office? Holy Registered Mail, anyone who supports post offices is a Nazi!
Of course, if we follow standard online procedure, once Nazis are brought into a discussion, its credibility makes like the Titanic, so I suppose there's no real point in continuing.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
Damn, am I bumping heads with people, or what? Must be too much caffeine in my tea.
Well, I could point out that weapons registration and confiscation is common to ALL occupying forces, but what would be the fun in that? Would you rather be compared to a Russian, or U.S. Cavalry on Indian lands, or the US in Occupied Japan?
Seriously, you know that as well as I do. The best way to subjugate a people is to take away their ability to fight back, and the best way to do THAT is to know who HAS the ability to fight back, and the best way to do THAT is to make sure everything's registered, nice and tidy. Now, I don't know about you, but when my country's government starts acting like an occupying army, I get concerned.
Admittedly, that's not the way that registration necessarily WILL or MUST go. But it is the way it COULD go, and I distrust the motives of the current proponents of such legislation, as much as I do the proponents of religiously-based legislation, for much the same reason.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help..." May soon outdo "The check is in the mail" for top statement of dubious veracity.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 29, 2000).]
posted
Not to call you excessivly paranoid, but...I can't think of another way to put it.
Are you REALLY advocating against a central database because an invading army could round up all the guns?
Okay, first, if you really think that a bunch of psycopathicAmericans with hand guns will REALLY manage to turn back an invading army, I say "fart". And don't point out Vietnam. I don't blieve that US citizens are any where near organised enought of something like that.
Second, if you get invaded, you really think that everyone will still keep to the database anyway?
"I'd like that shotgun please"
"Why?"
"I want to lead a rebellion against the invading army"
"You'll be put on a database"
"Shoot. I can't buy it then."
Natch.
------------------ "Sometimes I wish the planet would be scoured with cleansing fire. Other times I just wish Frank would be." Sol System
posted
It wouldn't be an invading army rounding up guns, it would be the existing government. By the time people would notice the problem, the guns would be all gone.
posted
Well, actually I don't think the US is in any danger of being invaded directly. The countries which border us have better things to do, or more pressing problems. Those that don't would have a tough time getting here.
But there is a reason "against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC" is in certain oaths of defense.
Paranoid? Perhaps, perhaps not. Tell me, Liam, do YOU trust my government? Slick Willie, Reno, et al?
It it possible that an anti-freedom movement might, through conspiracy or subterfuge, corrupt the United States' government for its own ends? (Has it already?) Could Pat Robertson get elected president? Would there BE an election, four years later? If Y2K HAD been really bad, and the effects had lingered, say, a few years, would Willie have 'skipped' an election, 'for continuity?' Things like that have happened elsewhere. Whose to say what's impossible?
Oh, and as to whether an inferior force fighting on its home ground can stave off a superior (numerically or technologically) force which isn't, necessarily, I don't have to say Vietnam. I can say Afghanistan, Columbia, Israel, and the U.K. (during WWII, you stood alone against a German onslaught for quite some time, as I recall) sometimes the Indians did rather well, too.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
You sound like a viglianti.(spelling?) Seriously, do you think that a government is going to say 'Oh look, here are all the guns, lets round em up and enslave the people!'. You'll note that this has not happened in Australia or the UK as yet. When it does, you may have a leg to stand on. Try looking at the root cause of the problem opf violence in society. Not an after effect.
------------------ "Blind faith is the crutch of fools"
posted
Here's something interesting I just read... In 1994, During the debate on C-68 (some Canadian gun-control measure, a gun-registration law, according to my source) The Canadian Department of Justice asked the RCMP how many gun-related crimes they documented in Canada, and reported to Parliament that the reply was 623.
In 1997, however, the RCMP charged the Justice Department with misrepresenting the actual number... 73.
Intriguing, that, a fictional inflation of nearly 1000%, just before a gun-control law was to be passed (and it DID pass, though it's not supposed to take effect until 2003.)
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
I have different sources. The reason for the difference between the two reported numbers is as follows:
The RCMP records any guns present at the location where a crime occurred as "guns involved in a crime". Even if they are in a locked cabinet in the other end of a building that was vandalized, the guns are counted. However, the RCMP does not consider that statistic any more relevant than whether silverware or any other items of value are present (they count those as being "involved, too, unless I'm mistaken). The RCMP only consider the presence of a firearm relevant if the firearm was used in a crime. The figure provided to Parliament is the former (higher) latter statistic. The lower figure was what the RCMP expected to be reported to Parliament, as that is a more accurate indicator of gun violence.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
