|
Wow, you guys are really going at it! Great arguements for both positions, but I am curious... For Kadath:
If your position is based on practical considerations, what do you say to the gun-control opponents who argue that legal gun (ownership) controls will leave only law-abiding citizens under control? I would consider harming someone with a gun to be a far more serious legal infraction than ownership of a weapon. Also, I seem to remember seeing multiple segments on 60 minutes and their compradre shows that indicated that even existing gun laws are not followed consistently by dealers. There is always some sort of "hidden camera" evidence that shows horrible violations of purchasing laws. It seems to me that it makes more sense to start by stepping up enforcement of existing regulation and by more strictly punishing people for crimes of violence than it does to start limiting ownership rights. At least that way you would be punishing committers of crime and not restricting all potential criminals. Not painting with quite so broad a brush...
Please don't interpret this as an attack - I am honestly curious to know your thoughts. You are the most coherent defender of gun control I have seen yet, and I have followed this thread with interest. My natural inclination (libertarian) and idealogical stance is to believe that gun control is undesirable because most government regulation is undesirable. Secondly, my practical nature makes it hard for me to understand why government should restrict rights when the desired outcome seems not to address the problem at hand. Maybe you can help with this second qualm. Thanks for you thoughts.
ubertuber
|