Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

ubertuber · 06-05-2003, 05:47 AM

Kadath -

I do see what you are saying, but it isn't exactly what I was asking, so I'll clarify.

I am assuming that the reason you advocate restricting gun ownership is because you wish to see a reduction in violent crime, not simply because you don't want people to have guns. If this is the case, then why not stick to measures that treat the condition that concerns you - namely jack the penalties for gun related crimes through the ceiling? This way the only people affected will be those who are breaking the law that concerns you.

Secondly, and this is for my clarification... You suggest a mandatory 5 year sentence for firearm possesion. I would have thought that under our present system one would likely get 5 or more years in jail for shooting someone. If this is the case, why would the lesser penalty (gun possession) be a more effective deterrent than the greater penalty (gun violence)? If this is not the case, why not change only the laws regarding gun violence?

Also, please clarify for me what exactly was the circumstance in England when this gun ban took effect. I ask because I wonder if America is over a "critical mass" of gun ownership - both registered and unregistered. Even if we made ownership illegal, wouldn't there still be a lot of guns out there, right? It kind seems that the people most likely to obey an ownership ban are the ones least likely to prevent the crimes you are concerned with. Not to mention outlawing things that people want to keep has not historically been very productive in the US (war on drugs, prohibition anyone?).

I wonder if we should treat guns like another common but dangerous object in american culture - cars. You must be trained in the use of a car before you can be licensed to do so. If you use one without a license, you can and should be legally slamdunked. If you misuse one with a license, you can and should have your right to use a car revoked, and you can and should be put away. This way, you address the irresponsible users first, not the responsible users or innocent owners. I know that you might say that cars are more of a necessity in modern society, but I think that the principle of not restricting more rights than necessary can be applied (and should).

Of course as I said in the beginning, my questions assume that you truly wish to reduce gun crime, not that you are offended by other people possessing firearms.

Ok, gotta run... Lohengrin awaits me!

uber

06-05-2003, 05:47 AM	#71 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Kadath - I do see what you are saying, but it isn't exactly what I was asking, so I'll clarify. I am assuming that the reason you advocate restricting gun ownership is because you wish to see a reduction in violent crime, not simply because you don't want people to have guns. If this is the case, then why not stick to measures that treat the condition that concerns you - namely jack the penalties for gun related crimes through the ceiling? This way the only people affected will be those who are breaking the law that concerns you. Secondly, and this is for my clarification... You suggest a mandatory 5 year sentence for firearm possesion. I would have thought that under our present system one would likely get 5 or more years in jail for shooting someone. If this is the case, why would the lesser penalty (gun possession) be a more effective deterrent than the greater penalty (gun violence)? If this is not the case, why not change only the laws regarding gun violence? Also, please clarify for me what exactly was the circumstance in England when this gun ban took effect. I ask because I wonder if America is over a "critical mass" of gun ownership - both registered and unregistered. Even if we made ownership illegal, wouldn't there still be a lot of guns out there, right? It kind seems that the people most likely to obey an ownership ban are the ones least likely to prevent the crimes you are concerned with. Not to mention outlawing things that people want to keep has not historically been very productive in the US (war on drugs, prohibition anyone?). I wonder if we should treat guns like another common but dangerous object in american culture - cars. You must be trained in the use of a car before you can be licensed to do so. If you use one without a license, you can and should be legally slamdunked. If you misuse one with a license, you can and should have your right to use a car revoked, and you can and should be put away. This way, you address the irresponsible users first, not the responsible users or innocent owners. I know that you might say that cars are more of a necessity in modern society, but I think that the principle of not restricting more rights than necessary can be applied (and should). Of course as I said in the beginning, my questions assume that you truly wish to reduce gun crime, not that you are offended by other people possessing firearms. Ok, gotta run... Lohengrin awaits me! uber __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam