Guns: how much longer will it take ....

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:

An after-the-fact law is futile.

Almost every law is an after-the-fact law. You have to actually break the law for it to be effective. Until then it's just words on paper.

Minority Report was a movie, not a philosophy.

There are regulations that one must abide by, though, that are effective.

I didn't see any mention though of:
- massacres
- gun ownership preventing massacres

I mention this last as it was part of your claim.

I wonder if they have a comparison on gun regulation effect (perhaps divided into light, moderate, heavy regulation)

His answer to gun violence is more guns. The areas he talks about are already saturated with guns.
He's touting gun violence.

Regulations do not stop criminality completely, they mitigate it.

Laws addressing criminality are one way to reduce criminality. They are not the only way.

Laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns are hardly comprehensive gun regulations, e.g. e.g. the banning of assault weapons,

Right, preventing law abiding people from having guns violates the Second Amendment. Comprehensive gun regulations would not do this, however.

Definition of infringe
transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

InfraBlue wrote:

Laws addressing criminality are one way to reduce criminality. They are not the only way.

Can you describe any other way?

InfraBlue wrote:

Laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns are hardly comprehensive gun regulations, e.g. e.g. the banning of assault weapons,

Your statement here is contradictory, as what you refer to as the banning of assault weapons is really just a law against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns.

InfraBlue wrote:

Right, preventing law abiding people from having guns violates the Second Amendment. Comprehensive gun regulations would not do this, however.

Your reference to reducing the availability of guns and restricting their ownership sounds a lot like preventing law abiding people from having them.

But perhaps that is just because your terms are so vague. What exactly do you mean when you talk of reducing the availability of guns and restricting their ownership?

Regulatory measures also reduce criminality.

no it isn't.

This involves the banning of certain guns,

the reduction of the amount of guns available in the market,

a limit on the number of guns possessable by law abiding people,

registration of guns possessed.

InfraBlue wrote:

Regulatory measures also reduce criminality.

What's the difference between a law and a regulatory measure?

InfraBlue wrote:

no it isn't.

So what are you referring to by assault weapon? Semi-auto versions of a weapon that the military uses?

How would laws against "semi-auto versions of a weapon that the military uses" reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

InfraBlue wrote:

This involves the banning of certain guns,

Which guns?

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

InfraBlue wrote:

the reduction of the amount of guns available in the market,

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

InfraBlue wrote:

a limit on the number of guns possessable by law abiding people,

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

InfraBlue wrote:

registration of guns possessed.

How would that reduce criminal activity or reduce its severity?

Again, my guns have never committed a crime and neither have I. Why should I be held to the same account as a criminal that has used a gun in the commission of a crime? Put the criminal in jail, add time for using a gun.

You have to make it extremely clear that using a gun in a crime will have severe penalties. Proof will require 100% super clear evidence though. We can't have rogue cops planting guns on criminals either.

If I want a gun that has a banana clip, pistol grip, night vision, suppressor, adjustable stock and what ever else, I should be allowed to knowing that if I use it in the commission of a crime, that 10 years added just for the gun.

I am happy to run background checks, I think they are awesome, but it has to be reasonable and not ridiculous.

Because those criminals make it imperative to enact comprehensive gun control that affect everyone in a manner that would reduce everyone's chances of using guns in criminal acts.

That hasn't been effective in curbing gun crimes to the satisfaction of a multitude of law abiding citizens.

InfraBlue wrote:

Because those criminals make it imperative to enact comprehensive gun control that affect everyone in a manner that would reduce everyone's chances of using guns in criminal acts.

That hasn't been effective in curbing gun crimes to the satisfaction of a multitude of law abiding citizens.

The very fact that they are criminals should imply the fact that they do not care about any gun laws or regulations. They are criminals. It is in their job description that they will not be choosing to follow and kind of gun law.

What they ARE hoping for is that the people they rob won't also be criminals and have guns to shoot back with. They are hoping for great advertising like "GUN FREE ZONE" where they know they will be safe.

I wonder if there has been any case where a dude was going to go shoot up a place, saw the "GUN FREE ZONE" and thought "DAMN! I can't use my gun there!!"