🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7qhcop$qt7$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

> In article <sehix-3008992248270001@192.168.1.5>,
> Steve Hix <sehix@macol.net> wrote:
> >In article <7qeqtn$mng$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
> >dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
> >
> >> What gun-owners need to realize is that laws designed to halt the
> >proliferation
> >> of firearms are in their best interests as well and that they should
> >> actively participate in the regulatory process.
> >
> >Sorry, Dimitri, I have to disagree on this point. A lot of the laws in
> >question do no such thing. In particular, they tend to attack a non-problem;
> >the law-abiding.
> >
> >The problem being criminals, who have a distressing tendency to ignore
> >the laws in question.
> 
> 
> Every criminal was a law-abiding citizen at some point.

Not necessarily true, even if you assume that means going back
far enough in childhood. Some people seem to go straight from
unreasoning childhood to intentional malice.

> I'm not suggesting
> that we're all just criminals waiting to happen, but it's not "us vs.
> them". How do *you* suggest we keep guns off the streets and out of
> the hands of those that would misuse them?

You deal with people's actions.

A person doesn't just "snap" one day, they normally exhibit a pattern
of increasingly-violent behavior, eventually getting the attention of
the police, and again, and again, until they eventually commit a major
offense.

Nail them (as the law provides) on the lesser charges early on. What do
you think has been making "Project Exile" so effective in those cities
that have tried it?

> >> It's not too much to demand licensing, training, background checks, and
> >> the like.
> >
> >It might be. It *is* in many cases, because the supposed benefits of
> >these items are either outweighed by their liabilities, or because their
> >supposed benefits are just that: supposed.
> >
> >I've got nothing against training, I encourage it. I don't think that
> >the government has any business making management decisions about it.
> >(Give minimum standards of what it should accomplish, then get out of
> >the way.)
> >
> >I've got nothing against background checks, per se. The problem is that
> >they are too often abused. There is *no* need to compile lists of those
> >who would pass such a check...they're not the problem. It makes a *lot* 
> >more sense to only keep lists of the prohibited persons...a much smaller
> >list, for starters.
> >
> >Licensing? Whatever for? No real benefit (you've already got your
> >criteria for not being allowed to own/buy), *huge* potential for
> >abuse. 
> 
> To track the purchase of weapons

Alrady doable (since at least the late 1960s), without any need for
registration. There is a paper trail that follows every legally made
and sold firearm in the country. You can (or a LEO can) find out in
a few minutes the trail of a firearm back to the factory within just
a few minutes.

Illegal manufacturing and sales bypass this system,but no
registration system would track them, either.

> and ensure that weapons only end up in
> the hands of those who are trained and who conform to some given criteria.
> It's much like getting a driver's license. Where is the potential for
> abuse?
> 
> 
> >> It's also not too much to limit the sale of certain types of
> >> weapons. I realize that the thinking is "give an inch, they'll take a
> >> mile" but that thinking may just backfire as someone else pointed out. 
> >
> >Right...like they actually end up *taking* it.
> >
> >If the thing isn't misused so as to cause harm to persons or property,
> >who cares? 
> 
> Exactly. Unfortunately, they are misused all the time. 

In point of fact, they are *not*, for the most part. Only a *tiny*
minority of weapons are ever involved in criminal use.

Deal with the criminals (and know insane) to deal with the problem.
Don't go 'round the barn the long way by attacking the non-criminal.