🚀 go-pugleaf

First off, I'd like to express my appreciation that you entered this discussion
using reason rather than one-line retorts.  It's quite refreshing.

NOYB wrote:
> 
> You're 100% right.  However, there just seems to no end in sight.
> Once you go down some paths there is no turning back.
> 
> Not only should punishment be more severe in this country, it should
> be consistent.  What the hell is plea bargaining?  You don't make
> deals with criminals.  You punish their freaking ass.  Cut and dry.

	I tend to agree with this.  This is why Roman law was so effective - you knew
what was coming.  There are too many laws creating too many loopholes.  Plea
bargains are meant to save time - but really they avoid the legal battle that
only exists because of our conflicting and confusing pile of laws.
 
> I'm starting to stray off the topic though.

	True.  I'll quit too.
 
> Getting back to guns.  To me it's just a matter of time before all but
> sport rifles and shotguns are banned outright.  And why not?  I see no
> problem with that.  

	Well, I don't think that this will always be true.  Just because our government
is reasonably trustworthy when it comes to personal protection right now, it
doesn't mean that it will later.  Britain took advantage of the colonies because
the colonies had no representation or choice.  The colonies used force as their
last resort to reclaim their freedoms.  Following this, our Constitution clearly
stated that we must 1) have certain individual freedoms, and 2) have the means
available to individually protect them.
	Put the candy jar on the table, and sooner or later, someone will take it. 
	To say that our society and technology have escaped the vision of the
constitution is an understatement ;-).  I.E., massive federal governments,
national democracy made possible only by mass media, weapons so powerful that
could wipe out entire populations at a time, etc.  
	However, the principles that the constitution set forth have not changed.  The
fact that we aren't exercising our right to bear arms in order to protect
ourselves from tyranny does not mean that the need doesn't exist.  I'd go so far
as to say that its working very well.  A person with guard dog has no way to
count how many crimes have been prevented.

	What has changed for the worse (IMO), is the ignorance of the public in the
use, safety, and power of guns.  Guns are tools, and yet they are looked at like
no other object in the world.  We fear what we do not understand.  The average
non-gun owner has never shot a gun or received any kind of training.  The few
who have will tell you how much more comfortable they are with them.

> Tell me, what does your average citizen need with
> a .44?  It's ridiculous to even think that Joe Bloe needs a hand
> cannon at his disposal for "protection."  There are a number of
> devices that could be used to incapacitate an assailant.  Personal
> artillery is not necessary.  In my book it is quite literally
> overkill.
> Guns are not necessary for protection.  In many cases they give a
> false sense of security.  Here's a true story for you.
> 
> I had a landlord that was killed because he thought his gun was
> loaded.  He confronted a robber and when he went to pull the trigger.
> The chamber was empty.  The robber shot his son in the chest and then
> killed him shooting him between the eyes.  His wife was left sobbing
> on the ground pistol whipped with a child dying in her arms.  Luckily
> he lived.  He was fortunate.  The saddest part of the story was he had
> taken the pistol out a few weeks earlier and was playing around with
> it showing it off to his friends.  He never reloaded it.
> 
> Had the guy not owned a gun, things may have turned out differently.
> Sure I hear you say, what if the son had reloaded it?  It doesn't
> really matter now does it?  Shit like this happens all the time.
> Teen-agers blowing their own friends away on accident.  Toddlers
> shooting themselves.  People killing themselves cleaning their
> weapons.  These are all tragic accidents that are totally unnecessary.
> What makes them unnecessary?  There is NO reason to have a gun in the
> first place.  As I said, there are a plethora of devices that can be
> used in defense that don't involve assault weaponry.

	I don't want to delve into this tradgedy, but the guy could be criticized for
making poor choices.  In a robbery situation, it is by far the safest thing to
give them everything they want until they directly threaten your life.  That is
when I believe the gun should be used.  I will give up anything material to
avoid drawing a gun.  I will extend myself to say that it doesn't sound like
this guy was a very responsible gun owner.

> Once the weapons are banned.  Ban the ammunition.  Then ban devices
> for making ammunition.  If anyone breaks accordance with any of those
> laws put them away and throw away the key.  Treat them as if they were
> domestic terrorists.  It may not solve the problem overnight, but I
> promise you it wouldn't be long before handguns would be a memory.

	And from this new weapons will be devised.  Bombs will become popular.  Knives
will become popular.  This idea is not rational.  It is the thoughts of the
people that change crime, not the tools that are available.  As a mechanical
engineer, I know how easy it is to make weapons of destruction from basic
materials that cannot be banned.  There is no secret, and there is no way to
control what lawbreakers choose to get their hands on or make.
	The countries that seem to have 'solved' their crime who have gun controls in
effect also have a populace that thinks differently about morals and crime.  I
don't need to be Jerry Falwell to tell you that our morals are worse and more
heterogeneous than other countries.
	The bottom line is that I firmly believe that guns are a scapegoat.  They are
easy to blame, and easy to add to a political platform.  Any idea that is so
easy is too good to be true.  Pointing to other countries which have gun
controls as an ideal model is the easy answer.
	The real reason is our people and how they think.  We need to change the
criminals, not their tools.  The UK has fewer criminals in general.  Perhaps its
their parenting, their schools, or the severity and certainty of punishment. 
Overall, it's in the head, not the barrel.
	This is not easy.  That is why politicians rarely profess it - it's bad for
their careers.  It involves citizens taking responsibility in taking care of
children and removing the seeds that make them criminals.  It involves citizens
being familiar with tools of crime and dissolving the ignorance that criminals
exploit when they show a weapon.  It involves removing the laws in place that do
nothing but crowd and compromise the laws that do work.  

	Dave
	
> --------------------------
> NOYB [SC]
> Remove xxx from my address to reply