Gun Control Compromise

[boogerhook]

I'd agree, it's hard once you have been labeled. Expunging criminal records for the public to see might help finding a new start. Asking questions about criminal past should be disallowed. But it has to go with not releasing prematurely.

 

[PaulB47]

I am advocating getting our murder rate down

You may think you are, but you really aren't. Disarming people increases the murder rate. All history demonstrates it. This would be even more pronounced if you did it in neighborhoods that have a high crime rate already, which is what you are proposing.

If you want to get the murder rate down, the smart thing to do is to advocate the end of drug laws, and any other laws that prohibit things people want. Like guns for example.

antis loose some "wind in their sails"

It's a fool's game. You can never satisfy tyrants enough. They just keep taking and taking, calling it "compromise" until you have nothing left and are reduced to slavery. It makes more sense to do the exact opposite of what tyrants want. Go buy a new gun.

 

[Boboclown]

the smart thing to do is to advocate the end of drug laws

So all drugs or what? Cause I deal with enough crackheads as it is, not a pleasant thing to be around. Some drugs I'd be okay with legalizing, some no.

calling it "compromise" until you have nothing left

This. Always starts with a compromise, next thing you know they just won by attrition.

 

[Nocaster]

So all drugs or what? Cause I deal with enough crackheads as it is, not a pleasant thing to be around. Some drugs I'd be okay with legalizing, some no.


This. Always starts with a compromise, next thing you know they just won by attrition.

I've dealt with plenty of crackheads, methheads, and heroin users. Not a pleasant experience.

However, I dont think drug laws do anything to reduce the number of crackheads, methheads, etc. Much like outlawing or restricting guns does not reduce "gun crime" in the United States. A criminal is always going to find a way to get a gun, much like a drug user will always find a way to get a fix.

Sure, a British or Australian type confiscation eventually reduces crimes involving guns, but it doesn't reduce violent crime. Where there are no guns, there are knives, machetes, rebar, etc etc etc. If, hypothetically, we were to eradicate all meth, heroin, crack, what have you, people inclined to do drugs will still find a way to get high. Glue, prescription drugs, synthetic stuff, cough syrup, Hoppes #9, will still be out there.

I'm not actually sure whether you can get high on Hoppes #9, but you get my point.

 

[billdeserthills]

I am advocating getting our murder rate down, in addition to the obvious benefit, in part also so that antis loose some "wind in their sails". I admit, not everyone in prison, belongs in prison. I also stated earlier that I'd prefer restoration of all rights after one has paid their debt to society, however that's not how it is right now. My concern are violent offenders that get out of prison too early and then re-offend, as in "recidivism".

Actually I believe Arizona recently did make what you suggest a new law
The restoral of rights after completing the time, that is

 

[PaulB47]

Sure, a British or Australian type confiscation eventually reduces crimes involving guns

Actually, if you think about it, it doesn't even accomplish that.

This article lays it out:
https://reason.com/archives/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent

He points out something that appears to agree with you:

Other violent crime, such as armed robbery, continued to increase, but again with fewer incidents that involved firearms.

But guess what? He ignores the 80% of the gun owners who decided not to turn their guns in, who were made into instant "criminals" as a result. This is a massive INCREASE in "gun crime".

As the article points out, motorcycle gangs are now handling the black market in such guns there. This is also a huge increase of "gun crime" over activities that were formerly not criminal.

People seem to buy the rationale that politicians want to decrease crime, I suppose thinking that they are just ignorant about ways to get that done. I don't even buy that. I think politicians almost always lie, and that more crime is in their interest, and they want to see it increase. They like the fact they have created a new class of criminals out of thin air. It justifies their existence, and that of their cronies, the prison industrial complex.

Pardon my cynicism.

 

[Nocaster]

People seem to buy the rationale that politicians want to decrease crime, I suppose thinking that they are just ignorant about ways to get that done. I don't even buy that. I think politicians almost always lie, and that more crime is in their interest, and they want to see it increase. They like the fact they have created a new class of criminals out of thin air. It justifies their existence, and that of their cronies, the prison industrial complex.

Pardon my cynicism.

I couldn't agree more. Gun control is about control.

 

[PaulB47]

So all drugs or what? Cause I deal with enough crackheads as it is, not a pleasant thing to be around. Some drugs I'd be okay with legalizing, some no.

But why do you deal with crackheads? Because crack is illegal, and because they need to steal to pay the high black market price for something that would cost like aspirin if it was legal.

People shouldn't use crack, that's clear enough. Maybe the problem is that government has no credibility, and that people naturally do things that the rulers tell them they shouldn't. If it was just out there and available, the main problems with it would go away. You will always have some small fraction who think they can use it without consequences, but that's for Darwin to deal with. Otherwise it is nobody else's business.

Government action never solves problems. If problems were solved by government, they would be putting themselves out of a job and a fat pension. Government always seeks to manage problems, and keep them going forever. One thing you can always count on, human beings act in their own interest, at least as they perceive it. Last I heard, people in government are human beings. Expecting them to act against their interest is a fool's errand.

 

[Nocaster]

Last I heard, people in government are human beings.

Appearances aside, there is very little evidence to support this bold claim.

 

[OutlawHoss]

You may think you are, but you really aren't. Disarming people increases the murder rate. All history demonstrates it. This would be even more pronounced if you did it in neighborhoods that have a high crime rate already, which is what you are proposing.

If you want to get the murder rate down, the smart thing to do is to advocate the end of drug laws, and any other laws that prohibit things people want. Like guns for example.



It's a fool's game. You can never satisfy tyrants enough. They just keep taking and taking, calling it "compromise" until you have nothing left and are reduced to slavery. It makes more sense to do the exact opposite of what tyrants want. Go buy a new gun.

I would say end 'the war on drugs' which has been such a sham, and justification for the militarization of domestic law enforcement, etc. ad nasuem. Myself, I would support the decriminalization of drugs, not the legalization. The difference being in how offenders are dealt with, i.e. treatment, recovery, and proven methods that give people a real opportunity to recover. And of course huge prison reform . . . .

Oh look up there, is that a unicorn flying through a rainbow, fartin' out marshmallows?

 

[Slobray]

I've said it before and I'll say it again......... execute all violent offenders (murderers, rapists, child molesters, child abusers, people who use weapons in the commission of crimes, etc) period. Problem solved.


Ray