The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Folly in 50 States and the World / Folly in California
|Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny...||Date: 1/18/2013 5:29 PM|
|Author: TheJTrain||Number: 12855 of 12877|
But the point remains that if we ban big clips, gradually big clips will become less commmon, just as the ban on manufacturing and importation of full auto weapons has made them rare.
Agreed. But just what would that accomplish, in practical terms, other than the decrease in commonality of a particular physical item? We can ban all guns with a "Q" on them, and over time, they'd get rarer and rarer, true, but would that change violent crime rates or homicide rates or anything at all? Didn't the federal "assault weapon" ban also have a provision about "large-capacity" magazines? Or am I conflating it with Californias? Hasn't the research shown (from the CDC, among other places) that the fed ban had zero measurable effect on any crime statistics at all?
Lives on average is not a phrase you'd be brazenly profer if it were your grandchildren mowed down in McDonalds.
But isn't that what we *should* be talking about, given that it's a given that 100% prevention is impossible (and it absolutely is)? Shouldn't there be some kind of criteria for a law being passed, other than to Be Seen Doing Something, especially if it rubs up against a cherished Constitutional protection? The judicial branch applies certain levels of scrutiny to legislation based on that kind of thing (though the legal name for the concept escapes me), shouldn't we draft legislation with that in mind as well? Legislation shouldn't be driven by what "feels right" or an emotional appeal ("Hard cases make bad law"), but by logic and rational calculations - cold-hearted though they may seem at the time - "bang for the buck", if you'll excuse the expression. As expressed elsewhere, we should pass laws that we have a reasonable, rational expectation to *make* us safer, not laws that make us *feel* safer but can be reasonably shown will not *make* us safer.
If it's that great an infringment on your freedom, since you're okay with class 3 license and regs for full auto weapons, how about a license and regs for semi-auto gun owners?
When did I state my position on full-auto? But since you asked, I'll give you two reasons why I'm against registration (not that we have a choice here in Kalifornia): 1) it's been demonstrably shown that the data is not and cannot be kept safe from being published, giving criminals exact information as to which houses are armed and which ones aren't (to do with as they please, whether that means occupied home-invasion on unarmed homes as has become the rage in the UK, or unoccupied sneak-and-steal on armed homes to arm themselves), and 2) there is not a case I'm aware of in all of history where mandatory registration has not led to confiscation - I'm not comfortable bucking those odds.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|