The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Folly in 50 States and the World / Folly in California
|Subject: Re: Anyone else find it funny...||Date: 1/20/2013 11:22 AM|
|Author: TheJTrain||Number: 12862 of 12874|
With all due respect,
Thanks, very appreciated - backatcha. This is certainly one of the more pleasant conversations on the topic that I've had.
I think you're over-thinking this.
I disagree - I think anyone proposing legislation about anything without doing some analysis on the actual practical effects is under-thinking it. And the amount of analysis/thinking should be increased when the legislation deals with limiting freedoms that have until then been enjoyed. I know it seems like a trivial thing at first glance ("Not having a 30-round mag won't stop me from protecting my home/family"), but shouldn't those in power have concrete reasons for taking things away from the plebs like us, no matter what it is?
Take that principle and apply it to something else we enjoy having and see how we feel about losing it. Having a 32-oz soda is a pretty trivial thing, but when banning it was proposed in NY, did anyone do any kind of analysis, or was it banned on a hunch and a prayer? In my mind, any time someone in government (for, by, of the people, right?) pipes up and says, "We've decided that you can't have plastic and metal formed into that shape anymore" my first thought is, "Tell me why or no sale." In a country like ours, with a history like ours, that should be everyone's first thought.
But again, why? To what end?
Less murdered school children.
Sorry, it was unclear of me to phrase it that way and leave it. How exactly will that result in fewer murdered school children? Let me be clear: I would love as much as anyone else to see fewer murdered school children. Can anyone say with any degree of likelihood/certainly that that's what the effect will actually be? According to the studies done after the fed ban sunset, it had zero practical, measurable effect in the 10 years it was in place. Has something changed that will make it have a practical, measurable effect this time? That's probably why I'm bristling on this seemingly trivial "slam dunk" idea more than I otherwise would - it's been tried before, and it did nothing. Why are we spending energy and resources trying it again instead of looking for other solutions that have logic/statistics/reason going for them?
things like Charles Whitman, the SanYsidro Massacre, the accumulation of guns at Ruby Ridge and Waco, school shootings, dead kindergartners, postal shootings, .... you can single out 'random.mass.killings.' or whatever and filter out yer malvo's and that truck driver outside the bay area with his arsenal... and the uzi driv-bys in the inner cities, and the oakland 3 per day..
Add them all up and you see why cops and many responsible gun owners are saying "ENOUGH"!
But, despite naming particular events and thus making them memorable, overall violent crime rates and homicide rates (including gun homicide rates) are at historic lows, a multi-decade decline in each (before, during, and after the fed ban), despite the number of firearms in circulation being at historic highs and overall firearm restrictions being gradually eased in the majority of states (other than the strongholds like CA, NY, IL, etc.). Obviously correlation is not necessarily causation but when you look at the two trends (less crime, more guns) and then look at the measures being proposed to decrease "memorable" events like Newtown/Aurora/etc. (chiefly, fewer or different guns), I'm not sure a case can be made that it stands to reason that the hoped-for effect will be there. I mean, if the pro-gun crowd must acknowledge that the less crime/more guns correlation doesn't necessarily equal less crime/more guns causation, then shouldn't those pushing for additional restrictions also acknowledge that there isn't necessarily a less guns/less crime causation? The folks who protested the proliferation of concealed-carry laws (again, in a majority of states, starting with FL in 1987) predicted that there would be a more guns/more crime causation ("wild west" "blood in the streets") that, looking back, has not appeared. Now the same folks are advancing the less guns/less crime causation, and with just as little to back it up. I don't think we should just take it on faith, just to Be Seen Doing Something.
Consistency and equal application is all I'm looking for, is that crazy?
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|