11-05-2021, 02:44 PM
(11-05-2021, 01:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK that point makes sense to me. I seemed to spot a generalization in Bel's post though that I don't think is entirely correct.
Of course, one solution would be to exempt poorer people with high risks, like your shopowner and the like, from such expensive measures and taxes, or poor people in general. Mr. Stern, however, could very well pay up to keep him and his entourage armed.
For sure, my idea of gun control is not making guns more expensive, but to restrict the right to carry one around in the first place.
For the anti-gun types both are used. One of my biggest issues with anti-gun laws is that, especially in more liberal areas, the laws already on the books are not enforced. For example, in CA using a gun during the commission of a crime is an enhancement to that crime, it's an add on that adds more confinement time, based on the, IMO sound, logic that the use of a gun during an offense significantly raises the danger for all involved. Our bag of crap DA has flat out stated the only enhancement he will ever use is the hate crime enhancement, and only that after he got a lot of heat from "progressives". And believe me, this is the tip of the iceberg in this regard. So, how do you justify putting more restrictions on law abiding citizens when you don't even use the penal code to punish the criminal use of firearms?
The vast majority of homicides in this country involve gang violence or are committed by other types of "career criminals" Those types are certainly driving the current enormous spike in homicides in this country, yet anti-gun efforts are almost exclusively focused on further restrictions of law abiding citizens. This tells you all you need to know about their cause. They're not looking for public safety, they're looking to restrict firearms ownership in general. A law abiding citizen is not going to illegally kill anyone with their guns, restrictions on them do nothing to enhance public safety. The only exception that comes to mind are safe storage laws, but that's more about kids and adolescents gaining access to the firearm, not the owner themselves.
Quote:I understand that, and normally I know better than to even touch this subject. From my experience though, arms in the populace do not really make the difference between freedom and autocracy (maybe if the populace wants freedom for everyone, which very often is not the case). In a sense, gun control can also make people more free, for example free to go outside (or participate in a protest) without fear of getting shot. Which, by the way, is my probably very European take on this Rittenhouse issue. Legally, imho you have all the good arguments in that case. In the end, maybe all tradegy could have been avoided though if the right to carry guns freely and everywhere one pleases was restricted. No one would have fired a shot when Rittenhouse fled, he would not have been threatened by folks with firearms, and it would not have been such a fatal idea to participate in a counter-protest in the first place.
We here have protests and counter-protests about all kinds of issues all the time, and it never turns violent. If I wanted to attend one, I would not have to fear for my life. That's pleasant and I think that makes us more free, not less.
It's all good, I enjoy the perspective of people outside the country on this issue. It also give us both a chance to learn from the other. I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll leave it at that
