So there’s this law that’s been advertised in Philadelphia a lot for like the last year or so, calling attention to the new penalties exacted for illegal possession of a gun. There’s minimum sentencing guidelines and everything, and the gist of it is that if you are a felon or have been convicted of drug offenses, then the law will crack down on you.
now don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, and have just as strong a belief that this is not an inalienable right; that is, it has its limits just as all other rights do. In order to cut down on gun violence and deaths, we must do something to make sure that guns are not in the hands of dangerous people.
but here’s another way to look at it. since crime rates and conviction rates are higher in areas of poverty, and since many people want to arm themselves against that kind of violent criminal activity (a desire of both law-abiding folk and criminals, I assure you), this law is giving the government (the federal government, mind you) carte blanche to imprison more and more of the impoverished citizenry. which also has the distinct advantage of completely disenfranchising said citizenry.
so do the evil aspects of this law overweigh the beneficial, or vice versa? is there a better way, a more just way, to go about decreasing the amount of gun violence? what say you all?