Cite?
Such a beast is mythical. There is no one who has never violated any law, is there?
See, that’s the problem - a large number of deaths are caused by people who *were *“law-abiding” by any reasonable and realistic standard that applies in the US, right up until the moment they suddenly weren’t. Another large number is caused by people who remain “law-abiding” even through the killing, because they’re also neglectful or have a moment of absentmindedness or are just stupid.
The term is used by those who have a strictly binary, good guys (always including the speaker) and bad guys view of the world. That view *itself *is unhelpful to actual exploration of the issue, and is why Scumpup gets so enraged at any suggestion that it isn’t realistic, or even that preventing deaths is a good thing. It is never explored by those who use it, because critically exploring a religious tenet is blasphemous.
A citizen who obeys the law … I can’t think of anything else that phrase could possibly mean. It’s defined by the legislature.
If by this you mean that most gun murders are committed by people with no criminal record, I don’t believe that is the case.
Cite.
But of course, you don’t seem to be able to explain what you mean, so I guess we will never know.
Regards,
Shodan
Please re-read. I said “a large number”.
Are you defining “law abiding citizen” to mean someone who has never had a criminal record, that having once committed a crime means one can never reform?
Not in a binary way that you could digest, no. The world doesn’t work that way, only cowboy movies.
So, what you post has no definite meaning and hasn’t been thought thru. Got it.
Regards,
Shodan
Horse, water. Shrug.
Let’s assume “law abiding” applies specifically to guns. Someone who may have gotten a speeding ticket or paraphernalia charge, or maybe they forgot to pay their taxes once, but who has never been charged with a gun crime, nor have they ever behaved in such a way that they could have been charged with a gun crime, even if an officer had been right there watching. That means no illegal carry, no straw purchases, and certainly no armed threats or robbery. That also means no felonies (even though I think it’s stupid that non-violent felons who have served their sentences are prevented from owning firearms in most states).
Is it a good thing if a law makes it harder for such people to own or carry a weapon for self defense? Or is that an unfortunate, unintended side effect of a law that is supposed to discourage the criminal misuse of guns? Feature or bug?
Assume whatever you’d like. It’s your argument.
Wouldn’t it be easier to make everyone wear a white or black hat so it would be easy to tell?
So everyone is a potential bad guy so nobody should own guns? Is that your position?
If you outlaw handguns, only handguns will own outlaws.
I’ve already pointed out the fallacy in using the terms good guy and bad guy. It doesn’t help; it merely masks the complexity of reality behind a binary filter.
But you do have to reasonably concede that gun deaths occur due to the presence of guns. Every other civilized country has realized that and the evidence demonstrates them to be right.
Yet the number of guns has almost doubled in this country while crime has halved.
I recently fired off surplus rounds from the Korean war. I think they can last a long time as long as you keep them away from humidity.
How many cents a round? And what do you think you get for it?
You can’t have that many different tags in the powder, can you? Certainly not enough to identify each and every bottle of powder on the shelf.
If they significantly increased the cost of bullets, I would start reloading. I thinkn a lot of people would. A lot of people started reloading during the ammo shortage in 2013.
So if someone breaks into my unlocked car and steals a bunch of ammo, then I would be monetarily liable for all damage that resulted? Can you name anything else we do that with?
You don’t think that background checks at gun stores have made any sort of difference?
Its not really kneejerk. Gun advocates have heard proposals almost exactly like this one before so we’ve already seen this argument play out a dozen times. Your side ends up losing on the basis that your idea doesn’t work to mitigate crime to any significant degree while increasing the cost to law abiding gun owners significantly.
That’s stupid. Our murder rate is about double the murder rate in “first world democracies” (can you add a few more qualifiers, I mean jeez, its living in a country that isn’t a “first world democracy” makes you a raving mass murder). The fact of the matter is that many gun murders are replacing what would be other forms of murder in the absence of guns.
Other than that feeling in your gut, what makes you think that tagging ammunition would work?
You are missing the point of arguments like that one. It doesn’t matter if it mitigates crime or not - the point is to increase the cost of gun ownership.
Because guns are scary.
Regards,
Shodan
Hey, if we got rid of guns, the murder rate would drop so low that people would actually be coming back from the dead.