The CPSC declaring them dangerous was enough for stores to pull them from the shelves. I couldn't find a single case of anyone being prosecuted for selling them.
As we've witnessed from current Banking concerns, 'regulation' doesn't mean squat without action.
The idea that Speed Limits will absolutely stop everyone from speeding is absurd â but what we DO have is fewer speeders. Thus less traffic deaths.
The current argument against reasonable gun regulations appears to be: What's the purpose of having laws that don't utterly eradicate the crime? Why have them at all if some will ignore it?
No, because (in the case of WMDs and large-scale weapons like tanks)
1. existing restrictions against things like murder are already sufficient disincentive
2. very few people want to use them to cause mayhem anyway
3. restricting things that are already impossible to acquire is redundant
4. anyone willing to ignore laws and penalties for things like murder is going to ignore laws and penalties against acquiring the tools to commit murder.
How many people have been prosecuted for selling, owning, or using lawn darts?
You understand that owning and using lawn darts isn't illegal, right? The ban everybody is so exuberant about was a ruling by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that wrote a rule into the Code of Federal Regulations, which you can read here. I ran out of patience trying to research the penalties associated with a violation of this regulation (not law)âyou're welcome to keep digging, but it applies only to sale, not possession. You're free to make your own and use them to your heart's content.
The CPSC declaring them dangerous was enough for stores to pull them from the shelves. I couldn't find a single case of anyone being prosecuted for selling them.
Thanks for deliberately missing the point. Maybe if we had more people with a lawn dart fetish, who insisted on bringing their lawn darts to the movies so they could skewer their nachos while watching the previews, you would see the persecution you think is the only outcome of regulation (wow that was a run on, even for me, sorry).
We have all kinds of regulations in our society that help us get along and live safer lives without worry. Yes, even guns have become 'heavily regulated', but even with such regulation, we have more guns around us than any other modern civilized country on the planet. I know we like to think we are special, but we really are just humans. Americans have no more need for being armed than Australia. And Australia seems to have survived a dramatic reduction in the number of guns around without falling victim to the government or herds of raging wallaby (I haven't been there lately, so I might be wrong about this, but it hasn't made the news).
So all laws regulating things are irrelevant becuase people will just do things anyway?
No, because (in the case of WMDs and large-scale weapons like tanks)
1. existing restrictions against things like murder are already sufficient disincentive
2. very few people want to use them to cause mayhem anyway
3. restricting things that are already impossible to acquire is redundant
4. anyone willing to ignore laws and penalties for things like murder is going to ignore laws and penalties against acquiring the tools to commit murder.
How many people were killed by lawn darts last year? And good things car have gotten much safer with absolutely no government intervention, right?
How many people have been prosecuted for selling, owning, or using lawn darts?
You understand that owning and using lawn darts isn't illegal, right? The ban everybody is so exuberant about was a ruling by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that wrote a rule into the Code of Federal Regulations, which you can read here. I ran out of patience trying to research the penalties associated with a violation of this regulation (not law)—you're welcome to keep digging, but it applies only to sale, not possession. You're free to make your own and use them to your heart's content.
The CPSC declaring them dangerous was enough for stores to pull them from the shelves. I couldn't find a single case of anyone being prosecuted for selling them.
By which you mean
Private citizens do in fact own these things already (not the nukes and bio weapons, but I'll get to that later) and yes, I'm fine with that. In fact...go ahead and prohibit them. See what a difference it makes. We've got to stop this scourge of tank attacks! Think of the children!
I'm going to pose a question back: do you think the reason private citizens aren't setting off chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons is that they're illegal? Seriously?
Entire nation-states (with the resources of huge oil production industries) have failed at making nuclear weapons. People aren't setting them off because they are very very difficult to make. If someone were willing and able to do that no law would stop them. It's almost like banning anti-gravity machines.
We've had a few episodes of individuals making bioweapons. In the latest case (2001) that individual had access to a government lab and managed to kill 5 people and sicken 17 others. It took 6 years to catch him. Again...it's hard. And not terribly effective as a weapon either, but the laws surrounding them are pretty much irrelevant.
So all laws regulating things are irrelevant becuase people will just do things anyway?
How many people were killed by lawn darts last year? And good things car have gotten much safer with absolutely no government intervention, right?
By which you mean
Private citizens do in fact own these things already (not the nukes and bio weapons, but I'll get to that later) and yes, I'm fine with that. In fact...go ahead and prohibit them. See what a difference it makes. We've got to stop this scourge of tank attacks! Think of the children!
I'm going to pose a question back: do you think the reason private citizens aren't setting off chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons is that they're illegal? Seriously?
Entire nation-states (with the resources of huge oil production industries) have failed at making nuclear weapons. People aren't setting them off because they are very very difficult to make. If someone were willing and able to do that no law would stop them. It's almost like banning anti-gravity machines.
We've had a few episodes of individuals making bioweapons. In the latest case (2001) that individual had access to a government lab and managed to kill 5 people and sicken 17 others. It took 6 years to catch him. Again...it's hard. And not terribly effective as a weapon either, but the laws surrounding them are pretty much irrelevant.
So, what's your solution? No links, just your perspective.
As for your argument that "they're just objects" so are nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, fighter aircraft, tanks, etc; you okay with private citizens owning those, to? They're just objects, after all.
Private citizens do in fact own these things already (not the nukes and bio weapons, but I'll get to that later) and yes, I'm fine with that. In fact...go ahead and prohibit them. See what a difference it makes. We've got to stop this scourge of tank attacks! Think of the children!
I'm going to pose a question back: do you think the reason private citizens aren't setting off chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons is that they're illegal? Seriously?
Entire nation-states (with the resources of huge oil production industries) have failed at making nuclear weapons. People aren't setting them off because they are very very difficult to make. If someone were willing and able to do that no law would stop them. It's almost like banning anti-gravity machines.
We've had a few episodes of individuals making bioweapons. In the latest case (2001) that individual had access to a government lab and managed to kill 5 people and sicken 17 others. It took 6 years to catch him. Again...it's hard. And not terribly effective as a weapon either, but the laws surrounding them are pretty much irrelevant.
Sorry to take so long responding, had a lot going on this month and there always seems to be something more important to do than argue on the internet.
Your list makes my earlier point for me. This isn't surprising, but it is a little disappointing.
I complained that the only approaches you were willing to consider were additional laws: additional arbitrary (and often absurd) restrictions on behavior. Additional pathways to prison. You responded with...a list of additional laws, additional arbitrary (and often absurd) restrictions on behavior.
Pointing out that measures like these put people who are causing harm to no one at risk of ruinous fines or imprisonment or punitive taxation doesn't seem to resonate. If the law is just a way to punish people you don't like then that's actually a bonus.
Pointing out how ineffective that has been in the past and would be now (do you really think doubling the retail cost of ammo will make a gangbanger think twice about spraying a crowd with gunfire? Seriously? You understand that the retail cost of ammo being up 3X from 5 years ago hasn't slowed them down at all, right?) makes me think that reducing violence isn't the point after all.
So what I'm arguing or is this: think about the problem systemically, and understand that the problem is a culture of violence. Kicking more doors down and hauling more people off to prison will not change a culture of violence.
I'm trying to get you to think outside the cell. It's clearly not working.
1. End the sale of semi-automatic firearms (and parts for them-including magazines) to the public. No confiscation of guns already owned.
2. Tax ammunition that is specific to semi-automatic firearms at 100%
3. End the sale of cartridge cases specific to semi-automatic ammunition to the public.
4. Require liability insurance on every firearm; just like cars.
5. Require comprehensive background legal and mental checks on all firearms owners and purchasers.
6. Require comprehensive training - with continuing education - on all firearms owners and purchasers.
7. Require federal, state and local registration of all firearms.
8. Require owners of firearms to provide secure storage for said firearms and that such storage be inspected and certified by federal, state or local law-enforcement.
9. Hold parents whose children commit crime with their firearms criminally liable.
10. Buy back program for semi-automatic firearms and ammunition at twice retail value, funded by item 2 above.
That's a start...
As for your argument that "they're just objects" so are nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, fighter aircraft, tanks, etc; you okay with private citizens owning those, to? They're just objects, after all.
Sorry to take so long responding, had a lot going on this month and there always seems to be something more important to do than argue on the internet.
Your list makes my earlier point for me. This isn't surprising, but it is a little disappointing.
I complained that the only approaches you were willing to consider were additional laws: additional arbitrary (and often absurd) restrictions on behavior. Additional pathways to prison. You responded with...a list of additional laws, additional arbitrary (and often absurd) restrictions on behavior.
Pointing out that measures like these put people who are causing harm to no one at risk of ruinous fines or imprisonment or punitive taxation doesn't seem to resonate. If the law is just a way to punish people you don't like then that's actually a bonus.
Pointing out how ineffective that has been in the past and would be now (do you really think doubling the retail cost of ammo will make a gangbanger think twice about spraying a crowd with gunfire? Seriously? You understand that the retail cost of ammo being up 3X from 5 years ago hasn't slowed them down at all, right?) makes me think that reducing violence isn't the point after all.
So what I'm arguing or is this: think about the problem systemically, and understand that the problem is a culture of violence. Kicking more doors down and hauling more people off to prison will not change a culture of violence.
I'm trying to get you to think outside the cell. It's clearly not working.
The thing is you have absolutely no credible suggestions for changing the culture of violence. Living in a soup of guns promotes a culture of violence.
Scroll down, you'll see a list I proposed. Whether they're credible or not is subjective, but...make your case.
You'll also see several refutations of the latter point. I don't see a need to repeat that.
