Quick thoughts ... in the midst of evidence.
So, I just recieved the book I ordered online - "The Gun Control Debate" - its a collection of essays about gun control. Yes I know ... fascinating. I just feel the need to be educated.
Anyhoo, in my enthusiasm (and an attempt to get my mind off evidence) I read the introduction. Preliminary note: I think the editor/compiler dude is pro-gun (just a hunch), but I'm not going to let that bother me as I read it. And I will read it. [Interesting fact #1: it wasn't until the early 1900s that law enforcement were allowed to be armed.]
The purpose of this post, however, is to posit the following, which I admit is a rather simplistic view of things:
From what I can tell, the modern trend has been that gun ownership rose as gun-crime rose. So, how about this - as a test, how about we take away everyones guns - this includes criminals as well as non-criminals; we'll let the cops keep their guns - subject to some restrictions (like um, harsher penalties for mis-use of authority and um, other stuff). If the "criminals" don't have guns, the major threat that the non-criminal gun owners have has disappeared.
This is a little bit of a cyclical argument, and problematic because law enforcement is still armed. Well, they have to take care of the non-gun crimes ... right?
Anyhoo - I say take away all the guns. Lets put them in a big pile on the mall, and burn them - a special July 4th!
"Hey Z, what about that 2nd Amendment thing?"
Well, you know how "they" say that in desperate times, civil liberties and all those Constitutional protections (like the 1st Amendment freedoms, Due Process, Confrontation and Equal protection...) they're all like - not that important because we have to sacrifice something for security?
Well, how about we sacrifice the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms for the sake of security? I think that we would all be much safer if we did that.
Anyhoo, in my enthusiasm (and an attempt to get my mind off evidence) I read the introduction. Preliminary note: I think the editor/compiler dude is pro-gun (just a hunch), but I'm not going to let that bother me as I read it. And I will read it. [Interesting fact #1: it wasn't until the early 1900s that law enforcement were allowed to be armed.]
The purpose of this post, however, is to posit the following, which I admit is a rather simplistic view of things:
From what I can tell, the modern trend has been that gun ownership rose as gun-crime rose. So, how about this - as a test, how about we take away everyones guns - this includes criminals as well as non-criminals; we'll let the cops keep their guns - subject to some restrictions (like um, harsher penalties for mis-use of authority and um, other stuff). If the "criminals" don't have guns, the major threat that the non-criminal gun owners have has disappeared.
This is a little bit of a cyclical argument, and problematic because law enforcement is still armed. Well, they have to take care of the non-gun crimes ... right?
Anyhoo - I say take away all the guns. Lets put them in a big pile on the mall, and burn them - a special July 4th!
"Hey Z, what about that 2nd Amendment thing?"
Well, you know how "they" say that in desperate times, civil liberties and all those Constitutional protections (like the 1st Amendment freedoms, Due Process, Confrontation and Equal protection...) they're all like - not that important because we have to sacrifice something for security?
Well, how about we sacrifice the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms for the sake of security? I think that we would all be much safer if we did that.
posted by zai5h at Saturday, April 28, 2007
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home