As some of you know, there was a recent shooting at a mall, and an even more recent shooting at a school. Both were gun-free zones.
Now, of course, the anti-rights people are storming twitter, facebook, the news, and, well, everything with their calls to take all the guns. For the children and whatnot. Because it
worked before never worked, but who knows, might work this time.
Here is a hint: in science, if you want to see if something works or not, you control the experiment so that only that variable affects the results, then study the results under various conditions. If something fails to work, you repeat the exact same trial until you are sure that the result is what it is.
You don’t change the variables, hoping that that will make it work. You repeat the experiment until the results are known to be if x, then y, always. You don’t go ‘x didn’t work, so let’s try z.’ It’s bad science, and it’s bad policy.
Also, you get the cries of ‘ammunition should be illegal’ which is stupid at best, unenforceable, and dangerous at worst.
If ammunition is illegal, the are police only to use less-lethal alternatives? There are plenty of threats that bullets didn’t stop. There are plenty of people who have kept on fighting with numerous bullet holes in them. A taser or pepper spray isn’t as effective as a bullet, and I am pretty sure police and the military will agree with that. It’s probably why they are armed for their jobs.
The fact that it would be unenforceable is another issue. With reloading becoming a rather popular hobby among gun owners, who then take the money they saved and buy even more ammunition. People who reload tend to have sizable stockpiles of ammunition. How woudl they find out who has ammunition and who doesn’t? It isn’t like pot, which requires grow lights, ammo just sits in boxes being small bits of metal and powder. The only way they could check to see who has ammo and who doesn’t would be to break into the houses, sheds, cars, etc of EVERYONE. I wonder how many laws that would violate?
Now, as the anti-rights people say, only police should have guns. I don’t know where that leaves the military, but that is for figuring out if I ever want to talk to an anti-rights cultist, and frankly, I’d rather smash my head against a wall. The issue is that becomes exceptionally dangerous: all the people who obey laws are unarmed, and all people are defenseless. Remember Bonnie and Clyde? Well, if you do, it’s nice to see you on the internet. Welcome. For those of us who are younger, Bonnie and Clyde were a couple of rather infamous criminals who happened to be well-armed. They just so happened to get their guns by breaking into government arsenals and stealing them. Criminals won’t turn their guns in, and they won’t obey the law.
Think-if only police have guns, ammo and firearm costs go up. Mass production means lower prices, and mass production is now gone. So you get to enjoy higher taxes to pay for the arms of the police. And what is to stop some criminals with stolen guns and illegally stockpiled ammo from breaking in and stealing more guns and ammo?
Nothing, depending on what they happened to have stolen. Just a thought: most anything can be bought on the black market. If people steal and sell stolen goods, then they make money. They have money, they can buy smuggled in fully-automatic weapons. After all, there will be a demand among the criminal classes. Then all they need to do is use those to steal more goods and the cycle continues.
You can’t un-invent something, and it is really hard to eliminate something when ownership of it is a cultural thing. People associate tea with the British, and firearms with the U.S. the British do drink tea, and the American people own guns. Both are cultural norms and will be impossible to fully root out. Why not just figure out an effective solution?
People get shot, let people have body armor and arm themselves. Sure, I wouldn’t hand guns to elementary school students or middle school students, unless I personally knew that student (as in, my own child) and with fairly good reason. But that is no excuse for why the teachers shouldn’t be allowed to arm themselves. Armed teachers means the school needs a smaller security guard force. Smaller security force means saved money.
I’m all for progressing into the future (because, seriously, it’s time for jetpacks and flying cars. And for dead people to upload their brains into immortal warbots.) but why can’t we progress in a sensible way?
The US prison system has a huge number of repeat offenders. Why not figure out WHY people commit offenses again, and try to solve that problem? Here is an idea: fewer people committing crimes means fewer people in prison. Fewer people in prison means less money being paid to house prisoners. fewer people turning to a life of crime means more people turning to a life of honest work. More people doing honest work means more people seeking jobs. More people seeking jobs means more companies hiring people in this country, as people will want jobs, and a large number of people will want jobs.
Here is the thought: a large number of people in prison are for minor drug-related offenses. You could legalize most drugs, since what someone does to their body doesn’t impact my body. So that eliminates a large percentage of the prison population.
Then, of course, the people who commit minor crimes to further their addiction. It could be to any drug, but they, oh say, broke into a house to steal a watch to pawn for some money for more drugs. Here is an idea: punishment doesn’t solve the root cause of the crime. An effective rehab program could potentially solve the issue that caused them to break into a house.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
Oh, and read this most excellent article from Oleg Volk, which I should have mentioned earlier before I digressed. he talks about collective punishment, which
is quite related to what anti-rights groups intend to pull is exactly what anti-rights people are pulling.
Enough rambling for today.