TL;DR - gun owners are creating the very problem they claim to need firearms to defend themselves against, but resist any possible regulation between themselves and their toys and are quite happy to let society pay for their unfettered right.
I’ve had guns my entire life. The only laws that will make any sense are requirements to secure firearms and making gun owners responsible for crimes committed with said firearms should they not be secured. A somewhat distant third would be capacity limits on magazines…seriously, I’ve had shit tons of fun shooting with 3 round mags or 5 round stripper clips. Nobody needs 15, 25+ round mags. At that point it’s a toy the owner is accessorizing. I’ve done more than one deep dive into the statistics regarding firearm use in crimes, and as I previously mentioned, the vast majority of firearms used are taken/stolen. Grabbed from a relative’s closet. People leave guns under car seats, glove boxes, truck door pockets, countertops, closets, wherever they either left them out of laziness or some fear they make up to justify them accessible in an instant. Theft is a fact of life. There’s never been a civilization without it. Homes and cars will be broken in to and guns stolen. Those guns directly used or sold on the street to be used in crimes. Now the gun owner washes their hands of the gun on the street and goes and buys more to defend against the criminals that stole their stuff. Rinse and repeat.
If people can afford hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of firearms, they can afford a safe. They can afford to not be dumbasses and not leave unsecured firearms where little Johnny can find it and shoot himself, where Tyler doesn’t have the safe code to grab a couple handguns and shoot up his school, where some dude doesn’t steal the guns out of the pickup and then go shoot a store clerk for $ or the other drug dealer on his turf. Failure to secure said firearm gets a nasty charge, like accessory to deadly assault or something. I’m tired of gun owners’ who think gun control stops as soon a a they leave the range and that leave the rest of society to pay the deadly price for their toys.
Lots of Canada’s laws are a little extreme to me, but they cover a lot that you said. Restricted firearms need an extra permit that requires personal references, and must be double locked(like a locked case in a locked safe, or trigger lock plus locked case) during storage and transportation, and we limit magazine sizes. Lots of our gun crime involves firearms purchased legally in the US that make their way here on the black market, so I’m in favour of the US tightening up their gun control.
It seems pretty simple to me.
If we pass a law and then don’t enforce it, then compliance with that law is basically optional. In most cases, the people who choose to comply are not the people who the law is targeted at.
So if the first law doesn’t get enforced on the people we need to enforce it on, then why should we expect passing more laws that also won’t be enforced will make any sort of functional difference?
You can not enforce two laws just as easily as you can not enforce one law. Without enforcement, passing law number 2 or law number 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 isn’t going to solve the problem because you still effectively have zero laws for the people who choose not to follow them voluntarily.
Think street racers on the highway. You get sick of people driving 100+ so you reduce the speed limit from 55 to 45, but don’t assign cops to patrol the road. The people who actually follow the speed limit will unhappily comply, but the racers will ignore the 45 sign just as the ignore the 55 sign.
Both laws and enforcement are necessary, since one is useless or even detrimental without the other. Ohio taking steps to solve one issue leaves them with the other one. It’s progress
There are already shit tons of gun laws.
If there is already a law on the books that would have prevented the situation, and it wasn’t enforced, passing yet another law is foolish and futile.
In my analogy, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 is not ‘taking a step’ it’s a waste of time and a needless harassment for the people who actually follow the law.
Same thing here. If this happened because an existing law was not followed, then passing another law is just harassing the wrong people.
Think street racers on the highway. You get sick of people driving 100+ so you reduce the speed limit from 55 to 45, but don’t assign cops to patrol the road. The people who actually follow the speed limit will unhappily comply, but the racers will ignore the 45 sign just as the ignore the 55 sign.
In that situation, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 only harasses the people who follow the law, while having no effect on the people the law is targeted at (street racers) who routinely break the law anyway.
Applied to the situation- if you make this or that gun illegal, the people who follow gun laws will stop buying them, but the people who ignore gun laws (aka the people who commit most of the gun crime) will continue to buy (black market) or own those guns.
Thus, without strong enforcement, the law is useless.
This is especially true when existing laws already on the books WOULD have stopped the incident, had those laws been properly enforced.
Being found incompetent generally removes your right to have a gun. Why did he have a gun? Why wasn’t it taken away?
If the laws we have aren’t enforced, then passing more laws isn’t going to help.
Most guns used in crimes are stolen, bought on the street, taken from a relative, etc.
So it’s probably pretty easy to get a gun in the circles this guy moved in.
That’s usually the case. Which means passing yet more laws without enforcement is not going to have an effect on a group that overall ignores the law.
TL;DR - gun owners are creating the very problem they claim to need firearms to defend themselves against, but resist any possible regulation between themselves and their toys and are quite happy to let society pay for their unfettered right.
I’ve had guns my entire life. The only laws that will make any sense are requirements to secure firearms and making gun owners responsible for crimes committed with said firearms should they not be secured. A somewhat distant third would be capacity limits on magazines…seriously, I’ve had shit tons of fun shooting with 3 round mags or 5 round stripper clips. Nobody needs 15, 25+ round mags. At that point it’s a toy the owner is accessorizing. I’ve done more than one deep dive into the statistics regarding firearm use in crimes, and as I previously mentioned, the vast majority of firearms used are taken/stolen. Grabbed from a relative’s closet. People leave guns under car seats, glove boxes, truck door pockets, countertops, closets, wherever they either left them out of laziness or some fear they make up to justify them accessible in an instant. Theft is a fact of life. There’s never been a civilization without it. Homes and cars will be broken in to and guns stolen. Those guns directly used or sold on the street to be used in crimes. Now the gun owner washes their hands of the gun on the street and goes and buys more to defend against the criminals that stole their stuff. Rinse and repeat.
If people can afford hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of firearms, they can afford a safe. They can afford to not be dumbasses and not leave unsecured firearms where little Johnny can find it and shoot himself, where Tyler doesn’t have the safe code to grab a couple handguns and shoot up his school, where some dude doesn’t steal the guns out of the pickup and then go shoot a store clerk for $ or the other drug dealer on his turf. Failure to secure said firearm gets a nasty charge, like accessory to deadly assault or something. I’m tired of gun owners’ who think gun control stops as soon a a they leave the range and that leave the rest of society to pay the deadly price for their toys.
Lots of Canada’s laws are a little extreme to me, but they cover a lot that you said. Restricted firearms need an extra permit that requires personal references, and must be double locked(like a locked case in a locked safe, or trigger lock plus locked case) during storage and transportation, and we limit magazine sizes. Lots of our gun crime involves firearms purchased legally in the US that make their way here on the black market, so I’m in favour of the US tightening up their gun control.
You were making sense until the second paragraph when you made a wild left turn.
Do you disagree? If so, explain?
It seems pretty simple to me. If we pass a law and then don’t enforce it, then compliance with that law is basically optional. In most cases, the people who choose to comply are not the people who the law is targeted at.
So if the first law doesn’t get enforced on the people we need to enforce it on, then why should we expect passing more laws that also won’t be enforced will make any sort of functional difference?
You can not enforce two laws just as easily as you can not enforce one law. Without enforcement, passing law number 2 or law number 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 isn’t going to solve the problem because you still effectively have zero laws for the people who choose not to follow them voluntarily.
Think street racers on the highway. You get sick of people driving 100+ so you reduce the speed limit from 55 to 45, but don’t assign cops to patrol the road. The people who actually follow the speed limit will unhappily comply, but the racers will ignore the 45 sign just as the ignore the 55 sign.
Both laws and enforcement are necessary, since one is useless or even detrimental without the other. Ohio taking steps to solve one issue leaves them with the other one. It’s progress
There are already shit tons of gun laws. If there is already a law on the books that would have prevented the situation, and it wasn’t enforced, passing yet another law is foolish and futile.
In my analogy, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 is not ‘taking a step’ it’s a waste of time and a needless harassment for the people who actually follow the law.
Same thing here. If this happened because an existing law was not followed, then passing another law is just harassing the wrong people.
what does this have to do with reducing the speed limit ? what do you mean, the road speed limit ?
It’s an analogy I made a few posts up.
In that situation, reducing the speed limit from 55 to 45 only harasses the people who follow the law, while having no effect on the people the law is targeted at (street racers) who routinely break the law anyway.
Applied to the situation- if you make this or that gun illegal, the people who follow gun laws will stop buying them, but the people who ignore gun laws (aka the people who commit most of the gun crime) will continue to buy (black market) or own those guns.
Thus, without strong enforcement, the law is useless.
This is especially true when existing laws already on the books WOULD have stopped the incident, had those laws been properly enforced.