Reply #138: A safer society and a gun-free society do not necessary go hand-in-hand

[krispos42]

California, which if memory serves is your posting location, has had virtually every gun-control measures that Californians wanted passed. California has about 120,000 words in it's gun laws, over twice as many as the second-place state, New York.

The control is there, the social distaste of guns is there, and gun ownership in California is probably on the low end of the spectrum, although that's just speculation on my part. But the crime problem remains!

Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push guns on society or needs to own one as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of guns and need one so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates gun ownership is considered banning them? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???

This entire paragraph concerns me, frankly. The arguments you make here are of the same style and substance as the reichwing Republicans currently running things.

"Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push privacy on society or needs to have it as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of privacy and need it so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates privacy is considered intrusive? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???"

"Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push habeas corpus on society or needs to have it as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of habeas corpus and need it so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates habeas corpus is considered unconstitutional? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???"

"Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push legal representation on society or needs to have it as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of legal representation and need it so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates legal representation is considered unconstitutional? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???"



If your goal is to reduce crime and homicide rates, then we, America, must throw out the corportist Republicans and go back to our traditional progressive, New Deal and Great Society roots. But we can't do that if we're not elected. Trying to solve the problems by banning hardware is doomed to failure because a) it inheirently will not work, and b) it keeps putting Republicans in office.