Any amount of gun laws.....

[phillyd2]

"Any amount of gun laws would not have prevented Mr. Roberts from using another type of weapon such as a knife, a lead pipe, a bow, or anything else....."

I did not want to post this in the newspaper thread because I think its really great that another voice is out there promoting gun rights. Good job Dan!

I also do not want to nitpick but still wanted to post a general question for consideration since I believe that we should be careful how this issue is framed.

What if there WAS a gun law that could have prevent such a crime?

It does not matter even IF stricter gun laws could prevent crime - that's not the point. If we limited free speech then of course the government would have a easier time governing. Again, not the point.

What I mean to say is that the 2nd. Amendment is a right that can not be taken away no matter what, even if doing so would reduce crime. Remember that years ago the NRA was fighting gun laws saying it effected legal hunters, only to have the opponents ask "why do you need a AK-47 for hunting". Wrong debate. By getting into such a false debate we ended up with the Assault Weapons Ban.

As a purest I would say that the 2nd. Amendment is there to leave ultimate power in the hands of the people, therefore limiting any possible tyranny of the government. The founding fathers said nothing about reducing crime. I contend that even IF stricter gun laws reduced crime I would still be against them. As somebody smarter than me once said "a evil man with a gun can kill maybe 10 or 20 innocent people - only a government can kill millions".

Of course saying so is very un-politically correct.

[danp]

I think you've raised an interesting point here, and I can think of a law that would have prevented this.

A law where everyone is locked in a cage 24/7. At that point there would be no murder! However it also would be a price not worth paying and that's what everything comes down to with gun laws, and laws in general.

The basis of government is a purposeful surrendering of freedoms in order to create a civil society. The only question is how much do you give up, and for what? Sure if we banned all guns there'd be less gun crimes, but is the gain worth the loss? I don't think so, and I'm sure most others here don't either.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by danp

Sure if we banned all guns there'd be less gun crimes, but is the gain worth the loss? I don't think so, and I'm sure most others here don't either.

If you removed all guns from honest people, would the crime rate really go down? Would there really be less gun related crimes?
The only way guns could be in less crimes is not to disarm the honest person, but to make laws more severe for people found with a gun who should not have had one. The authorities need to disarm the person known to profit from crime.
Gun bans or taking away guns based on the fact that a gun was used in the commission of a crime is like banning coffee because the criminal had a coffee in the morning. I propose the government take a serious look at the effects of coffee and crime in America.
We would not want to offend the obvious persons that sell drugs by targeting them; it is for one politically incorrect to target people, MOSTLY if they belong to a minority. Not to mention it demands the authorities do their job!

Jails and the incarceration system as we know it today is not a deterrent to criminals, most of them view it as a vacation. I believe the old system of chain gangs was a far better way to deal with criminals. For one it made our highways much cleaner, for two, who wants to spend his days cleaning a highway as punishment to robbing a 7/11 for $40.00?

I propose this new law, robbing a person or business, 1 year consecutive days of chain gang.
Robbing them with a weapon could be 3 years consecutive chain gang.
Harming some one during the commission of a crime, no mater what weapon is used 20 years in a chain gang.
I propose that these people not be jailed, unless they harm some one during the commission of a crime. Place them under house arrest. Get to the police station by 7:00 am, you get 3 meals, and go home at 7:00 pm.
For those who can’t meet their rent: Create municipal housing Use all those schools we are closing down to house these people, from 7pm. To 6:30 am. While we are at it, give them education 3 hours at night. Lights out @ 11PM. I am sure you can have 8 to 10 individuals bedded down per class room. It certainly cant cost much more then the welfare they already get!

The government needs to get creative, we have all these public buildings that are not being used, make them into temporary housing for chain gangs.

[dmg1969]

I think the talk of stricter gun laws in simply a tool used by politicians around election time. Do they REALLY think it will make a difference when it comes to criminals using them to commit a crime? Criminals don't normally get their guns through dealers and, therefore, won't be subject to a background check, one gun a month, registering their guns, etc.

All stricter guns law will do is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens like us to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Most arguements that the anti-gun crowd make can be easily countered. They do tend to get more backing when they push the agenda shortly after a tragedy such as the Amish school shooting.

I think the majority of citizens do value the 2nd Amendment, although they aren't as passionate about it as we are. The ones who tend to argue against it are those in and around big cities where gun crime happens more often. But, that goes with the territory. If you move out to the country, crime goes down dramatically.

Dave G.