Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:31:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
167 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Generally the more laws you have, the more selectively you can enforce
> them, if you so choose. 22,000 gun laws are about 21,853 (Plus or minus
> 12) too many.
>
> How about reducing to the following:
>
> - if you allow your gun to be misused, you're liable for what happens
> (strict liability)
> - if your gun is used in a homicide, you're guilty of negligent homicide
> in most cases
> - if your gun is used by you in committing a crime, you get double the
> minimum before you are eligible for parole and you owe 3X the cost of
> the gun to the manufacturer of it for besmerching their reputation.
> - manufacturers must at all times use the best available technology
> (within reason, say developed at least 5 years or more ago) to make guns
> easy to identify and trace back to their owners
>
> Those aren't strictly libertarian but if we could get rid of a bunch of
> stupid and ineffective ones, I'd go for a trade.
>
> Guns are scary things and people ought to be scared of them just as they
> are of any dangerous tool.
I agree with your points. Regarding the besmerching of reputations, I find the
recent lawsuit ploys by city governments to sue gun manufacturers a farce.
Gunmakers have a legal, constitutional right to exist, and they have a legal,
constitutional right to try to profit by their business. We have granted
legitimacy to the gun industry in our Constitution. Our culture is all about
shifting blame today. I pulled the trigger, but it's the gun maker's fault for
not making the gun more safe. I rolled my sports car while speeding, but
somehow I think that it's the auto manufacturer's fault. I smoked cancer sticks
for 35 years...but you know what?...it's company XYZ's fault that I have cancer.
Never mind personal responsibility.
Look, I'm not an NRA supporter by a long-shot. I don't own a gun, and I don't
want one. But until we decide to repeal the 2nd ammendment, then it is an
assault upon the legal liberties of the gun industry to single them out for
selective prosecution. I am frankly tired of the recent trend in our culture
and politics of making scapegoats...to pass the buck. Personally, I think that
we would have a better society if guns were less accessible. That's just my
opinion. However...it needs to be done within the framework of democracy. The
People would need to decide that if ever it could/should happen. We need fewer,
but tougher, gun laws. We need to punish the people who are directly
responsible for crime. If I shoot someone, I should pay the price...but never
the gun manufacturer...not so long as the 2nd Ammendment exists.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Well said. Would that everyone were as reasonable as you. My theory is that in many issues we see convolution being used as a tool to usurp, because proponents on one side or another fear that a straight up and down question might: - resolve (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Generally the more laws you have, the more selectively you can enforce them, if you so choose. 22,000 gun laws are about 21,853 (Plus or minus 12) too many. How about reducing to the following: - if you allow your gun to be misused, you're liable (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
