Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: CT gun laws and other tales of change (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is not that "no law is perfect" (0+ / 0-)

    It is that similar laws have been in effect and have not had the expected result.

    I am not making the argument that we should "do nothing because nothing helps". You are making a strawman of my position and if you wished to know what could be done to help you could have asked me.

    As an example of one point of uselessness of the law: Adding to the already banned "assault weapons list".

    Current list: http://www.ct.gov/...

    You'll notice that features are banned as well as specific firearms thus the list they are adding is already banned because it meats the cosmetic considerations already in law. http://cga.ct.gov/...

    If you believe, the world is the way it is.  If you do not believe, the world is the way it is.

    No one cares what you believe because your belief doesn't impact the actual results and consequences.
    Also the national "assault weapon" ban had no measurable effect and CT's existing ban which covered the AR-15 didn't stop the massacre and adding new specific weapons to the list that are already covered will do nothing as well.

    •  both lists wre flawed (0+ / 0-)

      the 1994-2004 law had perhaps more effect than zero, even with the flaws.

      CA's laws matter a lot, but the main thrust isn;'t an AWB, it's backgrounfd checks and vigorous efforts to keeps guns out of the hands of those who should not have one. see the Sargent piece on that.

      High (large) capacity magazines (LCM) matter more than AWB. I am not bent out of shape over that nationally.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:51:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Regarding "large capacity magazines..." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Greg Dworkin

        I find the entire name odd because the standard size of many magazines is within the realm of what some consider high-cap and also the laws make no difference between handguns or long guns.

        For example my standard capacity magazine in my two semi auto handguns is 15 and 8.  The standard capacity magazines in my long guns is 5, 10,12, 20, and 30.  I see no reason to arbitrary limit magazine capacity in fact I see reason not to based on limiting the effects of mass-shootings as Loughner fumbled when he attempted to use a 30 round magazine in a handgun.  Had he been more experienced he would know they frequently jam and are awkward to handle.

        I also find the idea that punishments for lesser crimes will dissuade people who are already intent on committing larger crimes with larger punishments.  If person X is willing to kill others I doubt they will give much regard to jaywalking while in commission of their crime.  Just as if they are willing to murder others they are not going to worry about some lesser felony.

        The idea of limiting the rights of the majority because the actions of a severe minority also rub my liberal senses the wrong way.  I never agreed with punishing everyone because one person did something wrong just as I will never agree with punishing the son for the crimes of the father.

        •  well, in that we'll just have to agree to disagree (0+ / 0-)

          regulating "things", be they buckyball magnets that kids choke on or crib slats, is part of a public health matrix to save lives.

          Life is arbitrary, and balancing rights with safety always  difficult.

          I'm on the side of getting it done, and while it's important (never a waste of time) to accomodate objections, sometimes the objections need to be overruled if they block the ability to save lives.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:15:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Saving lives should never be the primary goal. (0+ / 0-)

            If saving lives were to be the government's primary goal then we should each be confined to a padded cell because freedom itself means more risk.

            Without the freedom to drive we would be safer.
            Without the freedom to choose to go rock climbing or hiking we would be safer.
            Without the freedom to choose what to eat or do with our bodies we would be safer.
            Without the freedom to decide if we want a split-level or a ranch we would be safer.
            Without the freedom to have a pool or pond on our property we would be safer.

            It is an impossibility to both try to impose safety on others and remain a free people or to claim we hold the rights of  individuals in are regard whatsoever.

            Bloomberging all over rights in an appeal that most frightfully matches "what about the children" is not my ideal of the open-mindedness that should go hand in hand with a liberal outlook on life and politics.

            •  ridiculous philosophy (0+ / 0-)

              saving lives is important.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 08:27:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who said saving lives is not important? (0+ / 0-)

                I certainly did not say that.  I stated it shouldn't be the first and overriding factor for if it were it would be illegal to undertake any risk whatsoever.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site