Law Feinstein to introduce 2019 "Assault" weapons ban legislation

[Hognoxious]

Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure how that answers the question.

FWIW: a lot of people buy guns legally in states with more lenient gun regulations and then sell them (illegally) to gang members (and a lot of other people). But I do not support this legislation. I’m not trying to have a debate on gun control.

Again, I just don’t agree with the idea that we shouldn’t have XYZ law because people will inevitably break it—because you could apply this to any law anywhere.

I just don’t think it’s a winning argument in a debate where the moral high ground has shifted against you. Just stick to the constitution.

I agree with the second part of your post, but have no clue as to your question in the first part of logic.

 

[Big Dick Cheney**]

Not my fault the other options aren't appealing.
And black don't crack

 

[King in the North]

No. But I do think that they obtain firearms that were manufactured. I don't think they make them themselves.

Restricting who can have a gun when all sorts of them are in circulation is obviously going to have enforcement difficulties. But choking off the production and importation of those guns is another story.

Even aside from manufacturing bans, simply monitoring the initial introduction into the private market is apparently effective, since we don't see criminals getting their hands on rocket launchers and bazookas, presumably because the access point for the would-be black market is so costly.

Well that’s a better argument than I was going to make, thanks for that.

 

[Hognoxious]

No. But I do think that they obtain firearms that were manufactured. I don't think they make them themselves.

Restricting who can have a gun when all sorts of them are in circulation is obviously going to have enforcement difficulties. But choking off the production and importation of those guns is another story.

Even aside from manufacturing bans, simply monitoring the initial introduction into the private market is apparently effective, since we don't see criminals getting their hands on rocket launchers and bazookas, presumably because the access point for the would-be black market is so costly.

It was so effective that Americans got killed in Fast and Furious Scandal?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

doesn't matter how we get there..

It does when the topic is politicians passing laws that run counter to popular support. Pretty sure the ACA was passed in spite of public polling showing less than 50% in favor.

 

[King in the North]

I agree with the second part of your post, but have no clue as to your question in the first part of logic.

I’m apparently not doing a very good job articulating my point. Here I’ll try this.

Possession of firearms should be legal because gang members don’t even follow the law

Murder should be legal because the killers don’t even follow the law

Heroin should be legal because addicts done even follow the law

Theft should be legal because the thieves don’t even follow the law

Child porn should be legal because the pedophiles don’t even follow the law



It’s not exactly groundbreaking stuff. I just think the argument is lazy.

 

[Trotsky]

It was so effective that Americans got killed in Fast and Furious Scandal?

Hmm, that seems to hurt your argument, not help it. Fast and Furious involved federal officials purposefully allowing licensed sellers to sell illegal weapons. The fact that they only recovered half of them goes to show that the point of effectiveness is at the initial sale, and after that it becomes much more difficult to recover the arms.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I’m apparently not doing a very good job articulating my point. Here I’ll try this.

Possession of firearms should be legal because gang members don’t even follow the law

Murder should be legal because the killers don’t even follow the law

Heroin should be legal because addicts done even follow the law

Theft should be legal because the thieves don’t even follow the law

Child porn should be legal because the pedophiles don’t even follow the law



It’s not exactly groundbreaking stuff. I just think the argument is lazy.

Some of those are bad things in and of themselves. Some aren't. If a law is passed to prevent something then it should have some significant influence over what it's designed to accomplish.

 

[King in the North]

Some of those are bad things in and of themselves. Some aren't. If a law is passed to prevent something then it should have some significant influence over what it's designed to accomplish.

Again, I do agree with that. But a lot of it is subjective.

Is stealing from someone always bad? Is doing drugs always bad? Hell, is killing someone always bad? I’m not sure everything I listed is inherently bad (some obviously are).

I’m only repeating myself and sticking to my guns (I’ve got puns) because so long as we are staying with idea of using deterrence as primary purpose of punishment, the argument falls flat.

I’m apparently alone on this view lol.

 

[Hognoxious]

Hmm, that seems to hurt your argument, not help it. Fast and Furious involved federal officials purposefully allowing licensed sellers to sell illegal weapons. The fact that they only recovered half of them goes to show that the point of effectiveness is at the initial sale, and after that it becomes much more difficult to recover the arms.

Unfortunately, logic just vanished into thin air!

 

[Greoric]

Again, I do agree with that. But a lot of it is subjective.

Is stealing from someone always bad? Is doing drugs always bad? Hell, is killing someone always bad? I’m not sure everything I listens is inherently bad (some obviously are).

I’m only repeating myself and sticking to my guns (I’ve got puns) because so long as we are staying with idea of using deterrence as primary purpose of punishment, the argument falls flat.

I’m apparently alone on this view lol.

I haven't see much of you on here, but I like you already. You need to stick around.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Again, I do agree with that. But a lot of it is subjective.

Is stealing from someone always bad? Is doing drugs always bad? Hell, is killing someone always bad? I’m not sure everything I listens is inherently bad (some obviously are).

I’m only repeating myself and sticking to my guns (I’ve got puns) because so long as we are staying with idea of using deterrence as primary purpose of punishment, the argument falls flat.

I’m apparently alone on this view lol.

Stealing and Murder are going to fall under the heading of things that are bad, regardless of some exceptions. So of course those things are illegal, in spite of the laws not making them go away. Drug use and gun ownership are not inherently bad. They are restricted because of what they might lead to (i.e. it's believed those restrictions will lessen the instances of things that are inherently bad).

So comparing gun control laws to laws against murder most definitely falls flat. Efficacy comes into question for the former, not the latter.

 

[NoDak]

this is the left's version of the wall. dumb and pointless. she needs to sit her old ass down with this crap.

For all her fans out there: The Mighty Feinstein already has sights set on a 2024 re-election bid when she'll be 91.

 

[Gregolian]

For all her fans out there: The Mighty Feinstein already has sights set on a 2024 re-election bid when she'll be 91.

 

[NoDak]

 

[King in the North]

Stealing and Murder are going to fall under the heading of things that are bad, regardless of some exceptions. So of course those things are illegal, in spite of the laws not making them go away. Drug use and gun ownership are not inherently bad. They are restricted because of what they might lead to (i.e. it's believed those restrictions will lessen the instances of things that are inherently bad).

So comparing gun control laws to laws against murder most definitely falls flat. Efficacy comes into question for the former, not the latter.

Well using murder as an example is obviously dialing it up to a ten, and yet again, I do agree. Maybe I should’ve stuck to things like jaywalking and speeding. Duly noted.

But...and I know I sound like a broken record here..

My argument remains, if the purpose of punishment is deterrence of future crimes— no matter how “bad”, then you’re going to end up criminalizing lots of things that are not inherently bad (and we do). We do this because we are looking to deter future instances and harms— this isn’t exclusive to violent crimes, the purpose of any criminal law is to achieve that desired result. So I would argue efficacy comes into question for any law.

But you’re right, that was lazy and I do deserve to get called on it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My argument remains, if the purpose of punishment is deterrence of future crimes— no matter how “bad”, then you’re going to end up criminalizing lots of things that are not inherently bad (and we do). We do this because we are looking to deter future instances and harms— this isn’t exclusive to violent crimes, the purpose of any criminal law is to achieve that desired result. So I would argue efficacy comes into question for any law.

Fwiw, I think the purpose goes beyond deterrence. I think a big reason for the existence of laws is to prevent vigilante-style justice when people feel they've been wronged. This in turn makes justice more uniform and finite. Finite in the sense that vigilantism can perpetuate itself through retribution, whereas with government justice we don't see too many people taking violent action against the system.

 

[Greoric]

Fwiw, I think the purpose goes beyond deterrence. I think a big reason for the existence of laws is to prevent vigilante-style justice when people feel they've been wronged. This in turn makes justice more uniform and finite. Finite in the sense that vigilantism can perpetuate itself through retribution, whereas with government justice we don't see too many people taking violent action against the system.

Even before that the purpose is to safeguard the public from individuals that would otherwise make it dangerous. The Deterrence and efficacy of making law against murder, rape, and theft rates (for instance) is only an effect in so far as the length of stay that criminal is separated from society. Hence why the most important concern asked before releasing someone on parole is whether the criminal will do it again.

That effect of law is nonsense when if comes banning possession of firearms, and going back to the original argument, why it makes no sense to pass it if the only people affected are the people typically abiding by the original laws these laws are supposedly meant to supplement.

@King in the North

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Deterrence and efficacy of making law against murder, rape, and theft rates (for instance) is only an effect in so far as the length of stay that criminal is separated from society.

That sounds like more than deterrence.

 

[King in the North]

Fwiw, I think the purpose goes beyond deterrence. I think a big reason for the existence of laws is to prevent vigilante-style justice when people feel they've been wronged. This in turn makes justice more uniform and finite. Finite in the sense that vigilantism can perpetuate itself through retribution, whereas with government justice we don't see too many people taking violent action against the system.

Oh, I don’t think it should be all about deterrence, I just think it unquestionably is the driving point. Mandatory minimum sentences are evidence of this, for example. There are other factors at play, sure, but deterrence is at the center of it all. It doesn’t really make sense because of rates of recidivism, like clearly it isn’t deterring people. Interesting take though.

I’m personally the other end of the spectrum, more of a retributivist. I believe in a “punishment that fits the crime” kind of approach. You get what you deserve, nothing more, nothing less. We’re very far away from that.