What is wrong with the nanny state?

[vern_humphrey]

In point of fact, the government does that.

But this argues the government has a duty to prevent* crime – and you were holding that the government has no such duty just a few posts back.
anthony022071;3662019:

It’s not uncommon for a felon who has prior convictions to get his sentence commuted. Since prisons are over-populated,even violent criminals get let out early on good behavior.

And if the government were under the same rules as private corporations, that would be grounds for massive lawsuits (from the victims of those released criminals) at best, and likely convictions for accessories to the crimes they commit.

Take a look at some of the death penalty debates on these forums. The Church’s position is that the death penalty can only be imposed when absolutely necessary to protect society. Those who oppose the death penalty in all cases say we can keep dangerous criminal locked up so they can do no harm – How does this square with releasing them for lack of money?

When criminals break preventative laws,it doesn’t provoke the same kind of public outrage as when they commit crimes where someone has been hurt. So the government doesn’t bother prosecuting those crimes to the extent that they should.

It does, you know. That’s why drunk driving, for example, is so vigorously prosecuted.

Yes. But again,those kinds of crimes don’t provoke the same kind of outrage as violent crimes.

The first duty of a leader is to lead. Our national leaders need to lead us. Let them make the case for enforcing laws that put dangerous criminals away before they kill, or before they kill again.

Also,there’s probably not much of a monetary incentive for the government and law enforcement to make off of criminals who try to buy guns,as there is with parking violations and drunk driving.

Why not?

 

[vz71]

I don’t really too much care one way or the other about this issue,but in answer to your question…
the guns that criminals use originate from legal gun manufacturers and dealers. So somewhere along the line these legally manufactured and sold guns are being sold to criminals. The dealers may not know that they are selling to criminals or their intermediaries,and they might not care anyway,so long as the sale is legal. It’s business. But what criminals do with guns is not the business of the manufacturers and dealers. So perhaps the government should be more strict with the manufacturers and dealers.

Of course, that actually sidesteps the question posed to the cynic…
How exactly he thinks a criminal will follow stricter gun laws.

You post propses stricter laws again, but that doesn’t address how a ban will stop a criminal from getting a gun.

 

[anthony022071]

Of course, that actually sidesteps the question posed to the cynic…
How exactly he thinks a criminal will follow stricter gun laws.

You post propses stricter laws again, but that doesn’t address how a ban will stop a criminal from getting a gun.

Does Cynic actually believe that criminals will follow stricter gun laws or is that what you think he believes?

 

[anthony022071]

vern humphrey:

In point of fact, the government does that.

They must not be doing a good job. If violent criminals aren’t able to buy guns over the table from legal gun dealers,then they must be getting them from go-betweens,or gun dealers are selling under the table,or rogue police officers are selling guns (there have been cases of that happening here in Chicago).

But this argues the government has a duty to prevent

crime – and you were holding that the government has no such duty just a few posts back.

The federal government can help prevent violent crime in a general way through laws – but realistically,I don’t expect the federal government to prosecute common criminals for attempting to buy a gun with the same vigor as for violent crimes. If the public isn’t making a big deal about violations of gun laws,then it’s not suprising that the government isn’t either. It’s like the difference between a drunk driver who endangers other people on the road,and a drunk driver who actually kills someone.

It does, you know. That’s why drunk driving, for example, is so vigorously prosecuted.

But there’s a lot of money for the government to make off of that kind of crime.

Why not?

Well,for example,if a gang member from the ghetto gets arrested for trying to buy a gun,he probably won’t pay whatever fines are imposed upon him,and he probably won’t have any family or friends that would bail him out. There’s a lot of young men from the ghetto in prison for minor offences like possessing small amounts of drugs. Unlike young men from the middle-class,
no-one bails them out. Prison is like a home away from home for gang members.

When middle-class people get pulled over for drunk driving or when they receive parking tickets,they are more likely to pay whatever they have to in order to stay out of jail and keep their car and licence. And if they don’t have the money to get out of jail,they will likely have family members who can bail them out.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Criminals have their own resources and sources for buying guns.

They do network.

 

[vz71]

Does Cynic actually believe that criminals will follow stricter gun laws or is that what you think he believes?

The offered solution to crimes commited with guns is stricter laws on guns.
His premise seems rather obvious.

 

[anthony022071]

vz71:

The offered solution to crimes commited with guns is stricter laws on guns.
His premise seems rather obvious.

Criminals generally try to avoid getting arrested,and they know what the risks are of getting caught,what they can and can’t get away with. If they know that legal gun dealers do background checks and that they will be arrested,then they won’t buy from those dealerships. To that extent,criminals do follow gun laws. Nothing to do with having a sense of morality or proper social behavior,just avoidance of getting into trouble with the law.

But since background checks at legal gun dealerships aren’t,in the larger scheme of things,preventing criminals from acquiring guns,the government should be more thorough in investigating the underground market and finding out who the go-betweens are.

 

[vz71]

Criminals generally try to avoid getting arrested,and they know what the risks are of getting caught,what they can and can’t get away with. If they know that legal gun dealers do background checks and that they will be arrested,then they won’t buy from those dealerships. To that extent,criminals do follow gun laws. Nothing to do with having a sense of morality or proper social behavior,just avoidance of getting into trouble with the law.

First problem I have is that you place a concern of law upon someone whose actions demonstrate a lack of concern thereof.

Second problem, you have not addressed the scenario the cynic in this thread has pushed. That of a complete ban on guns.

 

[anthony022071]

First problem I have is that you place a concern of law upon someone whose actions demonstrate a lack of concern thereof.

Criminals are concerned not to do something that will get them detained and arrested on the spot.

Second problem, you have not addressed the scenario the cynic in this thread has pushed. That of a complete ban on guns

I don’t believe that there could,or should,be a complete ban on guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Criminals are concerned not to do something that will get them detained and arrested on the spot.

But not all criminals are smart. For years, the government has touted the vast numbers of “criminals” who have been prevented from buying guns by the instant background check – but the numbers of such criminals prosecuted are miniscule.

And even the Center for Violence admits the so-called “assault weapon” ban accomplished nothing.

 

[anthony022071]

But not all criminals are smart. For years, the government has touted the vast numbers of “criminals” who have been prevented from buying guns by the instant background check – but the numbers of such criminals prosecuted are miniscule.

And even the Center for Violence admits the so-called “assault weapon” ban accomplished nothing.

Any ban would have to be backed up by continual government investigation into the underground market and illicit selling of whatever is banned.

In case you missed it,see post 284.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Any ban would have to be backed up by continual government investigation into the underground market and illicit selling of whatever is banned.

In case you missed it,see post 284.

But unless I am mistaken, you have already said it isn’t the government’s business to prevent crime. So why do something that would be expensive, intrusive, ineffective – all for the purpose of doing what you say the government should not do?

Now, if you like, I can give you a good outline of how we should direct our efforts if the intention is to reduce violent crimes committed with guns (assuming you accept that as a legitimate goal of government.)

 

[cynic]

Riddle me this: People who support the Nanny State are obviously people who know they **need **a nanny. They don’t believe themselves capable of handling their own affairs.

So how come they believe themselves qualified to come on an American forum and tell us how to handle our affairs?

Oh no, you’ve resorted to personal attacks because you’ve run out of arguments.

No, of course criminals won’t follow gun laws. The aim of them is to make it more difficult for them (or your average pscho, or your mentally disturbed teenager) to obtain guns, through second hand sales etc. Which is worth it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh no, you’ve resorted to personal attacks because you’ve run out of arguments.

If you identify with that comment, far be it from me to argue with your own assessment of yourself.

No, of course criminals won’t follow gun laws. The aim of them is to make it more difficult for them (or your average pscho, or your mentally disturbed teenager) to obtain guns, through second hand sales etc. Which is worth it.

Experience has shown that not to be the case. Criminals still get guns and honest people are disarmed. And victim disarmament doesn’t work.

 

[cynic]

If you identify with that comment, far be it from me to argue with your own assessment of yourself.
.

You were replying to a poster who was replying to me… so you were trying to associate me with this description.

Experience has shown that not to be the case. Criminals still get guns and honest people are disarmed. And victim disarmament doesn’t work.

But it’s harder for them to get guns. And honest people can still obtain firearms with licensing and the like.

Regarding your use of studies in Britain about rising crime after the ban on handgun ownership ; it’s been a very long time since Britain allowed citizens to carry around firearms for protection (if ever), regardless of the complete ban that now exists. So your argument that a rise in violent crime is due to “victim disarmament” is nonsense.

 

[Wolseley]

Any ban would have to be backed up by continual government investigation into the underground market and illicit selling of whatever is banned.

The government can’t stem the flow of drugs into this country “by continual government investigation into the underground market and illicit selling of whatever is banned”; so what makes you think they can stem the flow of guns?

 

[vern_humphrey]

But it’s harder for them to get guns. And honest people can still obtain firearms with licensing and the like.

You betcha!

Face it, such laws do nothing to keep criminals from getting guns. And the last 20 or so years, where state after state has adopted “shall issue” laws, allowing all honest citizens to go armed has proven it.

Regarding your use of studies in Britain about rising crime after the ban on handgun ownership ; it’s been a very long time since Britain allowed citizens to carry around firearms for protection (if ever), regardless of the complete ban that now exists. So your argument that a rise in violent crime is due to “victim disarmament” is nonsense.

The difference is, I use facts, you may not like them, but they are facts.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The government can’t stem the flow of drugs into this country “by continual government investigation into the underground market and illicit selling of whatever is banned”; so what makes you think they can stem the flow of guns?

As an experiment, I am going to ask folks when they read posts that use the word “government” to mentally substitute the word “bureaucracy”.

Somehow, the word “bureaucracy” seems to convey a more vivid description of a sluggish lethargic organism that seeks self preservation above all and to take the easy way out with their major concern being to count ceiling tiles to assure that all cubicles are the same size.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As an experiment, I am going to ask folks when they read posts that use the word “government” to mentally substitute the word “bureaucracy”.

Somehow, the word “bureaucracy” seems to convey a more vivid description of a sluggish lethargic organism that seeks self preservation above all and to take the easy way out with their major concern being to count ceiling tiles to assure that all cubicles are the same size.

When you said that, it reminded me of a letter to the editor in today’s Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. There is a proposal before the legislature to reduce the number of school districts from about 300 to 75 (there are 70 counties in the state, so it would be one for each county, and one for each large city.) The idea is to cut overhead, and use the savings to improve education.

The writer of the letter was highly indignant – and pointed out that it would result in hundreds of hard-working bureaucrats being fired.

And here I thought the schools were created for the benefit of the children.

 

[vz71]

No, of course criminals won’t follow gun laws. The aim of them is to make it more difficult for them (or your average pscho, or your mentally disturbed teenager) to obtain guns, through second hand sales etc. Which is worth it.

I’m glad you finally answered my question.

Now. How would you make it difficult?
Bear in mind, as long as there are guns allowed anywhere the criminal will have access.
Given that, how do you keep the pulic protected and the guns out of the picture?