...reject the basic premise of criminal law; that the criminal justice system is designed to investigate, try and convict the criminals and to then impose penalties, extra supervision and, sometimes, segregation on those convicted.
These folks believe in, what I consider, the control myth. I call it a myth because scientifically control is defined as a closed loop system where a monitor measures and analyzes a quantified attribute of a system and a mechanism linked to the monitor operates to restore the measured attribute to the desired level. (Like a thermostat or the inlet valve in a toilet tank.)
Gun control only controls the activities of those who personally choose to subscribe to it. As is blatantly evident from the news, many people often choose otherwise. Numerous posts here and readily available information from many sources clearly illustrate that THERE IS NO POSITIVE CONTROL FOR PEOPLE. Further, positive control of people is the antithesis of freedom.
Maybe I'm just stupid but I kind of thought we (and by we I mean Americans in general and Democrats specifically) believe in freedom.
Murder, robbery, rape, arson... these are all violent crimes. We have laws that provide for convicting perpetrators and applying a sentence. A secondary effect of those laws may be that, out of fear of the consequences, some folks that would otherwise commit these crimes don't. That's not control because, as evidenced by those that still choose to rob, rape, kill..., do make that choice and sometimes get away with it.
The idea of a ban on property isn't new. In the past we've banned alcohol, gold (in certain forms), drugs and maybe some other things I can't remember right now. People still had those things but were forced to engage criminal behavior that, of itself, didn't harm anyone. Growing pot in the yard probably hurts nobody. Making your own wine probably hurts nobody. Merely owning a .45, AFAIK, hurts nobody. Banning behaviors has similar results. All that stuff I named in the paragraph above, that stuff still happens.
I believe that at least 2 out of 3 people would be good positive contributors even in a society of anarchy. I don't see man as purely good and benevolent; I accept that maybe a third of the time a third of the not so wholesome third might steal the can of tuna from the Sack o' Duds store but not even a third of a third of a third of a third of a third would shoot the clerk.
Seeking to control folks, in my mind, is a sign of evil. Thanks for your patience to anyone that's taken the time to read this.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
