arma virumque cano (et alia)
"Since criminals can't be expected to obey the rules, why don't we arrest the last legitimate owners of all those guns and find out from them exactly what went wrong?"So the criminals don't obey laws because they are criminals so when criminals don't obey laws because they are criminals we should arrest non criminals to ask them why criminals do not obey the law?You shouldn't post while you are drinking.
< sc >No, no, wait. It makes perfect sense.All you have to do to avoid being arrested or prosecuted under MikeB's new laws is declare that you are a criminal, and therefore unarrestable."Go after the real causes of crime, man. Get those law-abiding folks who bought guns legally, 'cause if they hadn't bought guns, I wouldn't have been able to steal them, and I couldn't have used them."Brilliant plan! < /sc >
I think you guys are being purposely obtuse. The idea is this, the last legitimate owner of the gun will often be found to be at fault. Either he allowed his guns to be stolen by improperly storing them, or he gave them or lent them or sold them to someone he shouldn't have. This is the exact point which we have to start looking at.
And we think you're just obtuse, purposeful or not, if you think that any legitimate gun owner "allows" their gun to get stolen.Sure, some people are sloppier than others about storing it, but is it their fault that a thief breaks into their place, or is it the fault of the thief that a thief breaks in?Blaming the victim is not cool at all. And it's morally reprehensible.
Surprise, surprise, MikeB, and admitted criminal wants to ignore the actual criminals and go after legitimate owners.I'm SHOCKED.
I never said I wanted to "ignore the actual criminals and go after legitimate owners."Why would you hear it that way? Are you a paranoid self-centered egotist who sees and hears everything in terms of yourself and has not ability to see the big picture.Is that the same kind of thinking you use when determining to use you gun or not?In case your bias has tryly deafened you to what I'm actually saying, I descrime it like this.Those last legitimate gun owners, in many cases, are not legitimate at all. They're criminals in disguise. Why do you want to protect them so badly?
Or, they sold a gun to someone who misrepresented themselves. Or, they had a gun stolen from them, and didn't even know it. Or they did know it, and they filed a police report, but the police dept. screwed up the paperwork. Or they had a gun stolen, but failed to report the gun stolen because they were afraid of the police. Or they failed to report it stolen because they were afraid their gun was illegal, mostly due to ignorance of the law. (I know a former co-worker that fits the last two categories, and that is why he told me that he would never report his gun stolen if it ever was. I tried repeatedly to correct his ignorance, but I could not correct his misgivings about the police).Or they sold it to someone who was legal at the time, who they did not know intended to violate the law, thus making the new owner the criminal.There are lots of cases of legitimate owners not being criminals in disguise, yet you paint them all with your broad brush.Many? What happened to "some?"