Progressives who demand gun control sometimes tell me they want to prevent crimes rather than rely on punishment of the perpetrators.
If crime prevention is their preferred approach to these sort of things then why don’t they advocate for building “The Wall”?
They perceive crime differently than you and I. Crimes perpetrated by anyone other than OFWG can be excused on cultural, socio-economic, or other progressive premises. Even the most egregious ones. But even the most minor of malum prohibitum crimes, perpetrated by an American conservative are perceived as capitol in magnitude.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=OFWG
Wasn’t familiar with that one. The more you know…
Because they are not actually interested in preventing crime. They are lying about that, like the do about everything else.
Yes, because otherwise they’d be favoring armed self defense, a well established crime deterrent.
Law-abiding citizens bearing and ready to use concealed weapons is the number one way to prevent completed crimes.
Generally doesn’t stop attempted crimes, but only extended incarceration of individuals with a propensity to predation does that.
“…doesn’t stop attempted crimes” — just the opposite, in fact; it ensures most attempts remain that way, rather than becoming successfully completed crimes.
If you meant that it doesn’t prevent the attempt from being started, that’s not quite so obvious but in fact gun ownership does that, too. There is plenty of evidence that would-be criminals don’t even make the attempt in situations where they judge there is a high risk of confronting an armed victim. A particularly good example is the flurry of robberies of tourists in Florida years ago. The perps were eventually caught, and an enterprising journalist asked them why they picked on tourists. The answer “because those are unlikely to be armed”.
QED.
It changes the dynamic. The anti-gun people want to prevent the option from being available to anyone. We want the option available to nearly everyone but expect people to choose wisely. Widespread gun ownership “encourages” would-be criminals to make better career choices. The “prevention” dynamic changes in a manner that preserves the rights of everyone and encourages a more productive society.
As an Aussie tourist in Florida in ’95, the car rental company told me that they had changed their policies on license plates, mirror tags, and all other ways to identify a car as a rental due to the upsurge in attacks on tourists. As you say the perps were guessing that tourists, eg people driving a rental car, were less likely to be armed.
They were in for a rude shock if they targeted me. The .380 Colt that my friends lent me was not a LOT of gun, but I rarely miss at anything less than 25 yards.
First off, why ask a question when you already know the answer?
They don’t mean it. Doesn’t really matter the reason one way or the other, they don’t mean what they say. It’s that simple.
Philosophizing it is fine and all, but I’m a simple man, and that’s a simple answer, so why pry further? They don’t mean it, they never meant it, and they never will. So disregard them when they say it again.
Why? Because I want others to ask it of those who advocate such things. It lets these people know we are onto their game and that we have no respect for excuses. This makes it all the easier for them to be ostracized and ignored.