We are reminded, through senseless tragedies, of the need to remove and keep weapons from the hands of those who should not have them.
January 31, 2018
Ohio Supreme Court rules against Cleveland’s efforts at local gun control
[Perhaps Jackson had a preconceived solution and, at best, a poorly defined problem statement when he started on this ill fate journey down the gun control path.
A better problem statement is:
Violent criminals with weapons are murdering innocent people.
This lends itself to a much larger solution set. Many of those possible solutions will get support from pro-gun people. For example:
- Teach well behaved people how to defend themselves and other innocent people.
- Increase police and prosecution resources to make criminal activity more certain of incarceration.
- If, through due process of law, it can be determined that someone is a near certain violent threat to others keep them incarcerated and/or treat them until they are no longer a threat.
It bugs me that people say convicted felons, domestic abusers, or people on the terror watch list are too dangerous to be allowed possession of a firearm. Yet, they are allowed to be in public and purchase knives, baseball bates, gasoline, matches, drive cars and fly airplanes. People should be categorized as one of the following:
- Low risk and have a right to be in public unsupervised
- Moderate risk in need to be under some level of supervision while in public
- High risk in need of incarceration
- Extreme, permanent, risk and should be put to death (Ted Bundy who escaped several times, and was a committed serial killer when in public, would qualify)
Criminal control, not object control.—Joe]
The only issue I have with this is, it should not be people control, as decent people have self control. It should be criminal control, of which, I agree 100%, with what you propose.
+1! You beat me to it.
“Criminal control, not object control.”
There is no need or reason to try and control those capable of controlling themselves.
Excellent point. Fixed.
I believe that if you could get to the base motivator of the weapons control individuals (I use weapons instead of guns as there are many locals in Europe where chefs cannot even move their knives from one work location to another without police authorization) you will find that they focus on object control as they truly fear that they may be found deficient in some way at some time by someone they feel disagrees with them or has it out for them. From much of what is printed and commented on in many internet blogs, people with conservative ideals have good reason to feel this way also. Rational or not, that debate will never be solved. Better to train decent people who hold life and property and liberty sacred in the arts necessary to defend such values and make those who feel otherwise recognize the personal risks they will be faced with should they seek to usurp those rights and liberties. Problem solved.
“…they focus on object control as they truly fear that they may be found deficient in some way at some time by someone they feel disagrees with them or has it out for them.”
I have no doubt.
However, I find it interesting that people who are afraid of being “found deficient” by someone who “has it out for them,” would push so hard for laws requiring the abridgement of rights for someone in that position. (See: Extreme Risk Protection Orders.)
The mayor qualifies for the high risk category.
Ask the good Mayor about his nephew…..who just drew an 8 yr Club Fed vacation
for possession under disability.