I think PFAs do not go far enough. The assholes who brutalize their spouses should be treated under the terrorism prevention statues - because their asinine behavior IS terrorism, albeit on a small scale. If the shit treated an airport security officer the same way as he did his wife, he would not see the outside of the four walls for a really long time. Punishing him with losing the right to bear arms is less than a slap on the wrist - the offending shit should be locked up until he demonstrates it is safe to release him.
> The real problem of violence in the US has nothing to do with
> guns. If the anti-gunners directed their resources to anti-drug-war
> groups they might actually be able to save lives. The classist and
> racist drug war should be the issue, not the weapon of choice used to
> fight the war.
Is not it what I initially argued?
I specifically said that the problem is not gun ownership, because mere possession of a potentially lethal tool does not make one a criminal - just like the possession of a penis does not make one a rapist. The problem is easy access to lethal weapons by those who are otherwise disposed toward a criminal behavior. This involves two analytically separate issues: (i) reducing propensity toward criminal behavior (which is an altogether different topic) and (ii) limiting access to lethal weapons for the potentially criminal element.
Mandatory gun registration laws (similar to automobile registration laws) could be quite effective in addressing this issue, because it would target illegal gun owners rather than legal ones, because it would allow criminal prosecution of mere possession of unlicensed weapons (regardless of the owner's past criminal record).
It is my understanding that the gun lobby opposes that with vengeance, regardless of what Jordan wants us to believe about the NRA's position on the issue. Methinks it is an excellent example of triangulation - or paying the lip service to a reasonable and moderate position, by de facto support of a wacky special interest agenda at any cost.
I happen to agree with Jordan that suing a product (including gun!) manufacturer for damage resulting from a failure to follow common sense precautions is unreasonable, but I am also well aware of the right-wing canard of "legal excesses" - the McDonald coffee case is their favorite example of that. What the followers of the "legal excesses" line seem to conveniently ignore is that the ability to bring a law suit (i.e. having a standing) is NOT tantamount to conviction.
If the case was so frivolous, as the right wingers want us to believe, the defendant had at least two chances for a successful defense - by having the judge throw the case out of court for the lack of merits (not to mention the fact that filing frivolous suits can be penalized under the law) or by convincing the jury that the plaintiff's claim is unreasonable. If that did not happen (as in the McDonald's case) it means that on at least two instances two sets of competent people familiar with the facts of the case decided that the plaintiff's claim did have merits. The decision of these people (the judge and the jury) carries more weight than all the media hype and Monday morning quarterbacking by right wing pundits.
In that context, a move to deny a standing in certain cases is a really low blow - tantamount to denying justice to certain types of plaintiffs. It is not really different from saying that minorities, women or the handicapped cannot sue their employers for discrimination, sexual harassment, or not providing reasonable accommodations. Again the point here is that the merits of the case should be decided by the courts - and not legislated a priori.
And finally, one question to Jordan - if the gun laws are so efficient in the United States, how come that the United States has THE highest homicide rate among the developed countries? If the availability of lethal weapons is not the culprit, then what is? Genetic predisposition of Homo Americanus Unitedstaticus to violence?
Wojtek