Reply #1: "similarly"? [View All]

[iverglas]

To me, there is a very strong parallel. The invasion of Iraq has killed thousands of innocent civilians. People who had no interest in committing terrorist acts now have the motivation after seeing their childrens' heads blown off for no good reason. Similarly, in a utopian "gun controlled" society, wouldn't a person who would otherwise be steered away from crime become emboldened when they know their prospective victims will be unarmed?

Ya gotta tell me where you buy your spectacles. Or mushrooms.

Having one's children killed might indeed be motivation for engaging in violent actions against the perpetrators of the atrocity and their aiders and comforters.

Knowing that other people do not possess firearms is "motivation" for committing crimes?

The "similarity" just escapes me.

Isn't there something inherently unconstitutional about a government assuming that a particular kind of gun is going to be used in a crime? Isn't that guilty until proven innocent?

Well, since you asked ... NO. It is NOT "inherently unconstitutional" (except in the minds those who reject any and all restrictions on access to firearms, based on their own personal interpretation of their constitution), and it is NOT "guilty until proven innocent".

Legal principles and rules actually mean something, independently of whatever bizarre meaning someone might want to ascribe to them.

The principle of the presumption of innocence -- "innocent until proved guilty" -- MEANS that a person may not be PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENCE unless it has been proved, to the appropriate standard and to the satisfaction of the appropriate tribunal, that s/he committed it.

OJ Simpson was not "innocent" of murder simply because he was not proved to have committed it to the satisfaction of a jury. He simply was not "found guilty" and therefore could not be PUNISHED for committing it.

Laws that prohibit certain conduct do not presume the guilt, or innocence, of anyone. A law that imposes a speed limit does not "assume" that anyone is a dangerous driver. No more does a law that restricts access to firearms "assume" that anyone is a criminal.

And it's nothing but abject nonsense to say that it does.

.