Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[AzrealMaximillion]

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

When one factors in that Clinton disarmed all US military bases except for key personel (Mp's and such), and that just because one is serving in the military that doesn't mean their super solider delta ranger commandos. I'd bet most logistical people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most mechanic people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most finance people aren't badass commandos. I'd bet most transportation people aren't badass commandos.

I still bet that a military base is more heavily fortified with arms than most places in the general public. More guns in the hands of "good guys" doesn't make places safer. This talk of having teachers with guns is lunacy. If you gave guns to teachers the next Eric Harris (because there will be another mass school shooting, that is a given) will probably wind up stealing guns from teachers and using them against students and faculty.

The Sandy Hook shooter (who I refuse to name because I'd rather people remember the victims than make the shooter a celebrity) stole his mother's guns. His mother was a law abiding citizen. Teachers with guns would be law abiding citizens. If a person can steal his mother's guns, he can steal his teacher's guns as well.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

I live in Puerto Rico, where owning a gun legally is considered a privilege due to how expensive the government has made the process. You have to spend almost 2k before you're even allowed to touch a gun. Meanwhile, illegal guns are so prevalent that they even rent out illegal guns to criminals to commit crimes.

This has led to record murder rates and an island where all the bad guys have guns, the civilians are told to count on the police for assistance, meanwhile the criminals shoot at the cops like they were a rival drug dealer. So basically you can only count on yourself for protection and very few people in the island have guns legally. You will rarely hear about how a civilian took down a bad guy in this island with a legal gun, being a New Yorker and an American I don't want that for my country.

 

[Vankraken]

How about we talk less about "removing all the guns" and talk about improving the health care system so people can get affordable mental health care and also spread public awareness so people better understand mental illness. Events like school killings are not caused by access to guns but because somebody is mentally ill to the point that they feel mass murder is a viable option. On a related note with the columbine shooting, they made numerous explosive devices which are 100% illegal and yet they had these items and were going to use them. Removing the tools people use to kill isn't going to stop people from killing (or making there own tools to kill). In cases involving mentally ill people going on rampages if they had proper medical treatment and the community had a better understanding of mental illness then maybe these events could of been prevented. Lets try to fix actual problems instead of scapegoating things that are not a problem for 99.99% of the population.

Improving the education and health system will have far greater impacts on crime and rampage events than stricter gun control (point out that a large percentage of gun related crimes are done with illegally owned guns because if somebody is going to commit a crime then why would they let other laws stand in there way?) Also lets look at drugs, to my knowledge drugs outside of weed are 100% illegal everywhere in the US and yet you can probably find somebody dealing in nearly every city. Make guns illegal and you just create a bigger black market of gun trafficking.

 

[BakedZnake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925

NRA solution: America needs more guns, ARM THE FIREFIGHTERS!

 

[Sonic Doctor]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

As people have already said, to many and most likely most gun owners, their guns mean more to them than money.

I will add what I have said before in other gun threads:

You apparently don't know the make up of the US Military. The vast majority that serve in the military are people that privately own guns. They are the people that will defend the right to own them, tooth and nail.

I have a friend that has a cousin in the military. I've talked on many occasions to that cousin on this subject. When he was in training, he had such hypothetical discussions with his base mates and his commanders.

Everyone of them said that if the government ordered them to take people's guns away, they would refuse, and work against the government, if needed, to uphold the rights of citizens. So, right there, that is one whole military base that the government wouldn't be able to use if they decided to make the military remove guns from owns by force.

The US has more heart in such matters, and will not go quietly like other countries have with such bans. Gun bans and even the most strict gun control won't work.

 

[Vegosiux]

Everyone of them said that if the government ordered them to take people's guns away, they would refuse, and work against the government, if needed, to uphold the rights of citizens.

And if aliens invaded, I'd go out, and crap on their mothership.

My point?

Talk is cheap.

So, right there, that is one whole military base that the government wouldn't be able to use if they decided to make the military remove guns from owns by force.

Talk is cheap.

The US has more heart in such matters, and will not go quietly like other countries have with such bans. Gun bans and even the most strict gun control won't work.

Talk is cheap.

 

[Ryotknife]

Criminals will always have guns.

Therefore give everyone assualt rifles.

Logic.

you realize that assault rifles are actually hard (and expensive) to get right? im going to assume you mean "assault weapons" which is a term that gets thrown around a lot that people think means assault rifles. "assault weapons" is actually a very broad term that includes most firearms. It is used by people as a fear tactic and to promote misinformation.

 

[gphjr14]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

Possibly because the US wasn't trying to colonize Vietnam but to prevent communism? Maybe you're thinking of France...

 

[Vegosiux]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

Possibly because the US wasn't trying to colonize Vietnam but to prevent communism?

Just as some more historical irony....Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson. He respected USA. He wanted to be an ally of the USA. But no, you're a damn commie, we kill you, hurrrrr, was what happened.

 

[Wargamer]

Okay, so someone a long ways back was bringing the fifth into this. Let me just start by dismantling that logic about why the 5th Amendment forces the hand of US lawmakers:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, let's just be clear on the important bits here:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

More specifically

taken for public use

Gun control laws do not take private property "for public use." They just make it illegal to own said property.

Now let me be blunt; the US needs gun control. Any trigger-happy asshole can wander into Wallmart and buy sufficient firepower to take out a school, and no sane man would consider that a necessity in modern society. Ownership of guns in the US primarily comes down to two goals: to ensure the US is safe from outside invasion, and to ensure the US government never turns against its own people. If the former happens, the US citizenry will find that owning a handgun means jack-shit against tanks and fighter-bombers. The latter happened a long time ago and not a single Yank has done his patriotic duty, so it's clear nobody will. As such, it's time to bring US law into the modern world.

If you want a gun, you need to be licensed. You need to be checked out by the police and they need to be happy you're not criminal or a psychopath. There need to be laws and sane limits on what guns you can legally own, how they are stored, how much ammunition you can own, where the ammunition is stored, and so on and so forth. The idea of toting weapons that are borderline or full-on military grade hardware around like they're a Gods-damned iPhone is an insult to us as a species.

Now, someone go on a killing spree through Congress or Wall Street's top brass, and then I'll listen to your pro-gun ideology.

 

[PZF]

Heck, just today Iztapalapa in Mexico has started a 'depistolisation program' to reduce the number of firearms in town. And that's in the country with drug cartels with unlimited funds due to smuggling, and unlimited firearms because the US sells them as many as they need.

If it works even there, it'll work anywhere.

Yeah drug cartel are just massively crossing the boarder to come and get semi auto weapons for $500-$1500 when they can get full auto weapon (and grenades and rocket launchers) from other countries for much less. I also heavily doubt that drug cartels are just jumping at the chance to turn their guns in.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

The United States is a big place. And its pretty obvious that tackling the problem through extremes, legal vs. illegal, for the whole country is pretty ridiculous.

I'm not that smart, but even I can see that different areas deserve different laws that suit their needs. We already have a country that is conveniently split into 50 different areas.

Though honestly I don't see any reason for someone to have an assault rifle.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Oh, and Virginia Tech had an on campus police department, which is totally the norm for colleges to have. That didn't stop 32 people from dying and another 32 to be injured.

Now you want to put guns in the hands of teachers. Yeah, that would totally work. Because there has never been a mass shooting where there were a ton of guns and people trained to use them right?

Fucking wrong.

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

So did hassan just magic himself into that wheelchair or what? You clearly haven't spent much time on a military base.

Cho killed himself upon hearing the campus security quick reaction force start prepping to breach, he had plenty of ammo still on him at the time. He could have been dead even sooner had somebody shot back, but that's just something to review for the future. The reaction force actually did a very good job, Cho had just thought his attack through very well. Limited entrances/exits, solid doors, chains... I'd actually say they did damn well.


And yeah, there are some teachers out there who have the fortitude to do it. It's not the majority, but it's not the majority of people in general. There's a program called troops to teachers right now, so not only might there be a teacher out there with what it takes to shoot back, there may be some who already have in a previous career.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

I find these arguments extremely interesting, living as I do in Canada. We've had gun control for ages (although hunting rifles are pretty easy to get, handguns are insanely difficult and assault weapons downright impossible), and not only have we not been rounded up and murdered by the government, our homicide rate is less than a third that of the U.S.

So whenever someone starts saying that even the slightest attempt to reduce gun access and sales will lead to Mad Max, I get very confused.

I'm sure the data is out there, but it'd be interesting to view US gun crime if you take away young black males killing each other & suicides.

America is nothing like Canada. Fundamentally different cultures. And to each their own, Canada seems like a pretty nice place. But... we like AR15's down here. And I don't really mind that you guys don't, though I would get deeply offended if you stated that I shouldn't be allowed to have them just because you aren't.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

As people have already said, to many and most likely most gun owners, their guns mean more to them than money.

The US has more heart in such matters, and will not go quietly like other countries have with such bans. Gun bans and even the most strict gun control won't work.

Well said. My guns are worth more than their cash value to me (which is significant, every time Obama opens his mouth lately the price of magazines jumps another 10 bucks, AR15's are selling 3x value if you can even find them).

The really interesting thing is the number of posters here who view the idea of armed soldiers going door to door confiscating guns as a good (or at least "not that bad") thing.

Incredible.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Well said. My guns are worth more than their cash value to me (which is significant, every time Obama opens his mouth lately the price of magazines jumps another 10 bucks, AR15's are selling 3x value if you can even find them).

The really interesting thing is the number of posters here who view the idea of armed soldiers going door to door confiscating guns as a good (or at least "not that bad") thing.

Incredible.

Good to know there are fellow posters like you that know what they are talking about.

I think that your argument that Americans are somehow heavily inclined to domestic terrorism and murder makes little sense. There's nothing indicating that a gun ban in the US wouldn't work, like they worked anywhere else they were tried.

Heck, just today Iztapalapa in Mexico has started a 'depistolisation program' to reduce the number of firearms in town. And that's in the country with drug cartels with unlimited funds due to smuggling, and unlimited firearms because the US sells them as many as they need.

If it works even there, it'll work anywhere.

Do you realize who are the largest supporters of gun control in the US are?

Criminal organizations and gangs. They of course don't want the people they try to steal from or kill to fight back on equal footing.

So, of course gun control in Mexico is "working". If guns are flowing so freely into the country, who's getting the guns that the citizens aren't getting, because they have had to give their guns up to the government.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

Also don't forget that the Posse Comititus act, which forbids the military from acting as a law enforcement agency in US borders, would probably shoot the whole idea down right there. Now, think MasterChiefPWN can find enough votes to repeal that and explain it to the voting public?

Another good point. Though I hope such a thing could be strong enough to stop the government from trying. It tends to ignore such things, and I'm sure I remember times when the government has been called out to keep the peace and wrangle up people breaking laws(causing damage).

Those things maybe more violent breakings of the law, but it ends up turning the military into a law enforcement agency.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Oh, and Virginia Tech had an on campus police department, which is totally the norm for colleges to have. That didn't stop 32 people from dying and another 32 to be injured.

Now you want to put guns in the hands of teachers. Yeah, that would totally work. Because there has never been a mass shooting where there were a ton of guns and people trained to use them right?

Fucking wrong.

Fort Hood. A military base was shot up. Don't feed people this crap about how having teachers with guns will make schools safe, especially when a base filled with trained soldiers could not stop one of their own from killing 13 people and injuring another 20+

So did hassan just magic himself into that wheelchair or what? You clearly haven't spent much time on a military base.

Cho killed himself upon hearing the campus security quick reaction force start prepping to breach, he had plenty of ammo still on him at the time. He could have been dead even sooner had somebody shot back, but that's just something to review for the future. The reaction force actually did a very good job, Cho had just thought his attack through very well. Limited entrances/exits, solid doors, chains... I'd actually say they did damn well.


And yeah, there are some teachers out there who have the fortitude to do it. It's not the majority, but it's not the majority of people in general. There's a program called troops to teachers right now, so not only might there be a teacher out there with what it takes to shoot back, there may be some who already have in a previous career.

Sorry, but your points really do fall flat here. Yeah Hassan is now paralyzed. But that's one paralyzed guy who beforehand, shot down 45 people. 13 of which are dead. One asshole paralyzed isn't going to bring back those 13 people or remove the trauma from the other 32 victims.

And your point about Cho isn't really the best considering that Cho was killing people for about 2 and a half hours before he offed himself. He killed the first 2 at 7:15. The other 30 at between 9:40-9:51. And that was 30 out of 53 people he shot. I'm sorry but I would not call that a good job on the parts of the reaction force. Adding teachers with guns to that would have made things worse.

Your point about teachers with guns really irks me, as you essentially say that not all teachers would have the fortitude to use a gun in a situation where it was warranted. And its great that there is a program for called Troops to Teachers getting veterans into the teaching field, but that completely ignores what I brought up about gun theft on school property. The Columbine shooters and the Sandy Hook shooter both stole legally acquired assault rifles from their parents.

Now I know this is a what if, but you can't deny the possibility of a mass shooting happening where the guns used were just stolen from teachers during school hours. You'd have guns out of schools really quickly with headlines reading, "Guns used to protect children used to kill them" plastered on every newspaper and internet article for the world to see. Then what an ass you would feel like for advocating guns in the hands of teachers for protection. Potential killers wouldn't have to steal their parents guns anymore, and stealing the guns of the parents is in the majority of cases where a lot of these school shooters get them from.

They had guns in the hands of well trained police in the Empire State Building when that guy earlier this year decided to blow his boss away in the lobby. Those cops wound up grazing 9 other civilians AFTER shooting the killer. Now, I'm not saying that cops should not have guns obviously, but that point is more there to point out that having a bunch of guns in an area doesn't make it safer. Putting guns in the hands of teachers would open the door for opportunistic like: teachers accidentally shooting students, other faculty members, police on the scene. All opportunities that aren't there now.

Hell, there were armed guards at Columbine during the time of the shooting. One of them got into a shootout with Harris but could not take him out. Having teachers on top of that is unnecessary and would just be putting more guns into school than need be. And I doubt that teachers would be packing anything more than handguns if such craziness were to happen. Most school shootings involve people in bulletproof armor and assault rifles so the odds of survival are still vastly in the killers' favour.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Hassan was able to smuggle a pistol into a soft target. I know you think military bases are more heavily armed inside, but that is really not the case. Stateside, once you're past the gate it's a soft target and Hassan knew this. Shame.

And your point about Cho isn't really the best considering that Cho was killing people for about 2 and a half hours before he offed himself. He killed the first 2 at 7:15. The other 30 at between 9:40-9:51. And that was 30 out of 53 people he shot. I'm sorry but I would not call that a good job on the parts of the reaction force. Adding teachers with guns to that would have made things worse.

Regarding Cho, the two shootings you pointed to occurred earlier in the day and were reported as a separate incident. The timeline for the actual active shooter on campus dispatch is such:

Timeline
0941 Shooting starts
10 KIA
6 W
0942 Disptatch notified, LE dispatched
9 KIA
10 W
0945 LE arrives
11 KIA
11 W
0951 LE makes entry
2 shots are heard (person was already dead)
0952 Cho dead
Cho fired 113 9mm, 61 .22 and conducted 17 magazine changes.


I don't believe that "more guns" is not always the answer, of course, but that guns in the hands of lawful citizens is a good thing and should be encouraged.

They had guns in the hands of well trained police in the Empire State Building when that guy earlier this year decided to blow his boss away in the lobby. Those cops wound up grazing 9 other civilians AFTER shooting the killer.

I actually take great joy in that incident, because NYC is one of those "We are better than you mere peasants, only the trained elite police officers shall be allowed to carry guns!" kind of places.
Seeing the NYPD act the fool while the rest of America smirks is a fine thing indeed. Still, I wasn't in the shooting so I really shouldn't get too smug about it. The two-way range is a *****, or so I hear.

Most school shootings involve people in bulletproof armor and assault rifles so the odds of survival are still vastly in the killers' favour.

Clearly, then, we should roll over and take it. This is when arguing politics with non-Americans gets complicated, as we so often view the world through different glasses.


Disclaimer - I'm military police and have had limited active shooter training, though I thankfully have never had to engage one. The thought of disarming my fellow citizens because one of them "might" snap one day has never crossed my mind. Americans should be as free as possible, and this includes the possession of arms. The second amendment has already been seriously infringed. Lets not continue.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Hassan was able to smuggle a pistol into a soft target. I know you think military bases are more heavily armed inside, but that is really not the case. Stateside, once you're past the gate it's a soft target and Hassan knew this. Shame.

Fair enough.

And your point about Cho isn't really the best considering that Cho was killing people for about 2 and a half hours before he offed himself. He killed the first 2 at 7:15. The other 30 at between 9:40-9:51. And that was 30 out of 53 people he shot. I'm sorry but I would not call that a good job on the parts of the reaction force. Adding teachers with guns to that would have made things worse.

Regarding Cho, the two shootings you pointed to occurred earlier in the day and were reported as a separate incident. The timeline for the actual active shooter on campus dispatch is such:

Timeline
0941 Shooting starts
10 KIA
6 W
0942 Disptatch notified, LE dispatched
9 KIA
10 W
0945 LE arrives
11 KIA
11 W
0951 LE makes entry
2 shots are heard (person was already dead)
0952 Cho dead
Cho fired 113 9mm, 61 .22 and conducted 17 magazine changes.


I don't believe that "more guns" is not always the answer, of course, but that guns in the hands of lawful citizens is a good thing and should be encouraged.
You guys already have guns in the hands of lawful citizens, what with people in certain States having concealed carries and such. My problem is having guns on school grounds in the care of teachers. There are many more cons to that scenario than pros. As I've mentioned before, it would make the effort of potential mass shooters getting guns lower. It would also create the possibility of many gun related deaths due to human error, i.e. teachers accidentally killing the wrong people and such. It also begs the question, what if the teacher goes postal? There are just too many ways guns in school could become a giant mess .

They had guns in the hands of well trained police in the Empire State Building when that guy earlier this year decided to blow his boss away in the lobby. Those cops wound up grazing 9 other civilians AFTER shooting the killer.

I actually take great joy in that incident, because NYC is one of those "We are better than you mere peasants, only the trained elite police officers shall be allowed to carry guns!" kind of places.
Seeing the NYPD act the fool while the rest of America smirks is a fine thing indeed. Still, I wasn't in the shooting so I really shouldn't get too smug about it. The two-way range is a *****, or so I hear.
That's a shame that you're glad that 9 people almost died due to police incompetence. I'm here trying to argue for having less needless gun deaths in that States and you're letting a bit of pride get into the discussion. If those 9 people died would you be so happy about the situation?

Most school shootings involve people in bulletproof armor and assault rifles so the odds of survival are still vastly in the killers' favour.

Clearly, then, we should roll over and take it. This is when arguing politics with non-Americans gets complicated, as we so often view the world through different glasses.
I'm looking at it from a statistics perspective here. You guys have the highest rate of gun related injuries out of the developed countries. 10th on the list of top 10. The top 9 are mostly 3rd world countries. As are the next 6 on the list. Canada is 17th, but looking at you're countries numbers versus ours, we still have a lot less gun related issues be a long shot.

Just looking at the list of rampage killers over history, the US unfortunately dominates when it comes to being the one country with the most of them. And gun laws have become more lax over time in the US. As a non-American, its kind of hard for me and a lot of the rest of the world to look at the US history with mass shootings compared to everywhere else. Like shit, the last rampage killing that happened in Canada was in 1984, and our guns laws are tight as hell. That's almost 30 years without a mass shooting. You guys have a massive access to what seems to be a public arsenal compared to ALL 1st world countries and continue to suffer shooting, after shooting after shooting. This isn't arguing politics with non-Americans anymore. This shouldn't be considered politics, it should be public duty to do something about the violence that keeps affecting innocent families. The last politician to do anything about gun control on a federal level that I know of in the US was Bill Clinton with the assault rifle ban. Now I hear the author of that legislation will be introducing a new version to be voted on next month.



Disclaimer - I'm military police and have had limited active shooter training, though I thankfully have never had to engage one. The thought of disarming my fellow citizens because one of them "might" snap one day has never crossed my mind. Americans should be as free as possible, and this includes the possession of arms. The second amendment has already been seriously infringed. Lets not continue.

The fact that you're military police doesn't taking away from my points. The US' system doesn't work for preventing people from getting killed. And I'm honestly getting tired of people using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to buy a Bushmaster from Wal-Mart. And excuse my french but you saying that it has been infringed it bullshit. At least in the way you're implying. In fact let's read the text of the 2nd amendment:
"
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now last time I checked, the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was not part of a well trained Militia. Neither have been most Americans in general. You yourself would count was one due to your military police experience.

But in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller happened and the Supreme Court effectively and officially said fuck it to the militia part of the 2nd Amendment, everyone should have the right to own a gun. So the 2nd Amendment has technically been ignored for the purposes of letting everyone carry a gun. Its ironic that people use it as a defense when its original meaning meant that they themselves could not carry a gun just because they wanted to.

Seriously this conversation is really breaking my head. I'm not advocating for the removal of all guns in the slightest. You guys need them unfortunatley. In fact, and I bet you didn't know this, a lot of the assault rifles that are available in the U.S. are legal in Canada too. Difference is, you have to go through a bunch of regulatory procedure to get one. You have to take 2 tests to my knowledge and pay to take each one. I believe you also have to wait a few months in between tests. Once you have your gun, and it doesn't matter if its a pistol or an AR-15, you have to keep it locked up at all times. That or you get fined. Owning a gun in Canada gives police the automatic right to randomly search your house to see if your gun is locked properly. If you refuse, you get fined. If your gun isn't locked, you get fined. If it's loaded in your home, fined. You take that gun to the gun range and back and no where else unless its a hunting rifle. In which case you take it hunting and back and nowhere else. Since the gun registration in Canada was enacted in 1977, all gun related deaths/injuries fell by large numbers.

I'm not saying you can't have the right to bear arms, but for the sake of incidents like Sandy Hook, that right should not be given to everyone and anyone who isn't ready for it. Guns are very dangerous and need tons of responsibility. Your laws should reflect that. Out of natural human respect for crying out loud.