No. No. And no. The point she's trying to make is that those who legally purchase and legally possess guns do not commit crimes. She is implying that those who commit gun crimes acquire their guns through unlawful means and, therefore, gun laws do not prevent crime. Put another way, those who commit crimes do not follow laws, and those who follow laws do not commit crimes. Of course we could debate endlessly whether her statement is 100% accurate in all instances, but her thesis is certainly sound.
I see it as an attempt at a witty self truism- like “it isn’t the all that gets you, it’s the sudden stop at the end...” or “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The majority of gun owners now and through history in the United States have been law abiding citizens. The guy who’s owned guns for 20,40 years and not broken a law isn’t likely to(but could) decide to start tomorrow. Restricting access and some sort of verification make sense. From a simple RC drone to a car to Alchohol or an airplane- where foreseeable or demonstrated danger exists we have a duty toMitigate it. But I think the overall point is to not treat all gun owners or would be gun owners as criminals by default. That a person who hasn’t demonstrated they can’t be trusted with the responsibility and is willing to make reasonable good will to demonstrate that... they shouldn’t be lumped in and treated the same in ability to exercise rights as someone who has demonstrated they are a criminal.
Holy shit, we have so many pseudoguest accounts now, I got confused for a second. But what the hell are we all actually disagreeing on here? People who acquire their guns legally, commit a disproportionate minority of gun related crimes. People who acquire guns illegally (most often with the purpose of commiting a crime), tend to use said guns to commit a crime. And the logical continuation of that is to extrapolate that guns themselves are not the problem, but criminals are.
We're basically all arguing the same point here, lol.
@vitklim- I have no idea. By default law abiding gun owners don’t commit gun crimes. The majority of gun owners as a statistic are responsible and not dangerous, and while we can’t give out rocket launches like candy without even seeing an ID- we also can’t treat law abiding citizens like criminals, or criminalize and or demonize guns because of the actions of a minority of criminals.
It’s tricky. I don’t know that I ever have met a person who strictly and completely was in adherence with the law. Jay walking, not signaling the correct distance from turns, using horns as anything but an emergency signal, reporting change found on the street as income for taxes, I mean- technically most people break some law or another every day and that doesn’t include historic “wacky” laws in some places that may or may not be enforced but were never removed from the books like Pennsylvania laws stating those driving on rural roads at night must stop every hour and send up a rocket flare, or the West Virginia law that forbids eating candy and hour before church services on Sundays....
But TECHNICALLY- law abiding doesn’t mean one strictly adheres to law. We can interpret abiding in many ways including by its definition- a sort of tolerance for. So we could say someone locked in prison was “law abiding” if they took a view of “I did the crime, I pay the time. That’s how things work...” as they aware abiding the fact that they are subject to penal law for their transgression. So... I mean... if we view law abiding to mean one who doesn’t break the law- you’d be hard pressed to find a person who was law abiding if they exist (unless you go somewhere with little or no law,) and if we view it to mean a looser sense a criminal can be law abiding by definition because it would basically mean “someone who generally follows the law...” of course I am law abiding. The laws of physics anyway- so far as I know and until I figure out how to break them.
Here, let me make a condescending and insulting reply to your reasonable point, but not include any fact or idea that would refute that point. Ahhh, now I feel superior.
We're basically all arguing the same point here, lol.