Gulaak

spice-boy said:

lkrupp said:

I understand the principle of limiting the government’s ability to compel one to open their phones for inspection. I also agree with the 5th Amendment prohibition against self incrimination. But freedom is not free. Enforcing these prohibitions means we as a society have to accept the fact that crime will continue to rise and victims will continue to be robbed and murdered. I live near St. Louis which made the national news this week because 13 children have been gunned down in the streets this month alone. Protests are being organized demanding the police department DO SOMETHING. But these same protesters don’t want surveillance cameras in their neighborhood, are scared to report anything to the police. They want gun control as if that would change anything and the 2nd Amendment is blocking those efforts.

I’m sure the very people posting here about the 5th Amendment and unlocking phones are probably just fine with legislation outlawing guns in the hands of the public and want the 2nd Amendment repealed. Again, freedom is not free and we need to accept the price of that freedom.

An incident in my on town some twenty years ago still sticks in people’s craws. A woman murdered her boyfriend, cut him up into pieces and stuffed him into a garbage can. She was in an upstairs apartment. She rented a Rug Doctor from a local store in an attempt to clean up the blood. The downstairs apartment occupant noticed a red liquid running down her wall and called police. They knocked on the upstairs apartment and the woman let them in. One of the officers saw the garbage can and lifted the lid to find the dismembered body. The case was dismissed because the officer didn’t have a search warrant to open that lid and the garbage can and dismembered body were ruled inadmissible evidence. Blame the cop if you want but the woman got away scot free with murder. Tell the family of the victim it’s the price of freedom and too bad for you.

You have over simplified a very complex problem and of course are blaming the victims. Control does not mean taking guns away from everyone but making sure those who wish to purchase a gun have background checks and in my opinion other screening techniques before putting a deadly weapon in their hands. Your criticism of people not calling what they perceive as a not "friendly" city agency, the police department, at fault shows how little you understand about their lives. There was a time when cities with high crime rates and deaths related to guns violence were isolated in cities with high levels of poverty. That has changed since the 1970's and 1980's, today gun violence happens everywhere, rich suburbs, schools, movies theaters and just about anywhere. Years ago you knew not to enter a "dangerous neighborhood", today anywhere could be that dangerous neighborhood. As deaths from gun violence increase so do the consumption of fire arms. More guns do not solve the problem, there is no way to argue it would. 
I lived in the most dangerous neighborhood in New York City during the early 1980's, my apartment was one floor above a drug dealer who had a guard outside his apartment with a sawed off shotgun. My apartment was robbed twice one time while I was sleeping, I never thought once of getting a gun before after those events. I guess only cowards need guns.