> In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. I bet you apply this very selectively. > Like those clinging to guns

> In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. I bet you apply this very selectively. > Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members). You would not want mandatory monitoring collars, sacrificing privacy to massively reduce the homicide rate, would you? We are willing to bear substantial risks to preserve our rights - I would argue it comes from an intuitive understanding of how dangerous it is to be powerless. So why not apply that same logic to gun rights? There is more to the question than 'Would fewer people die' - after all, if that is all you consider, then monitoring collars would get an unreserved 'Yes!'. This same logic could get that kid a milder sentence - give him a punishment more just considering his age and role in the crime (subjective, I know I know), despite the risk to "law-abiding free citizens" that he kills again. If you're not willing to risk death, your own and that of others, to protect your rights, then you will have none.