Part of what makes this difficult to even count in the first place are bills like the Lacey act which makes it a felony for you to violate any other countries fish and wildlife laws - if you ever came into possession of a dead lobster less than 6 inches long for any reason - felony.
What happens is the folks who end up in prison haven't accrued any more of less liability - instead they drew attention.
If you'd like to learn more I recommend Three Felonies a Day. 
I guess the question I have for you is why aren't you in prison now? Why did you choose to commit all those crimes, and what makes you exempt?
Further if your argument is then 'well I shouldn't be in prison because I didn't get caught' - now you're no longer arguing that these people shouldn't have 'done crimes' your argument is they should have been better at it?
Healthiest, it depends. Obesity and metabolic diseases are at their record highs. That's not health. You can medicate those patients to survive, but that's not health. Go to any street and count all the people who would lose their breath after walking three flights of stairs. This is a major civilizational regression and we don't seem to be attacking it at all.
Freest, really? How do you measure this? Certainly there is more rules to comply with than ever before, you are unlikely to be aware of all of them .
While it is somewhat hyperbolic, *Three Felonies a Day" seems relevant here.
You are misrepresenting my advice. I never suggested it as a first resort or the best choice for everyone in all situations. As you can see from my advice, posted hours ago, I agree with your first instincts, but don't just dismiss firearms outright: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/cqc5xv/video_man_violently_attacks_woman_outside_san/eww4duk/
You probably commit multiple felonies a day without realizing it, the laws are so convoluted: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
If they want to get you, they get you.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Protecting yourself + others should be more important to you than legality. I think most victims of violent crime would rather be in court defending themselves than dead or in the hospital.
That's almost certainly not true for you or the average person.
You should read the book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
Combine the concept behind this book with machine learning A.I. data mining everything we do and it will be possible to lock up the whole country.
> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
"Three Felonies a Day"
It’s only true in a narrow technical sense. You were clearly trying to give the impression that people were simply getting away with these offenses, when what is actually happening is that the federal government doesn’t see the need to prosecute people who are already being prosecuted by the states.
> It's a sloppy way for the people in power to ignore equal application of the law by picking and choosing who deserves it, which to me undermines the very principle of rule of law.
Prosecutorial discretion definitely undermines the rule of law, and is a well known people, but it’s everywhere in every justice system and has nothing to do with the government’s approach to guns.
As for the Kendi definition, I was using black in this example because most gun control laws disproportionately affect black people. Substitute other races if you like.
I don’t need to refute your position with data - that’s not what’s wrong with it.
We’ve shown that your 3% claim was misleading as presented.
I am biased by the fact that I grew up in late Communist Czechoslovakia, but the American self-assuredness that "they only come for the bad guys" strikes me as very short-sighted. Precisely the USA with its long history of systemic discrimination against various outgroups should be wary of this kind of complacency.
I'm pretty sure your comment was half-hearted, but here's an Amazon book recommendation for you:
Right, assuming that a case even gets that far.
AND that there happens to be a liberty minded juror.
But what you describe is incredibly fcked up.
Most of us dont even give a sht. Why would we, we're not criminals. We dont care or have to worry about how those scum bags are treated.
Problem is, with so many rules, regulations and laws on the books, there are many innocent people who can very well end up in the exact scenario that you described.
>That isn't really a very good reason though is it?
It's the best reason, no? Dealing with facts as they are, not facts as you might wish they were. Bad laws are a fact of life. Why double down on a bad law by passing new ones that make it worse?
Like right now, it's illegal to throw away junk mail addressed to the previous owner. That's a felony. Sure, the best option is to fix that. But until then, do you advocate spending billions of dollars to enforce that law? Doesn't it make more sense to turn a blind eye to it?
The average American commits three felonies a day. I think some crimes are worth singling out as particularly worthy of enforcement (rape, murder, robbery, etc etc) but border crossing? Why spend more when enforcement is actively bad for us?
There's a great book on this topic called Three Felonies a Day
Harvey Silverglate told us all that we commit an average of Three Felonies A Day.
Given that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, I guess you agree that everybody belongs in jail? Maybe even you do.
We have so many laws that basically the legal system can find something wrong you've done, which makes everyone criminals. It's only a question of if they will charge you with it. You can't have a crime without a law, because a crime is when you break a law.
The war on drugs I would definitely say is crime expanding, as we are taking things that was legal, or more legal (even while dangerous or stupid) and are making them illegal. Now a substance abuse problem is also a criminal problem.
Same for three strikes, because many times you're taking a simple crime and over penalizing it. If the US's crime rate has been dropping so quickly, why do we have such a high prison population?
I also am not sure we're making that many new laws for violent crime. I think that is more or less well described.
And just because it's my favorite saying, "correlation is not causation!"
They now hand out felonies like candy.
For non-violent felonies, its not even a question. You shouldnt lose your rights in the first place.
> After a time they should be able to petition for their rights to be restored - as is current process/law.
Rights arent subject to "evaluation". They are inherent.
And about that restoration process... Wait, what restoration process?
But even more ridiculous is the idea that we're going to set a man free and prevent him from "legally" purchasing a firearm because we dont know if he can be trusted...
But feel free to use your legs, fists, a knife, an "illegally" purchased firearm, a blunt object, a vehicle, any number of chemical concoctions etc etc etc
Its just another excuse to deprive someone of their 2A rights, right to self protection.
The same reason why we need to return to a pre-NICS era.