Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[DukeNukeEm]

Nah, I'm perfectly fine with much stronger national policy. You only need to get to your absurd levels if you've assumed your conclusion that gun controls don't work.

 

 

 

Face it, there are numerous factors to play into any (city/state/nation)'s crime rates. The fact that Chicago has very tight handgun laws yet still sees a lot of gun violence does not prove that all attempts at gun control are doomed to failure. I've readily acknowledged that a city-level ban is not going to be very effective, so pointing out instances of city-level bans not working particularly well doesn't really do anything.

But gun controls dont work! People get thrown in jail all the time for having guns on them but still the murder problem persists. Even with enforcement its impossible to keep guns out of criminals hands. If you cannot enforce a ban in a city of 3 million with a police department with division-strength manpower how are we supposed to keep 300 million people from breaking gun laws throughout the country?

[StrangeSox]

Stupid image didn't work.

 

I know I was b****ing about race being brought into this earlier, but blacks die from guns at 5 times the rate of whites.

 

The link works if you paste it into the address bar, not sure what's wrong with the embed.

 

What are you saying with that, though? What's your point?

[DukeNukeEm]

And if you'd care to suggest policies to ameliorate those problems, we'd be happy to listen. So far, your only answer, as far as I can tell, is more guns.

I'm not like you, I dont demand action from the government for every problem.

 

If citizens feel more secure with a firearm then they should be free to have one and take responsibility for learning how to properly use it in a self-defense situation. If they dont, they can risk becoming a victim.

[DukeNukeEm]

The link works if you paste it into the address bar, not sure what's wrong with the embed.

 

What are you saying with that, though? What's your point?

Response to Balta's gun death by region graph.

[Balta1701]

What are you saying with that, though? What's your point?

If More Guns = less crime, and african americans have much higher rates of gun violence than other races, does that mean the problem is that african american communities don't have enough guns?

[StrangeSox]

But gun controls dont work! People get thrown in jail all the time for having guns on them but still the murder problem persists. Even with enforcement its impossible to keep guns out of criminals hands. If you cannot enforce a ban in a city of 3 million with a police department with division-strength manpower how are we supposed to keep 300 million people from breaking gun laws throughout the country?

 

Part of the reason you cannot enforce a ban in a large city is because it's surrounded by areas where it is much easier to get a gun. That's why it doesn't work at that mico-level and why it needs to be a national-level policy.

 

Of course there would still be illegal guns and gun violence even if a total ban-and-confiscation policy was enacted. Nobody has ever suggested or argued otherwise. What stronger regulation would accomplish, as we can see from numerous other countries, is to seriously restrict the availability of weapons such that if someone wants to obtain one for illegal purposes, it'll be much more difficult and costly, and there won't be as many guns floating around for otherwise "Good Guys" to have momentary lapses in judgement or accidents.

[StrangeSox]

Response to Balta's gun death by region graph.

 

But what needed to be said? That African Americans suffer disproportionately from gun violence? Ok, not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that information?

[DukeNukeEm]

If More Guns = less crime, and african americans have much higher rates of gun violence than other races, does that mean the problem is that african american communities don't have enough guns?

44% of whites own guns

27% of blacks own guns

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownershi...s-demographics/

 

That aint it.

[StrangeSox]

So a significantly higher percentage of black people are risking becoming victims by not owning guns, then.

[DukeNukeEm]

Part of the reason you cannot enforce a ban in a large city is because it's surrounded by areas where it is much easier to get a gun. That's why it doesn't work at that mico-level and why it needs to be a national-level policy.

 

Of course there would still be illegal guns and gun violence even if a total ban-and-confiscation policy was enacted. Nobody has ever suggested or argued otherwise. What stronger regulation would accomplish, as we can see from numerous other countries, is to seriously restrict the availability of weapons such that if someone wants to obtain one for illegal purposes, it'll be much more difficult and costly, and there won't be as many guns floating around for otherwise "Good Guys" to have momentary lapses in judgement or accidents.

Accidents happen, were just going to have to learn to deal with that as a country. Not just with guns but with everything. Planes can crash, boats can sink, catwalks can fall... just because someone makes a mistake at a range doesn't mean they meant to hurt anyone.

 

As for otherwise law abiding people being caught up in a ragefit and shooting people at random, that's really rare. I dont think the 100 or so people killed every year in those situations is worth tearing up the Constitution and abandoning a core principle of this country.

 

But what needed to be said? That African Americans suffer disproportionately from gun violence? Ok, not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that information?

I'm just laying it out there, not going any further with it.

[Balta1701]

Accidents happen, were just going to have to learn to deal with that as a country. Not just with guns but with everything. Planes can crash, boats can sink, catwalks can fall... just because someone makes a mistake at a range doesn't mean they meant to hurt anyone.

Great.

 

So let's regulate gun sales as strongly as we regulate airplane sales or industrial construction. Fair?

[bigruss]

Accidents happen, were just going to have to learn to deal with that as a country. Not just with guns but with everything. Planes can crash, boats can sink, catwalks can fall... just because someone makes a mistake at a range doesn't mean they meant to hurt anyone.

 

As for otherwise law abiding people being caught up in a ragefit and shooting people at random, that's really rare. I dont think the 100 or so people killed every year in those situations is worth tearing up the Constitution and abandoning a core principle of this country.

 

I'm just laying it out there, not going any further with it.

Stop putting the constitution, aka government laws, on a pedestal.

Edited January 7, 2013 by bigruss22

[StrangeSox]

Accidents happen, were just going to have to learn to deal with that as a country. Not just with guns but with everything. Planes can crash, boats can sink, catwalks can fall... just because someone makes a mistake at a range doesn't mean they meant to hurt anyone.

 

As for otherwise law abiding people being caught up in a ragefit and shooting people at random, that's really rare. I dont think the 100 or so people killed every year in those situations is worth tearing up the Constitution and abandoning a core principle of this country.

 

We institute all sorts of risk-aversion regulations on planes, boats and catwalks.

 

 

I'm just laying it out there, not going any further with it.

 

Thanks for the info I guess, though I'm confused why you brought it up and now don't want to talk about it

[DukeNukeEm]

Great.

 

So let's regulate gun sales as strongly as we regulate airplane sales or industrial construction. Fair?

If that's the attitude were going to have might as well ban half the food we eat, any car with over 75 horsepower, crosswalks, building homes on the Gulf Coast...

[DukeNukeEm]

Stop putting the constitution, aka government laws, on a pedestal.

I dont know if you've ever bothered to read the Bill of Rights, all of it is laws aimed not at the people but at the government.

[StrangeSox]

So wait, are you against airplane and industrial construction regulations as well?

 

But food, cars, crosswalks and homes are all heavily regulated anyway.

[Balta1701]

If that's the attitude were going to have might as well ban half the food we eat, any car with over 75 horsepower, crosswalks, building homes on the Gulf Coast...

Not every argument must be a slippery slope. If something can be improved somewhat with laws, that doesn't mean that every law in the world must happen. We do this all the time. We didn't ban cars over 75 horsepower as a consequence of seatbelt laws.

[DukeNukeEm]

So wait, are you against airplane and industrial construction regulations as well?

 

But food, cars, crosswalks and homes are all heavily regulated anyway.

Honestly, I'm mostly against them. I think we've gone too far in one direction with regulations without stepping back and realizing their cost. I think the attitude of witnessing something horrible happen then passing a bunch of meaningless laws to make us feel better has had an overall negative impact on our country.

[DukeNukeEm]

Not every argument must be a slippery slope. If something can be improved somewhat with laws, that doesn't mean that every law in the world must happen. We do this all the time. We didn't ban cars over 75 horsepower as a consequence of seatbelt laws.

However seatbelt laws did go from being a mere request to a finable offense.

[StrangeSox]

The Myth of the Weak American State

[Balta1701]

However seatbelt laws did go from being a mere request to a finable offense.

And at the same time, there's been a substantial decrease in traffic fatalities and an increase in seatbelt usage. Great.

[bigruss]

I dont know if you've ever bothered to read the Bill of Rights, all of it is laws aimed not at the people but at the government.

It was more of a joke towards you stating that those who place any sort of trust in government are worshippers of a government god.

 

And the Bill of Rights is just one part of the Constitution, for the most part the Constitution is about granting power to government (federal, state, and local) rather than restricting power.

[DukeNukeEm]

And at the same time, there's been a substantial decrease in traffic fatalities and an increase in seatbelt usage. Great.

I do not care at all about that. Seriously, I wear a seatbelt because I'm not stupid... if stupid people want to not wear them then they can go off and get themselves killed. The statistics might not look as good, but the reality behind them is more-or-less unchanged.

 

Were getting off topic btw.

[bigruss]

Not every argument must be a slippery slope. If something can be improved somewhat with laws, that doesn't mean that every law in the world must happen. We do this all the time. We didn't ban cars over 75 horsepower as a consequence of seatbelt laws.

"General welfare" from the Constitution be damned.

[DukeNukeEm]

It was more of a joke towards you stating that those who place any sort of trust in government are worshippers of a government god.

 

And the Bill of Rights is just one part of the Constitution, for the most part the Constitution is about granting power to government (federal, state, and local) rather than restricting power.

Uh its a founding document for a democratic republic written in an era of Kings and Empire. They had to write down how to set it up.