^^ lol I don't think that means what you think it means.

4/20/2013 10:37:15 AM

^ No it pretty much means "the right of the people shall not be infringed" and "the people" would be the same "the people" referred to in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. This is even more evident with only a cursory glance at both the contemporary meaning of the phrase "we'll regulated" at the time it was written (http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm) and the history of the creation of the second amendment and its legal interpretation at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

4/20/2013 12:09:33 PM

Well that goes against supreme court decisions and the opinion of the supreme court, but anyone is allowed to have their own opinion

(just realize that your interpretation carries no weight)

4/20/2013 12:24:54 PM

Which decisions and interpretations? Do you mean this supreme court decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Quote :

"The Supreme Court held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia], and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. "

Or perhaps you meant this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago where in the court incorporated the interpretation of 2nd amendment from Heller to apply to the states?

Maybe this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

Quote :

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

Perhaps this one then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Quote :

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_v._Louisiana

Quote :

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms..."

4/20/2013 1:57:46 PM

Background checks and other non arbitrary controls to not keep anyone from having that right, so no, none of those.

in the courts obiter dicta they have said specifically that reasonable controls to not infringe on the right. that's the courts interpretation, which actually carries weight.

4/20/2013 2:07:43 PM

Quote :

"moron All American 23736 Posts user info edit post Quote : "is that firearm ownership and possession is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed""

So explain why making it illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater is illegal.

4/20/2013 2:27:12 PM

Also, why can't I publish in the paper that you have oral sex with large goats in a non-parodying way?

4/20/2013 2:47:28 PM

Quote :

"Here's the other thing. I wonder, is there any amount of logic or reason that could get gun owners to change their minds? Like, if it was shown that registration and background checks were effective, and that gun crimes would drop drastically, and that there would not be a confiscation of guns....would it matter?"

To answer your questions honestly, it pretty much all depends, and you'd have to make a very compelling case.

First off, you will never be able to prove there would be no confiscation. You simply are not able to tie the hands of the people in power in such a manner. Hell, we can't even keep less threatening and specifically enumerated rights from being slowly eliminated by our elected officials, what makes you think we'd ever be able to prevent them from using a registry to confiscate weapons if they so desired? Never mind that throughout history weapons registration programs are almost always followed by laws to confiscate those weapons. So since you'll never be able to make that guarantee, and given our government (and all government's) propensity to take a mile every time we give an inch on our rights, you're already fighting an uphill battle here.

Secondly off, I don't care if "gun crimes" drop except if crimes as a whole drop. Personally if someone tries to kill or harm me, the fact that they use a gun, a knife, a baseball bat or a pressure cooker loaded with explosives doesn't really matter to me, it's the fact that they're trying to kill me that matters. And if someone is intent on harming me or other people, while easy access to a particular weapon may direct how they attack, restricting will not prevent them acting because their intent is to attack. Mass killings are hardly new events in human history, and murder is more or less as old as humanity itself.

What you would need to demonstrate is that registration and universal mandated background checks (because to be perfectly clear, I have no objections to having a system in place for a seller to run a background check if they so choose) would decrease ALL person on person crime and that it would do so in a nation with a similar cultural and ethnic makeup as ours. And beware of the unintended consequences of enacting such a registration scheme. Prohibition and the "war on drugs" (and for that matter the "war on terror") have all had a number of side effects that are or were arguably worse than the disease. You would also have to show that we have met the maximum effectiveness of our current laws (we haven't) and that there is no other law or action that could be taken that would have the same or similar effect without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. You would also have to demonstrate that the crimes you are seeking to stop would be affected by the proposed registry in question. Bear in mind that any person who has not already forbidden from owning a firearm would pass any background check and registration system you put in place, so this system would fail to address or prevent first time (felony) offenders (notably, most of the recent mass killers have been first time offenders, and I would imagine that a large number of murderers are as well). Then bear in mind that of your repeat offenders, they are most likely already getting their guns in a transaction that is knowingly illegal: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Per that source, most criminals get their gun illegally on the street (~40%) or from a family member or friend (~40%). Of course you might say "registration would prevent those family and friend sources", but here's a question for you: If you went away to jail for a year (minimum time for a felony), how many of your family and friends who would be willing to sell or lend you a gun wouldn't know? Also, worth pointing out, that source notes that between 91 and 97, the number of guns used in crimes obtained from a retail establishment declined, indicating that the background check laws which went into effect in the intervening period made a difference. But that same source also notes that firearm usage increased between 91 and 97 and that repeat offenders were as likely or more likely to carry a gun, which implies (as has been argued) that the background checks simply changed how they got their guns, not if they got them.

TL;DR Presenting data that a new background check and registration system would lower gun crimes isn't enough. You would need to present much more, including overall crime reduction and evidence that we are already enforcing our current laws to the maximum extent possible.

4/20/2013 3:35:35 PM

That's an impressive set of goalposts you've built.

4/20/2013 4:04:07 PM

that source was criticized by pro-gun people earlier in this thread for being a survey of only incarcerated people

4/20/2013 5:41:05 PM

aa 14-year west virginia boy is really standing up for his rights (rifles and silly haircuts)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/23/dad-west-virginia-boy-arrested-over-nra-shirt-says-hell-fight-punishment/

4/23/2013 1:44:56 PM

Quote :

"in a nation with a similar cultural and ethnic makeup as ours"

My favorite gun control argument! Gun control doesn't work here because we have black people. Care to explain how having black people makes gun control not work? (Bonus points if you can do it without being racist)

4/23/2013 2:32:43 PM

Quote :

"aa 14-year west virginia boy is really standing up for his rights (rifles and silly haircuts)"

I'm going with the kid on this one, barring some evidence that he was disrupting the class before the teacher told him to remove the shirt.

4/23/2013 2:41:05 PM

Congrats, school system, you have zero chance of not losing this impending lawsuit.

4/23/2013 2:45:50 PM

Quote :

"(Bonus points if you can do it without being racist)"

It's their culture!! They got dependency imbedded in them because of all that welfare they get that coincidentally white people also have access to.

4/23/2013 4:00:46 PM

^^I don't think you understand how this works. Zero chance? If there is any rational argument they could make, then they have a decent chance. There are a lot of free expression rules that don't apply, and also a lot of due process rules that don't apply, when it comes to the educational setting.

(And to be clear, the facts presented in media articles are not nearly sufficient to decide who has the stronger legal argument. It's important to keep in mind that usually news articles only contain one very biased side of things.)

[Edited on April 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM. Reason : sdf]

4/23/2013 4:07:49 PM

Quote :

"My favorite gun control argument! Gun control doesn't work here because we have black people. Care to explain how having black people makes gun control not work? "

Since I never made that argument, I don't see how I owe you an explanation for your strawman argument.

4/23/2013 4:23:33 PM

Ok, what does "ethnic makeup" have to do with gun control?

basically, the same question, just using euphamisms this time.

4/23/2013 4:25:32 PM

Yeah, I don't get the whole "cultural makeup" = black people thing either, but maybe I missed it.

4/23/2013 5:17:57 PM

americans like guns.
banning things that people like has never ever worked in all of history.

there are 3 types of people for gun control in the us:
1 idiots who think it will work
2 people who just want to take stuff away from other people
3 politicians who want to cash in on the emotional outcry from group 1 + votes from group 2 and don't want to do the things that actually prevent crime like combating poverty or increasing access to/quality of education.

find+replace guns->drugs and the above remains true.

[Edited on April 23, 2013 at 5:34 PM. Reason : a]

4/23/2013 5:34:21 PM

I think that the majority of gun-control advocates know that an all-out "ban" on guns is unreasonable and won't work.

4/23/2013 7:26:40 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I don't get the whole "cultural makeup" = black people thing either, but maybe I missed it."

The context around the "ethnic makeup" thing is that the ethnic makeup of the US is why gun control works in europe and asia but not in the US. Guess what ethnic group is well represented in the US that isn't in europe or asia.

Quote :

"banning things that people like has never ever worked in all of history."

Prostitution and gambling have worked to some degree.

Quote :

"there are 3 types of people for gun control in the us: 1 idiots who think it will work 2 people who just want to take stuff away from other people 3 politicians who want to cash in on the emotional outcry from group 1 + votes from group 2 and don't want to do the things that "

There is a group of people who don't necessarily want to ban all firearms, just make some sensible on who gets them, what they can get, and how they get it.

We do have some gun control laws now, they dont TUK AR GUNS! Keeping guns from felons or having short waiting periods aren't the end of the world are they? Then why is any other gun control destined to fail?

4/23/2013 7:33:38 PM

Quote :

"Prostitution and gambling have worked to some degree."

Facts not in evidence, lol.

Quote :

"in the courts obiter dicta they have said specifically that reasonable controls to not infringe on the right. that's the courts interpretation, which actually carries weight."

Any body that says a little infringement doesn't count as infringement should be laughed at and never taken seriously.

4/23/2013 7:57:58 PM

Quote :

"Facts not in evidence, lol."

Should I compare the prevalence of prostitution and gambling in places where it is legalized versus places it is not? Do I really need to bother?

4/23/2013 8:42:04 PM

Quote :

"We do have some gun control laws now, they dont TUK AR GUNS! Keeping guns from felons or having short waiting periods aren't the end of the world are they? Then why is any other gun control destined to fail?"

So what specific gun control measures do you believe will work here in the us, that meet the criteria I outlined above and do not involve taking guns from the people. I think it's only fair to remind you that the UK, Australia and Japanese measures have all required taking guns from the people.

4/23/2013 9:18:10 PM

Quote :

"Should I compare the prevalence of prostitution and gambling in places where it is legalized versus places it is not? "

Sure, if you'd like to explain how you are measuring it. Also, feel free to discuss how much better the lives of prostitutes are where it is banned versus where it's legal and highly regulated. Also explain how gambling through bookies who break the legs of those who don't pay their debts is preferable to a legal version where that's not allowed.

4/23/2013 11:01:56 PM

There would still be dirty sluts and crooked bookies if those things were legal. It's interesting you have to cite that those things need "regulation" though...

And there are safe ways to have prostitution, but there's not a safe way to have gun violence. The problem is that the current regulatory environment has too many loopholes, to the point where a large portion of gun crimes are committed with illegally acquired guns.

But rather than looking at possible solutions to stop or thwart this illegal trafficking of guns, the NRA has somehow convinced politicians and some people that the best thing to do when faced with a problem that has solvable aspects without trampling rights, is to do nothing.

4/23/2013 11:18:15 PM

Quote :

"lso, feel free to discuss how much better the lives of prostitutes are where it is banned versus where it's legal and highly regulated. Also explain how gambling through bookies who break the legs of those who don't pay their debts is preferable to a legal version where that's not allowed."

We aren't talking about the condition or quality of the industry, we're talking about reducing the size and visibility of it, and outlawing it did that.

Here pick a different one that you might like better, outlawing abortion certainly makes the quality of it worse and much more dangerous, but definitely reduces the amount of abortions.

Quote :

"So what specific gun control measures do you believe will work here in the us"

The ones most recently proposed seem reasonable.

Quote :

"I think it's only fair to remind you that the UK, Australia and Japanese measures have all required taking guns from the people."

Well Canadian and US measures haven't. And I don't think guns were ever legal in japan without special exceptions, I don't think historically even swords were legal.

4/24/2013 12:04:24 AM

Yeah, they're a pretty weapon averse culture. It traces back hundreds of years, when common folks were not allowed to have weapons. But I think comparing Japan to the United States is probably not the best example. Australia, the U.K., and Canada are much more similar.

4/24/2013 6:40:52 AM

Agreed that Japan is a poor example; they've traditionally had extremely strict weapons controls through most of their history. I think their last big weapons sweep was in the 1600s when the newly established Shogunate mopped up excess swords and muskets.

If we are to draw lessons and parallels, it would have to be the Canadians and Australians. They have both a more similar culture and better understanding of the sort of "vast wilderness" / "vast open space" that drives some of the rural thinking in the United States that I think people in urban / suburban sometime don't fully appreciate. Also have had a similar gun culture in the past.

4/24/2013 9:43:31 AM

Quote :

"Prostitution and gambling have worked to some degree."

there are prostitutes in pretty much every us city and town. many are essentially slaves trafficked in from other countries. they have no way to escape because if they go to the cops they'll get deported for prostitution and being undocumented.

Gambling has never really been illegal in the us. it happens everywhere at all different levels both legally and illegally. from vegas to church bingo and lottery tickets and from office betting pools to large scale illegal sports betting. now days local governments are trying to get in on the act to generate more revenue.

in both cases prohibition didn't work and in the case of prostitution its probably actively harmful to many women.

Quote :

" There is a group of people who don't necessarily want to ban all firearms, just make some sensible on who gets them, what they can get, and how they get it. We do have some gun control laws now, they dont TUK AR GUNS! Keeping guns from felons or having short waiting periods aren't the end of the world are they? Then why is any other gun control destined to fail? "

They are always destined to fail because there will always be black market sources for guns. Plus most of the proposed regulations are unenforceable. People aren't gonna register their guns and the cops don't have the manpower to search everyone's home for illegal arms. There are simply too many already in existence and too many people who want to use them for non-criminal purposes that they will never go away. All it takes is for one of the millions of guns in this country to get into the hands of someone crazy for another shooting to happen. The proposed legislation will not be effective in preventing crime, which isn't even their goal. The goal is to have an easily assignable target for blame after the next one happens.

Really, though, this is another example of touting an outlier (mass shootings) as reason for new legislation. If you want to talk about the bulk of gun related crime, then we're looking at more frequent, smaller incidents that involve totally different motivations from mass shootings. Motivations that are a result of much deeper problems like poverty. In those cases its far more effective to talk about changing that motivation. Where you probably cant stop a guy from going nuts and shooting a bunch of dudes, you probably can stop a guy from robbing a store at gun point by giving him an education, job, and/or some form of support.

When comparing gun crime rates in different big cities the largest differentiators are not their gun laws, but their demographics and economic prospects. Things like unemployment, education levels, and job quality are more important than anything else.

Anyone trying to fix that kind of gun violence with gun laws is just looking for a scapegoat so they don't have to solve the real problems. Those problems are hard work and require resources and time, both of which don't get you reelected like a feel good gun law. theres also a bit of racism in there (the same with drug laws) where guns or drugs are an excuse to target minorities who wont be able to defend themselves in court. Rich white kid gets caught with some pot, "oh heh, boys will be boys! its part of growing up and its a victimless crime anyways. just toss him community service cause his dads a big political donor". black kid gets caught with drugs "hes ruining the neighborhood! thank jesus we have these laws to deal with his kind. lock 'im up!"

tl;dr: the resources spent on gun control would be better spent on things that would do more good and actually help solve the problem of gun violence.


[Edited on April 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM. Reason : a]

4/24/2013 12:26:42 PM

Quote :

"When comparing gun crime rates in different big cities the largest differentiators are not their gun laws, but their demographics and economic prospects. Things like unemployment, education levels, and job quality are more important than anything else. "

100% accurate yet no side talks about it.

The gun "debate" is almost always centered around "less guns = less crime" or "an armed populace = a safe populace" which totally ignores your point.

4/24/2013 1:13:45 PM

Quote :

"in both cases prohibition didn't work"

They did work. They worked as well as outlawing murder, it still happens, but it happens a lot less and people get punished for it.

Your argument is that laws don't work because crime happens anyways. People still die while wearing seatbelts so there's no use. Kids still die while bicycling with helmets, so there's no use. If anything is not 100% effective, it's 0% effective.

Quote :

"They are always destined to fail because there will always be black market sources for guns."

There will always be a blackmarket for anything. You can buy hand grenades or rocket launchers on the black market, should those be legal?

Quote :

"In those cases its far more effective to talk about changing that motivation."

Well no where in the world have they gotten rid of poverty, yet some places in the world they have gotten rid of guns, and surprisingly their government did not become tyranical and they have less shooting deaths.

4/24/2013 1:44:09 PM

I see this has escalated once again to equating all gun control measures with completely banning guns. Again, all the proposed legislation did was make it a little harder for a potentially dangerous person to buy a gun. That's it. It didn't infringe on the rights of any law abiding gun owner.

No one, not even the President, has suggested it would stop an event like Newtown. If I want to buy a used a car, the transaction has to go through the DMV. I've yet to hear a single coherent argument why gun sales shouldn't be similarly regulated.

4/24/2013 2:56:22 PM

Technically, when you buy a used car, it does NOT go through the DMV. Getting a title to drive it on the roads goes through the DMV.
That would be similar to what we currently have, where the Concealed carry permit allows you carry it around with you, except we already went farther with having a background check for pistol purchases.

4/24/2013 3:09:06 PM

Yeah.... no. That would only be similar if you needed a CCP to do anything other than stare at your shiny new gun while it sat on a shelf in your garage.

4/24/2013 3:26:42 PM

Yeah, I find it funny that the most common response is not to deal with the proposed changes, but to extrapolate the proposed changes further until they become gun confiscation plans or something more onerous, and then argue against those proposals.

A mandatory background check and registration system for all new guns would not reduce the level of gun ownership for anyone currently allowed to own a gun. It wouldn't limit a single person, a single type of gun, or a single transfer of ownership. It would just force responsibility of purchasers. It also wouldn't eliminate current problems with all illegal gun sales...but over the next 10-20 years it would solve most of the problems.

We have a lot of solutions that are implemented over the long haul. Some of the Social Security adjustments and reforms passed 15 years ago are just going into effect now.

4/24/2013 4:48:03 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I find it funny that the most common response is not to deal with the proposed changes, but to extrapolate the proposed changes further until they become gun confiscation plans or something more onerous, and then argue against those proposals."

The reason people extrapolate is because it is what has happened time and again throughout history, and because the same "loopholes that need to be closed" today are yesterday's "reasonable gun control" in this country's history. But I'm happy to discuss current proposals with you jus as soon as you provide support for those proposals as outlined above.

Quote :

"It also wouldn't eliminate current problems with all illegal gun sales...but over the next 10-20 years it would solve most of the problems."

I assume you have some evidence of this?

4/24/2013 6:35:08 PM

take de facto registration out of the NICS process

simple as that

4/24/2013 6:55:22 PM

^
That's not feasible and senseless to remove auditing capabilities from a computerized system. If they're keeping track of who is using the system and what purpose, to prevent abuse, it will always be possible to mine this for who may own a gun.

This is inherent and valuable to computerizing any process.

What other systems should an audit trail be removed from?

And of all the things the 2nd amendment can be extrapolated for defending against, registration isn't one of them.

4/24/2013 7:00:58 PM

there's a federal law specifically outlawing registration

[Edited on April 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM. Reason : just get the fucking make, model, and serial numbers off the forms. it's not difficult.]

[Edited on April 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM. Reason : fads]

4/24/2013 7:10:32 PM

Quote :

"The reason people extrapolate is because it is what has happened time and again throughout history"

So using examples of gun measures that worked from countries with a homogeneous population isn't accurate to the US but using gun measures that caused confiscation from countries with a homogeneous population AND a different time period is completely fine and 100% accurate to the US.

[Edited on April 24, 2013 at 8:19 PM. Reason : because HISTORY]

4/24/2013 8:18:30 PM

^ they are putting the "nut" in "gun nut."

It's more important to protect the facade of what they think is a defending freedom, than using technology in a sensible, non-intrusive way.

4/24/2013 9:30:23 PM

^^ homogeneous after they killed everyone who wasn't the same?

^ it is intrusive.

4/24/2013 11:33:31 PM

Evidence? What I've said hasn't been tried...here's what we know, but I'm not advocating - taking away guns has worked. It worked in Australia, it worked in the U.K. But I'm NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD DO THAT, or that it will always work. I said register and hold people responsible for their guns and the sale of their guns. Then far fewer guns end up in the hands of the wrong people, because it's not worth the risk, and so many of the gun violence incidents decrease.

No one has done that because any country that had enough support to do something like that just straight up banned guns, didn't bother with registration. But I will admit, we have a much stronger gun ownership right in the U.S. than anywhere else, and because of that I support the right to own guns. We are also an inherently much more violent culture than many others, and so I agree the need for guns as a prevention measure is much higher than most places.

People in the U.S. are vindictive, violent, angry, and independent when compared to many other populations. We are not the passive collective. While other cultures may have a history of gun ownership, I think we are a unique culture in many ways.

I can't point to registration solving the problem in other environments. I understand if you look to that as a reason why it should not be tried, but I think at the very least you should have to logically address why this solution WOULD NOT WORK to significantly reduce the incidence of gun violence. I only mentioned that solution because it logically addresses the issues that create gun violence. I am more than open to any other solution that addresses the same causes. Now, if you agree it WOULD WORK to reduce gun crime significantly, but say the cost or burden would be too high due to the Second Amendment rights, then that's a separate argument, and I would be happy to discuss that.

As for the "it has happened time and time again argument," slippery slope arguments are bullshit. They are the product of a weak logical framework. We have laws, and limits, and as a society we are more than capable setting those boundaries and clearly establishing those lines. The only way we get a slippery slope progression is if society as a whole makes a giant shift. Gay marriage, civil rights, smoking indoors, these are the types of things where a crack in the door results in larger restrictions or expansions of rights.

Argue the proposal being made. The only responses are (1) it wouldn't work, or (2) the cost would be too high.

[and yes, i get this is a purely hypothetical proposal, because no one has the balls to address gun control in congress...the argument in my mind, though, is what works? and if you say this doesn't, then feel free to propose your own solution. but don;t just act like there is no way to improve the level of gun violence we have, because that's bullshit.]

[Edited on April 25, 2013 at 12:08 AM. Reason : dsf]

4/25/2013 12:04:58 AM

The only problem, is that it didn't work in the UK or Australia.
The UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. They just picked a different weapon. The crime rate was decreasing in the UK, and did not decrease at a faster rate once guns were confiscated.
In Australia, the rate of home invasions and robberies increased after their registration/ confiscation.

4/25/2013 12:15:49 AM

Quote :

"The UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. They just picked a different weapon. The crime rate was decreasing in the UK, and did not decrease at a faster rate once guns were confiscated. In Australia, the rate of home invasions and robberies increased after their registration/ confiscation."

How many times can we say that we aren't talking about a gun ban/confiscation?

4/25/2013 12:20:48 AM

Actually, they did work. They significantly reduced gun death and gun violence. Gun laws are not intended to be a panacea for all crimes. Even so, if we exchanged the death rate for a fivefold or tenfold increase in the other crimes rate, that may even be a legitimate discussion to have. How many assaults is a death worth? Clearly it's a tradeoff...but again, it goes back to my prior statement about what is an acceptable exchange.

Presumably, you are saying (without saying it) that by eliminating guns in the hands of responsible citizens, they cannot protect themselves, and thus were victims of more crime in other countries...so what did I propose? Why, a solution to that issue - a solution that doesn't keep ANY GUNS out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but only makes it significantly more onerous for those who CLAIM to be responsible, but who actually aren't. Take a look at it above and tell me why it wouldn't work.

You ignored my proposition entirely. If registration and responsibility were required, there would be no reduction in gun ownership. The only impact would be on those who sell guns to felons, let guns get into the hands of children, don't properly secure their guns, or don't report their guns stolen in a timely fashion.

[Edited on April 25, 2013 at 12:32 AM. Reason : j]

4/25/2013 12:31:24 AM

Quote :

"The UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. They just picked a different weapon. The crime rate was decreasing in the UK, and did not decrease at a faster rate once guns were confiscated. "

LOL your statistic is wrong (http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/), but i bet the death rate did decrease faster, which is what people care more about.

It should be very intuitive that IF we banned guns, it would definitely make us safer, no one with a brain could really dispute this. But that's not what's at issue, that's not what the gun laws in Congress are about, that's not what the vast majority of people even want.

We as a society are well past the point of accepting gun deaths and gun massacres as the price for more gun freedom. What sensible people want is to prevent known nutballs from getting guns, and closing loopholes that a large chunk of illegally acquired guns flow through. It's paranoia to think that strengthening background checks means the gov is going to take our guns, then enslave us.

4/25/2013 1:11:56 AM

lol, nice blog?

4/25/2013 7:42:32 AM