HuckFinn
8 years ago
Seems to me we're talking in circles as it regards guns.

We haven't seen any gun legislation except for Florida really, right?

Illinois is trying to change the age eligibility to 21 and eliminate bump stocks.

Washington wants to get rid of bump stocks, raise age limits and prevent further sales of semi-automatic weapons.

Pennsylvania wants to eliminate assault weapons

South Dakota and Oklahoma want to loosen gun laws so...

Just wondering if all this gun conversation isn't just circular and useless?

Info from
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/05/these-3-states-want-to-make-gun-ownershi 
View All Posts by User
frankj1
8 years ago
there was a Federal ban on "assault" weapons, No expert here, but something like that? Enacted mid 90's
and it expired 2004 or 2005 or so.

Today's Boston Globe referenced that in a front page article about a Federal Judge upholding Massachusetts' extension of that original Federal ban...apparently supported by a 2008 Supreme Court decision that "weapons that are most useful in military service-M16s and the like are not protected under the 2nd Amendment and may be banned"...BUT are therefore a State by State decision.

I never knew this precedent had been established.
View All Posts by User
victor809
8 years ago
Ewok...
I'm again not suggesting we ban any guns. I'm just pointing out that people saying a ban won't have any impact are lying.

The true statement is "I don't feel the ban will reduce killings enough to justify my loss of rights to own specific guns"

People make this decision all the time. Even pro gun people will decide some weaponry should be restricted.. or some people should have their rights infringed. There is nothing wrong with making this decision either way.

But it tires me out to constantly hear the pro gun side simply lie...and say "it won't make any impact" because they are afraid of being honest and saying "a few deaths are an acceptable loss"

View All Posts by User
Phil222
8 years ago

Ewok...
I'm again not suggesting we ban any guns. I'm just pointing out that people saying a ban won't have any impact are lying.

The true statement is "I don't feel the ban will reduce killings enough to justify my loss of rights to own specific guns"

People make this decision all the time. Even pro gun people will decide some weaponry should be restricted.. or some people should have their rights infringed. There is nothing wrong with making this decision either way.

But it tires me out to constantly hear the pro gun side simply lie...and say "it won't make any impact" because they are afraid of being honest and saying "a few deaths are an acceptable loss"

victor809 wrote:



I find it hard to believe that by banning guns it will not bring down the murder rates. That being said, I have seen no studies that claim this to be the case. I have only seen studies that claim it will bring down the "gun homicide" rates. Have you seen something different?
View All Posts by User
victor809
8 years ago
No studies... honestly... you could apply basic economic theory to this...
Make it harder to do something and some percentage fewer people will do it. All you really do when "banning" guns is raise the barrier to entry to do this task.
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
8 years ago
Banning guns will turn good law abiding citizens into criminals... Could set some people off and cause more violence.. 😟
View All Posts by User
HuckFinn
8 years ago

I find it hard to believe that by banning guns it will not bring down the murder rates. That being said, I have seen no studies that claim this to be the case. I have only seen studies that claim it will bring down the "gun homicide" rates. Have you seen something different?

Phil222 wrote:


I looked too. Couldn't find anything either.

It seems like common sense that removing a substantial amount of guns 'should' have that effect.
Here's a link that talks about how that worked out in other countries

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-nearly-eliminated-in-countries-what-us-can-learn-2017-11 
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
8 years ago
Comparing us to other countries won't work... Everybody else are wussies... 😟
View All Posts by User
Phil222
8 years ago
Abstract
The 1996-1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we reanalyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates in Australia.
http://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers/594/ 

Homicide rates in England and Wales pre/post handgun ban.
https://i2.wp.com/mygunculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/UK_Homicide_rates_gun_ban3.png 

"Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem..."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/ 

My mind is not set on ANY issue. I would be willing to change my beliefs if there was evidence of a significant impact on homicide rates. The baby step legislation that has been happening around the country will do little to nothing. Sad truth.
View All Posts by User
Ewok126
8 years ago

Ewok...
I'm again not suggesting we ban any guns. I'm just pointing out that people saying a ban won't have any impact are lying.

The true statement is "I don't feel the ban will reduce killings enough to justify my loss of rights to own specific guns"

People make this decision all the time. Even pro gun people will decide some weaponry should be restricted.. or some people should have their rights infringed. There is nothing wrong with making this decision either way.

But it tires me out to constantly hear the pro gun side simply lie...and say "it won't make any impact" because they are afraid of being honest and saying "a few deaths are an acceptable loss"

victor809 wrote:




I got you, so with that said yes "I don't feel the ban will reduce killings enough to justify any loss of rights to own specific guns" I will add except for those that deserve due to consequences of their actions or issues such as mental illness. Which is a law that is already in place.

Again I do have to agree if the firearms are not available then yes one can't get said weapon easily to use. Thus an impact will be made. I have to add though that I feel we would see an increase in other weapons being used. With that yes maybe less success rates but more severe trauma and torture.

As far as saying "a few deaths are an acceptable loss" I will not say it's acceptable but I will say its a fact of life acceptable or not. This will happen no matter what even if a ban on all firearms was imposed. Would it happen less with a firearm most likely yes, maybe, Would people die in more horrific ways when it comes to murder or suffer more severe mental trauma due to the act, I think so. Nature of the beast and all that jazz when it comes to human nature.
View All Posts by User
victor809
8 years ago
I like drafter' s argument...

"Some percentage of current gun owners are so unstable that if you ban guns it could set some of them off to cause killings"....

I don't think you're helping your cause there drafter.

However, you do help convince me that we should ban all guns, just for a few years, so we can cause those people to start their killing sprees... the news stories will be hilarious.
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
8 years ago
Well suppose they ban all cars over 150hp.. and brush guards.. what kind of outrage would there be..?? 🤔
View All Posts by User
Speyside
8 years ago
The first point I am trying to make is the outrage is disproportionate to the actual number of deaths. I think this is due to the talking heads. Is murder acceptable, no. Is the number of people murdered per year by assault weapons significant, no.

The second point I am trying to make is our constitutional freedoms must not be decreased because it seems to be expedient. Again, I think the talking heads are at fault. They have created paranoia where it shouldn't exist.

As to Victors point, yes a few murders are acceptable when thinking in terms of our constitutional rights and our freedom. Especially when statistically speaking those murders account for 0% of the deaths per year in the USA. Many patriots have died to protect our freedom.

And yes Huck, I am very much a constitutionalist. Nor do I buy into the argument that they could not have imagined the world today. I think the constitution functions as it was intended to.
View All Posts by User
DrafterX
8 years ago
And if Trump doesn't ban assault rifles the Dems will play this hard election time... to their demise most likely tho... 😟
View All Posts by User
frankj1
8 years ago

The first point I am trying to make is the outrage is disproportionate to the actual number of deaths. I think this is due to the talking heads. Is murder acceptable, no. Is the number of people murdered per year by assault weapons significant, no.

The second point I am trying to make is our constitutional freedoms must not be decreased because it seems to be expedient. Again, I think the talking heads are at fault. They have created paranoia where it shouldn't exist.

As to Victors point, yes a few murders are acceptable when thinking in terms of our constitutional rights and our freedom. Especially when statistically speaking those murders account for 0% of the deaths per year in the USA. Many patriots have died to protect our freedom.

And yes Huck, I am very much a constitutionalist. Nor do I buy into the argument that they could not have imagined the world today. I think the constitution functions as it was intended to.

Speyside wrote:


yet the Constitution has been and likely will continue to be a living, changing document.
It is not exactly as the founding fathers left it, and that was also part of their plan...so maybe it is as they left it if it can be amended?

and the President has no real power in this process.
View All Posts by User
Speyside
8 years ago
Frank, that is how the constitution is supposed to work. 2/3 of the House and the Senate ratify the amendment. Then 3/4 of the states ratify it. I am very comfortable with this.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
8 years ago

Frank, that is how the constitution is supposed to work. 2/3 of the House and the Senate ratify the amendment. Then 3/4 of the states ratify it. I am very comfortable with this.

Speyside wrote:


I also like that plan...as long as people are aware (whichever side of any issue) that what they now know to be written in stone might not be one day...and that is perfectly legal and part of the original intent so many worship yet don't understand.

Not so long ago women could not vote. Oh for the good old days, eh?

At this point, based on my quick and unscientific research, any bans on particular weapons would be State's decisions, not Federal Government.
View All Posts by User
MACS
8 years ago
View All Posts by User
delta1
8 years ago
What's the reason there isn't a lot of data about gun violence ? The NRA supported legislation that banned the federal govt. (the CDC) from spending money studying the phenomenon, in 1996.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/ 
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com