Gun Rights and Politics

[Verran]

And I certainly believe it's a plausible argument. The only reason I'm not using it now is because Verran requested that such accusations not be brought up. I disagree with the reason why, but I'm doing it our of respect.

No I didn't. I didn't ask you to stop using it, I asked you to stop EXPLAINING it, because I understand it already and I think everyone else does too. It was just getting tiresome and old reading those drawn out posts explaining examples of slippery slopes that usually weren't even directly related, but had to do with heath care or some such thing.

 

As I've said a million times: I'm not questioning whether SS happens. Of course it does. I'm saying that it's not enough. That's how we got to that "should we drop all gun restrictions" question that you answered untruthfully and then took out of context when confronted on your lack of honesty. If you really believed that SS was good enough to stop any further gun legislation, then shouldn't it also be used to revoke the existing stuff which you have already implied is both not functional and also dangerous?

 

The answer for all of us, including you, is no. You just want to use it where it works for you and ignore it where it doesn't. That demonstrates that it doesn't really work on the level you'd like to imply, at least to me.

 

SS is a trump card that when used like you seem to want to use it makes you right all the time without effort. Yes, SS is something to keep in mind, but it's not enough for me to just stop trying altogether on gun control and public safety. The part about the logical fallicy is not to say that SS never happens. It is to say that when used to imply foresight into a definite outcome, it is generally not accurate, and by no means reliable.

[jammin]

OK, I can see this going round and round in circles until everyone just gets fed up with reading the thread.

 

What is this topic about?

 

Gun control. Let's try and stick to that (with some examples from other fields that are relevant, something which has already been motioned.. kudos).

 

So, how about we clarify a few things?

I'm just going to prompt for the moment by asking questions, rather than providing answers (either because I don't know, or because I will get into personal opinion later).

 

What are the current proposals on Gun control from the current administration? (i.e. pieces of legislation that have actually been presented or are in the process of, rather then what may happen)

 

What do you agree/ disagree with about them?

 

Are there practises in place now that might be enforced more effectively / done away with all together?

 

 

 

Personally I get a little tired of the constant negativity we see in discussion threads like this. It's all bitching about what is wrong, rather than making positive constructive suggestions.

I suspect that at the bottom of it, we actually might have reasonably similar views on what gun control measures should (or shouldn't) be implemented, we just aren't actually talking about them.

[ebarone]

I'll play a little devil's advocate here.

 

People are not free because their government granted their freedom, but rather because it is a right inherent to humanity to be free of tyranny, to do as they wish in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. When a government, which is instituted purely to secure those rights, becomes destructive of the rights of the people its meant to serve, it is the right of the people to abolish it.

 

Now, the US government uses M4's, M-16s, .50cal machine guns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, rockets, mortars, grenades, and body armor. Our government in turn allows us to use pistols and rifles as long as they're considered by the government to not fall under the classification of "assault" rifles.

 

As I said, it is the right of the people to abolish a government destructive to the unalienable rights of man. But how in the world are people to do that with such an unfair disadvantage?? How can oppressive governments be abolished if the government has such an insurmountable advantage in firepower?

 

And isnt the issuing of assault rifles to one citizen of the USA while denying another citizen to purchase one a blatant denial of freedom?

 

Therefore, I say any citizen of the USA should have the right to arm himself the same as the government arms itself.

[fire_storm]

Therefore, I say any citizen of the USA should have the right to arm himself the same as the government arms itself.

 

(First before I start I want to acknowledge to some people that I'm not suggesting a gun ban or any other gun legislation.)

 

and what happens when those high powered weapons fall into hands of a political extremist group and they overthrow a peaceful government?

 

I hear this all the time about how people should buy guns just in case the government gets out of control. But the problem I see with that argument is why does everybody assume that the citizens with there guns are going to over throw the bad government and replace it with one with good old American values? I mean what happens if they replace it with something worse.

[Verran]

I guess I have a question to try to get this train back on the rails as jammin has so wisely tried to get us to do...

 

Where do people think black market guns come from? I'm not asking this sarcastically as if to imply they don't know, I'm genuinely asking. I would assume that the largest percentage might be from theft (stealing from law-abiding owners). I would guess a smaller number are smuggled in from other countries (maybe with more lax gun policies, or none at all). I would also think a small number might come from someone with connections at a manufacturer. That last one seems much less likely, but not impossible.

 

Anyways, I ask this because whenever you talk about anything that would either remove guns from the ownership of law-abiding citizens or make it harder for them to acquire more, we run into the argument that criminals will still get them from the black market (loosely defined here). So the question is, how do you fix that? How are they getting to the 'black market' and how do we stop that?

 

This goes back to my point about gun bans taking time. Immediately after a ban is enacted, the black market is entirely intact. But given time, I would think that reduced availability would also work its way into the illegal markets as well. With much fewer guns around, there are much fewer to steal, etc. But that's assuming I've not overlooked some other way of these weapons getting to the black market that may not be affected by a ban or reduction of sales.

 

I would also think that gun registration laws could add more accountability in cases of stolen weapons and could even lead to solving more of these crimes and therefore maybe even prevention. That would of course reduce the supply of black market weapons available to the "bad guys".

[Kash]

Verran, you made a good point about black market guns. I knew there was something I had been meaning to address. I read a study where it was stated that gang members are carrying illegal weapons and that these weapons are stolen out of the cars and homes of those people who legally bought them. This is where gun bans come into play. If you ban the average citizen from owning a gun, then gang members will have a severely limited supply of their own since there won't be anyone to steal the guns from anymore. Theoretically, over the long run this will result in guns being removed from the general populace. Keep in mind that this only works in universal gun bans, not localized ones as that simply shifts the dynamic to where the gang members are still getting their illegal guns but peaceful citizens are incapable of defending themselves. The thing with gun bans is that it's an all or nothing solution.

[benjaminw]

In case anyone in this thread wants to use facts, historical and modern data, statistics, etc., to influence their opinion or add to their knowledge of gun control and gun violence, I highly recommend the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. The book is a statistical analysis of violent crime in America using data from EVERY COUNTY in the US (over 30,000). It was originally published as a brief, but gained popularity and published as paperback. It's a quick read, and in clear language. In the edition I read several years ago, there were several dissenting opinions and rebuttals included, giving opposing voices a place to check the author's data.

 

Again, this is not an "OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN" or "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" book, but a rational, statistical analysis of the relationship between gun laws and violent crime.

[LoArmistead]

In case anyone in this thread wants to use facts, historical and modern data, statistics, etc., to influence their opinion or add to their knowledge of gun control and gun violence, I highly recommend the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. The book is a statistical analysis of violent crime in America using data from EVERY COUNTY in the US (over 30,000). It was originally published as a brief, but gained popularity and published as paperback. It's a quick read, and in clear language. In the edition I read several years ago, there were several dissenting opinions and rebuttals included, giving opposing voices a place to check the author's data.

 

Again, this is not an "OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN" or "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" book, but a rational, statistical analysis of the relationship between gun laws and violent crime.

 

Which means it won't be read by those whose purpose is not to lower deaths, but to be in control of lives

[Verran]

Which means it won't be read by those whose purpose is not to lower deaths, but to be in control of lives

What does that even mean? He seems to be saying that it's not a book for EITHER extreme if you read both of the quotes. Have you read the book?

 

It seems like you're just taking his very unbiased informational post and using it for your own vaguely demeaning shots at your opponents. Doesn't seem very constructive.

[ExRoadie]

We don't have a totalitarian government, I'm talking about our representative democracy, don't be facetious.

 

All I hear is complaining about how big government has gotten, but no true action taken to curtail it. It's not like you didn't have the opportunity. "Conservatives" were in office for six years, yet it was a period of great government expansion! If you're gonna talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

By title, those in the Bush Administration were "conservative" but by their actions they showed that they were not Conservative so don't blame Conservatives for the actions of those claiming they were "conservative".

 

When the Republicans in Congress were done spending the taxpayer funds like drunken sailors on shore leave, many Conservative citizens were angry and felt betrayed. Count me as one of the many unhappy Conservatives.

[ExRoadie]

In case anyone in this thread wants to use facts, historical and modern data, statistics, etc., to influence their opinion or add to their knowledge of gun control and gun violence, I highly recommend the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. The book is a statistical analysis of violent crime in America using data from EVERY COUNTY in the US (over 30,000). It was originally published as a brief, but gained popularity and published as paperback. It's a quick read, and in clear language. In the edition I read several years ago, there were several dissenting opinions and rebuttals included, giving opposing voices a place to check the author's data.

 

Again, this is not an "OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN" or "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" book, but a rational, statistical analysis of the relationship between gun laws and violent crime.

I have a few problems with John Lott's research since it isn't peer reviewed but in my experience simply showing a firearm has protected me from violence twice.

 

I use a BlackHawk Concealed Weapon Fanny Pack when traveling and simply appear to be another tourist in town to see the sights.

 

see how it works in this example...

http://www.amazon.com/BlackHawk-Weapon-Thu...s/dp/B0009NIAWI

[LoArmistead]

What does that even mean? He seems to be saying that it's not a book for EITHER extreme if you read both of the quotes. Have you read the book?

 

It seems like you're just taking his very unbiased informational post and using it for your own vaguely demeaning shots at your opponents. Doesn't seem very constructive.

 

Is Dianne Feinstein going to read it?