Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Assault weapons ban unconstitutional...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    "Reasonable safeguards" One person's "reasonable" is another's unreasonable. Imagine putting Trump in charge of "reasonable safeguards" on speech or freedom of the press.

    I get skeptical once people start talking "reasonable", as it's a weasel word without real meaning.
    I'll be glad to define what I consider reasonable. The use of an open term like 'reasonable' leaves open the possibility for debate and compromise wrt what is 'reasonable' - it avoids drawing a hard line in the sand so as ot leave open the possibility of reaching a consensus.

    I think you should rethink the use of 'weasel', which implies sneaky, deceptive, or weak. Drawing hard lines early might be considered 'strong' or 'truthful' by some. but in a discussion it tends to put up walls and get in the way of understanding between parties with different viewpoints.

    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      In that case, maybe you can explain to me why you think honest, law abiding citizens should be denied the right to own weapons with which they can defend themselves.
      I don't necessarily think they should. Now, why do you suppose that an honest, law abiding citizen would be denied the possibility of owning a gun based on a thorough background check or other filter designed to keep guns out of the hands of violent or mentally unstable people?
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post


        OK, please tell me what position of yours I misrepresented or distorted. What incendiary rhetoric did I "dish out" exactly? If I did, I am sorry.
        Originally posted by Sparko
        Your special pleading is getting a bit old, Jim. I have decided to redefine my gun as a cordless hole puncher.
        against

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd
        So then - you would advocate then for the idea that everyone, no matter if they are insane, or a violent felon, or wife and/or child abuser, drug additct etc. has a fundamental right to own a gun?
        They are both sarcastic exaggerations of the points being made. Only when I reflected your type of response back at you, it didn't sit so well with you.

        Time to move on - yes?
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post



          against



          They are both sarcastic exaggerations of the points being made. Only when I reflected your type of response back at you, it didn't sit so well with you.

          Time to move on - yes?
          Where did I exaggerate something you said and accuse you of a position you don't hold? A sarcastic comment isn't doing that. I was just commenting on your dismissal of analogies that you don't like as bad analogies when we can all see think were pretty spot on.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

            "Reasonable safeguards" One person's "reasonable" is another's unreasonable. Imagine putting Trump in charge of "reasonable safeguards" on speech or freedom of the press.

            I get skeptical once people start talking "reasonable", as it's a weasel word without real meaning.
            Politically speaking it is as amorphous as words like "fairness" are.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Politically speaking it is as amorphous as words like "fairness" are.
              What are you guys looking for, and exhaustive list of proposed regulations and safeguards? Seems to me this is an argument for the sake of argument.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                I'll be glad to define what I consider reasonable. The use of an open term like 'reasonable' leaves open the possibility for debate and compromise wrt what is 'reasonable' - it avoids drawing a hard line in the sand so as ot leave open the possibility of reaching a consensus.

                I think you should rethink the use of 'weasel', which implies sneaky, deceptive, or weak. Drawing hard lines early might be considered 'strong' or 'truthful' by some. but in a discussion it tends to put up walls and get in the way of understanding between parties with different viewpoints.
                But, you didn't open possibility for debate, you made a loaded claim. You have pre-emptively claimed your stuff is reasonable, and said that equating that with sci-fi is "absurd rhetoric".

                You might as well claim that it is absurd rhetoric to disagree with Johnathan Swift's Modest Proposal.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                  What are you guys looking for, and exhaustive list of proposed regulations and safeguards? Seems to me this is an argument for the sake of argument.
                  No. Words like "fair" "reasonable" etc when talking about proposals is empty rhetoric. The words themselves, like "modest" actually hold no real meaning. They serve only rhetorical purposes, designed to pre-judge the proposal.

                  Whether a proposal is "reasonable" is up for debate. But saying people are against "reasonable proposals" is rhetoric designed to judge people by the proposal, not the other way around.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                    No. Words like "fair" "reasonable" etc when talking about proposals is empty rhetoric. The words themselves, like "modest" actually hold no real meaning. They serve only rhetorical purposes, designed to pre-judge the proposal.

                    Whether a proposal is "reasonable" is up for debate. But saying people are against "reasonable proposals" is rhetoric designed to judge people by the proposal, not the other way around.
                    OK. When you have something of substance to say we can talk. This is not worth the time it takes to write this sentence.
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                      I don't necessarily think they should. Now, why do you suppose that an honest, law abiding citizen would be denied the possibility of owning a gun based on a thorough background check or other filter designed to keep guns out of the hands of violent or mentally unstable people?
                      You don't "necessarily" think that law abiding citizens should be prohibited from owning weapons? That kind of weasel language sure makes it sound like you're at least open to the idea.

                      As for a time consuming "thorough background check or other filter", we already have those safeguards in place, and they only inconvenience, to varying degrees, the aforementioned law abiding citizens. The criminals don't bother with any of that. I can guarantee that not a single Chicago gangbanger was subjected to a background check or mental evaluation before acquiring a gun. And that's the problem with gun laws in general: they stop honest people but do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        You don't "necessarily" think that law abiding citizens should be prohibited from owning weapons? That kind of weasel language sure makes it sound like you're at least open to the idea.

                        As for a time consuming "thorough background check or other filter", we already have those safeguards in place, and they only inconvenience, to varying degrees, the aforementioned law abiding citizens. The criminals don't bother with any of that. I can guarantee that not a single Chicago gangbanger was subjected to a background check or mental evaluation before acquiring a gun. And that's the problem with gun laws in general: they stop honest people but do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
                        And MM joins his incivility to the 'uncivildiscourse' bandwagon.

                        I made clear early on I think there may be no way to bring things to some sort of sanity without requiring some action wrt the 2nd amendment. That would be complicated of course, and a last resort.

                        Coming up with solutions is a guessing game. I don't have deep knowledge of laws or legal precedent that would make something hard or impossible. But this is the sort of thing I think is 'reasonable'. Some of it already exists, some does not.

                        As I see it, we have two kinds of problems. We have criminals for whom it is just far too easy for them to get guns illegally (or legally). And we have crazies and violent people that get them through cracks in enforcement or failed communication between agencies. But they also get them at gun shows and private sales. So the first thing to do is make it illegal to buy a gun from any non-licensed source, and make it a requirement (and enforce said requirement) that ANY gun sale to an individual goes through a strict background check both criminal and psychological. That would be a starter.

                        All guns need to be licensed. If you own one, or two, or ten, somebody knows about it.

                        Of course we need to enforce the laws we have. Why we do not I have no idea, but I'll lay that a the feet of folks that think like you do and put a lot of pressure on agencies and government officials to keep enforcement lax.

                        None of this keeps you from owning a gun - no 2nd amendment violation.

                        Criminals are another problem entirely. One thing would be to come down hard on unlicensed guns (after it is required they all be licensed of course)

                        If you even have an unlicensed gun - it's off to jail you go. Good guy or bad guy.

                        And of course massively strict punishment for any crime committed with a gun on the perpetrator's posession, used or not.

                        Now, would that actually work. I don't know.

                        Are there other approaches? Maybe just control the ammo? Seems ammo might be harder to control than the guns. Smart guns that only fire for one individual? but what to do about all the dumb ones out there? Smart guns would be kind of a great way to keep the 2nd amendment active but be able to keep a gun from being stolen, and to know when it was fired (you already know by who). Of course, someone will figure out how to hack them.

                        Now I've made my proposals. What are yours? Or is your proposal status quo and just let all these people keep dying because, well, you just like to shoot.



                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-09-2021, 06:03 PM.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          And MM joins his incivility to the 'uncivildiscourse' bandwagon.

                          I made clear early on I think there may be no way to bring things to some sort of sanity without requiring some action wrt the 2nd amendment. That would be complicated of course, and a last resort.

                          Coming up with solutions is a guessing game. I don't have deep knowledge of laws or legal precedent that would make something hard or impossible. But this is the sort of thing I think is 'reasonable'.

                          As I see it, we have two kinds of problems. We have criminals for whom it is just far too easy for them to get guns illegally (or legally). And we have crazies and violent people that get them through cracks in enforcement or failed communication between agencies. But they also get them at gun shows and private sales. So the first thing to do is make it illegal to buy a gun from any non-licensed source, and make it a requirement (and enforce said requirement) that ANY gun sale to an individual goes through a strict background check both criminal and psychological. That would be a starter.

                          All guns need to be licensed. If you own one, or two, or ten, somebody knows about it.

                          Of course we need to enforce the laws we have. Why we do not I have no idea, but I'll lay that a the feet of folks that think like you do and put a lot of pressure on agencies and government officials to keep enforcement lax.

                          None of this keeps you from owning a gun - no 2nd amendment violation.

                          Criminals are another problem entirely. One thing would be to come down hard on unlicensed guns (after it is required they all be licensed of course)

                          If you even have an unlicensed gun - it's off to jail you go. Good guy or bad guy.

                          Now, would that actually work. I don't know. I'm sure you'll claim it wont 'cause to you its worth all those folks dying so it can stay really easy to own a gun.

                          But to me it simply is not.

                          Now I've made my proposals. What are yours? Or is your proposal status quo and just let all these people keep dying because, well, you just like to shoot.





                          You say that "Criminals are another problem entirely." No, criminals are the ONLY problem. None of your proposals will stop them. What criminal is going to bother getting a gun license? And why should honest citizens be expected to tell the government that they have a gun anyway? Frankly, it's nobody else's business. Outlawing private sales? May as well try to outlaw private ownership (good luck), and it still wouldn't stop the criminals. Oppressive background checks? Same thing.

                          Personally, I would like to see guns become more ubiquitous in our society. To that end, let the Second Amendment be the first and last word on gun ownership. I believe that law abiding citizens significantly outnumber the criminal element, and it would certainly make the latter think twice if they knew there was a good chance their intended victims could shoot back. No more "defenseless victims" zones for mass shooters.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            You say that "Criminals are another problem entirely." No, criminals are the ONLY problem. None of your proposals will stop them. What criminal is going to bother getting a gun license? And why should honest citizens be expected to tell the government that they have a gun anyway? Frankly, it's nobody else's business. Outlawing private sales? May as well try to outlaw private ownership (good luck), and it still wouldn't stop the criminals. Oppressive background checks? Same thing.

                            Personally, I would like to see guns become more ubiquitous in our society. To that end, let the Second Amendment be the first and last word on gun ownership. I believe that law abiding citizens significantly outnumber the criminal element, and it would certainly make the latter think twice if they knew there was a good chance their intended victims could shoot back. No more "defenseless victims" zones for mass shooters.

                            Yeah, that's what we need. Everybody running around town with their AR-15 in the passenger seat and their 9mm in their holster.

                            Well here is the problem you have. There are lots of civilized nations around the world were gun violence is very rare when compared to what we have here. And most if not all of them have very strict controls on guns. So clearly, controlling access to Guns does actually tend to solve the problem. So you can wave your hands and cry nothing will work so we should do nothing if you want to, but the fact this isn't a problem in places that don't let guns run wild is the elephant in the room that says you are wrong.

                            As the say - can't never could.
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-09-2021, 08:45 PM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post


                              Yeah, that's what we need. Everybody running around town with their AR-15 in the passenger seat and their 9mm in their holster.

                              Well here is the problem you have. There are lots of civilized nations around the world were gun violence is very rare when compared to what we have here. And most if not all of them have very strict controls on guns. So clearly, controlling access to Guns does actually tend to solve the problem. So you can wave your hands and cry nothing will work so we should do nothing if you want to, but the fact this isn't a problem in places that don't let guns run wild is the elephant in the room that says you are wrong.

                              As the say - can't never could.
                              I'm not sure what you're basing your claims on, but it's certainly not the "settled science".

                              (2013)

                              A Harvard Study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” looks at figures for “intentional deaths” throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

                              Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is wrong.

                              For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher–39,000 per 100,000–the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

                              Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate.”

                              And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th–behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine–in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.

                              The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

                              The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should “at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).” But after intense study the authors conclude “those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world.”

                              In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.

                              https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rime-violence/

                              (2018)

                              5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
                              • Switzerland and Israel have much higher gun ownership rates than the United States but experience far fewer homicides and have much lower violent crime rates than many European nations with strict gun control laws.
                                • While some will argue that the guns carried by Swiss and Israeli citizens are technically “owned” by the government in most cases, this does little to negate the fact that many citizens in those countries have ready access to firearms.
                              • Canada is ranked 12th in the world for the number of civilian-owned guns per capita and reports one of the world’s lower homicide rates—but even then, some provinces have higher homicide rates than U.S. states with less restrictive laws and higher rates of gun ownership have.
                              • Although many gun control advocates have noted that “right-to-carry” states tend to experience slight increases in violent crime, other studies have noted the opposite effect.
                              • Higher rates of concealed carry permit holders are even more strongly associated with reduction in violent crime than are “right-to-carry” states. The probable reason for this is that “right-to-carry” studies often include “open carry” states, which have not been shown to correlate with more people actually carrying or even owning firearms. Rates of concealed carry permit holders are better indicators of the number of people who actually possess and carry firearms within a given population.
                              • Further, as with most correlations, there are many other factors that can account for increases in concealed carry permits—including the fact that people who live in already dangerous neighborhoods seek out means of self-defense. The Huffington Post noted that the rate of concealed carry permit requests in Chicago has soared in recent years after the city loosened restrictions, in large part, according to the Chicago Tribune, because law-abiding residents are increasingly worried about rising rates of violent crime in the city.
                              • The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than it is among African-Americans, but the murder rate among African-Americans is significantly higher than the rate among whites.
                              • Similarly, the rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but urban areas experience higher murder rates.

                              6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
                              • The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence ironically makes this clear with its ratings for states based on gun laws. “Gun freedom” states that score poorly, like New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, and Oregon, have some of the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, “gun-control-loving” states that received high scores, like Maryland and Illinois, experience some of the nation’s highest homicide rates.
                              • The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that, if anything, the data indicate that countries with high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower homicide rates—but this is only a correlation, and many factors do not necessarily support a conclusion that high rates of gun ownership cause the low rates of homicide.
                              • Homicide and firearm homicide rates in Great Britain spiked in the years immediately following the imposition of severe gun control measures, despite the fact that most developed countries continued to experience a downward trend in these rates. This is also pointed out by noted criminologist John Lott in his book “The War on Guns.”
                              • Similarly, Ireland’s homicide rates spiked in the years immediately following the country’s 1972 gun confiscation legislation.
                              • Australia’s National Firearms Act appears to have had little effect on suicide and homicide rates, which were falling before the law was enacted and continued to decline at a statistically unremarkable rate compared to worldwide trends.
                              • According to research compiled by John Lott and highlighted in his book “The War on Guns,” Australia’s armed and unarmed robbery rates both increased markedly in the five years immediately following the National Firearms Act, despite the general downward trend experienced by other developed countries.
                              • Great Britain has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world, but the violent crime rate for homicide, rape, burglary, and aggravated assault is much higher than that in the U.S. Further, approximately 60 percent of burglaries in Great Britain occur while residents are home, compared to just 13 percent in the U.S., and British burglars admit to targeting occupied residences because they are more likely to find wallets and purses.
                              • It is difficult to compare homicide and firearm-related murder rates across international borders because countries use different methods to determine which deaths “count” for purposes of violent crime. For example, since 1967, Great Britain has excluded from its homicide counts any case that does not result in a conviction, that was the result of dangerous driving, or in which the person was determined to have acted in self-defense. All of these factors are counted as “homicides” in the United States.

                              7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
                              • In 2013, President Barack Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assess existing research on gun violence. The report, compiled by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, found (among other things) that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times every year.
                              • According to the CDC, “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Recent CDC reports acknowledge that studies directly assessing the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
                              • Semi-automatic rifles (such as the AR-15) are commonly used as self-defense weapons in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they are easier to control than handguns, are more versatile than handguns, and offer the advantage of up to 30 rounds of protection. Even Vox has published stories defending the use of the AR-15.
                              • AR-15s have been used to save lives on many occasions, including:
                                • Oswego, Illinois (2018) — A man with an AR-15 intervened to stop a neighbor’s knife attack and cited the larger weapon’s “intimidation factor” as a reason why the attacker dropped the knife.
                                • Catawba County, North Carolina (2018) — A 17-year-old successfully fought off three armed attackers with his AR-15.
                                • Houston, Texas (2017) — A homeowner survived a drive-by shooting by defending himself with his AR-15.
                                • Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (2017) — A homeowner’s son killed three would-be burglars with an AR-15 (the man was later deemed to have acted in justifiable self-defense).
                                • Ferguson, Missouri (2014) — African-American men protected a white man’s store from rioters by standing outside armed with AR-15s.
                                • Texas (2013) — A 15-year-old boy used an AR-15 during a home invasion to save both his life and that of his 12-year-old sister.
                                • Rochester, New York (2013) — Home intruders fled after facing an AR-15.

                              8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
                              • Noted criminologist John Lott found that, as a group, concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people in the United States. The rate at which they commit crimes generally and firearm crimes specifically is between one-sixth and one-tenth of that recorded for police officers, who are themselves committing crimes at a fraction of the rate of the general population.
                              • Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates dropped 16 percent and violent crime rates dropped 18 percent, even though the percentage of adults with concealed carry permits rose by 190 percent.
                              • Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop in murder and violent crime rates. Each percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate.
                              • Concealed carry permit holders are often “the good guy with a gun,” even though they rarely receive the attention of the national media.
                              https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...olence-america

                              So while you sarcastically jibe, "Yeah, that's what we need. Everybody running around town with their AR-15 in the passenger seat and their 9mm in their holster," it turns out, that's exactly what we need if we want honest, law abiding citizens to be at a lower risk of becoming victims of violent crime. Meanwhile, you, like most other liberals, are champing at the bit to create a society where honest people are literally outgunned by the criminals.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                                I'm not sure what you're basing your claims on, but it's certainly not the "settled science".

                                (2013)

                                A Harvard Study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” looks at figures for “intentional deaths” throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

                                Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is wrong.

                                For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher–39,000 per 100,000–the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

                                Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate.”

                                And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th–behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine–in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.

                                The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

                                The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should “at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).” But after intense study the authors conclude “those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world.”

                                In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.

                                https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rime-violence/

                                (2018)

                                5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
                                • Switzerland and Israel have much higher gun ownership rates than the United States but experience far fewer homicides and have much lower violent crime rates than many European nations with strict gun control laws.
                                  • While some will argue that the guns carried by Swiss and Israeli citizens are technically “owned” by the government in most cases, this does little to negate the fact that many citizens in those countries have ready access to firearms.
                                • Canada is ranked 12th in the world for the number of civilian-owned guns per capita and reports one of the world’s lower homicide rates—but even then, some provinces have higher homicide rates than U.S. states with less restrictive laws and higher rates of gun ownership have.
                                • Although many gun control advocates have noted that “right-to-carry” states tend to experience slight increases in violent crime, other studies have noted the opposite effect.
                                • Higher rates of concealed carry permit holders are even more strongly associated with reduction in violent crime than are “right-to-carry” states. The probable reason for this is that “right-to-carry” studies often include “open carry” states, which have not been shown to correlate with more people actually carrying or even owning firearms. Rates of concealed carry permit holders are better indicators of the number of people who actually possess and carry firearms within a given population.
                                • Further, as with most correlations, there are many other factors that can account for increases in concealed carry permits—including the fact that people who live in already dangerous neighborhoods seek out means of self-defense. The Huffington Post noted that the rate of concealed carry permit requests in Chicago has soared in recent years after the city loosened restrictions, in large part, according to the Chicago Tribune, because law-abiding residents are increasingly worried about rising rates of violent crime in the city.
                                • The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than it is among African-Americans, but the murder rate among African-Americans is significantly higher than the rate among whites.
                                • Similarly, the rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but urban areas experience higher murder rates.

                                6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
                                • The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence ironically makes this clear with its ratings for states based on gun laws. “Gun freedom” states that score poorly, like New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, and Oregon, have some of the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, “gun-control-loving” states that received high scores, like Maryland and Illinois, experience some of the nation’s highest homicide rates.
                                • The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that, if anything, the data indicate that countries with high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower homicide rates—but this is only a correlation, and many factors do not necessarily support a conclusion that high rates of gun ownership cause the low rates of homicide.
                                • Homicide and firearm homicide rates in Great Britain spiked in the years immediately following the imposition of severe gun control measures, despite the fact that most developed countries continued to experience a downward trend in these rates. This is also pointed out by noted criminologist John Lott in his book “The War on Guns.”
                                • Similarly, Ireland’s homicide rates spiked in the years immediately following the country’s 1972 gun confiscation legislation.
                                • Australia’s National Firearms Act appears to have had little effect on suicide and homicide rates, which were falling before the law was enacted and continued to decline at a statistically unremarkable rate compared to worldwide trends.
                                • According to research compiled by John Lott and highlighted in his book “The War on Guns,” Australia’s armed and unarmed robbery rates both increased markedly in the five years immediately following the National Firearms Act, despite the general downward trend experienced by other developed countries.
                                • Great Britain has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world, but the violent crime rate for homicide, rape, burglary, and aggravated assault is much higher than that in the U.S. Further, approximately 60 percent of burglaries in Great Britain occur while residents are home, compared to just 13 percent in the U.S., and British burglars admit to targeting occupied residences because they are more likely to find wallets and purses.
                                • It is difficult to compare homicide and firearm-related murder rates across international borders because countries use different methods to determine which deaths “count” for purposes of violent crime. For example, since 1967, Great Britain has excluded from its homicide counts any case that does not result in a conviction, that was the result of dangerous driving, or in which the person was determined to have acted in self-defense. All of these factors are counted as “homicides” in the United States.

                                7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
                                • In 2013, President Barack Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assess existing research on gun violence. The report, compiled by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, found (among other things) that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times every year.
                                • According to the CDC, “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Recent CDC reports acknowledge that studies directly assessing the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
                                • Semi-automatic rifles (such as the AR-15) are commonly used as self-defense weapons in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they are easier to control than handguns, are more versatile than handguns, and offer the advantage of up to 30 rounds of protection. Even Vox has published stories defending the use of the AR-15.
                                • AR-15s have been used to save lives on many occasions, including:
                                  • Oswego, Illinois (2018) — A man with an AR-15 intervened to stop a neighbor’s knife attack and cited the larger weapon’s “intimidation factor” as a reason why the attacker dropped the knife.
                                  • Catawba County, North Carolina (2018) — A 17-year-old successfully fought off three armed attackers with his AR-15.
                                  • Houston, Texas (2017) — A homeowner survived a drive-by shooting by defending himself with his AR-15.
                                  • Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (2017) — A homeowner’s son killed three would-be burglars with an AR-15 (the man was later deemed to have acted in justifiable self-defense).
                                  • Ferguson, Missouri (2014) — African-American men protected a white man’s store from rioters by standing outside armed with AR-15s.
                                  • Texas (2013) — A 15-year-old boy used an AR-15 during a home invasion to save both his life and that of his 12-year-old sister.
                                  • Rochester, New York (2013) — Home intruders fled after facing an AR-15.

                                8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
                                • Noted criminologist John Lott found that, as a group, concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people in the United States. The rate at which they commit crimes generally and firearm crimes specifically is between one-sixth and one-tenth of that recorded for police officers, who are themselves committing crimes at a fraction of the rate of the general population.
                                • Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates dropped 16 percent and violent crime rates dropped 18 percent, even though the percentage of adults with concealed carry permits rose by 190 percent.
                                • Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop in murder and violent crime rates. Each percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate.
                                • Concealed carry permit holders are often “the good guy with a gun,” even though they rarely receive the attention of the national media.
                                https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...olence-america

                                So while you sarcastically jibe, "Yeah, that's what we need. Everybody running around town with their AR-15 in the passenger seat and their 9mm in their holster," it turns out, that's exactly what we need if we want honest, law abiding citizens to be at a lower risk of becoming victims of violent crime. Meanwhile, you, like most other liberals, are champing at the bit to create a society where honest people are literally outgunned by the criminals.
                                And in the UK, where it is extremely difficult to own a gun, murderers turned to knives. Then they tried to ban knives.

                                83cb422b-d473-418d-a294-493f3bdad172-large16x9_KnifeControlMarch_UK_20180420_4740x400.jpg?1524511310971.jpg

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X