Gun Rights and Gun Control

[carpedm9587]

If a guy is out of circulation for 20 years that eliminates him as a threat.

I never said that you were making that point. I was simply commenting on passing a law against one thing because it MIGHT stop something else.

If I only get two options I select getting rid of background checks. It is not my problem as to how to track no felons and hospitalized mental patients. I only said those were the two limits I would accept. I do not accept prohibiting non hospitalized mentally troubled people. I do not trust those who would be able to decide who was troubled. Gun grabbers have already shown their dishonesty in that arena.

Not interested in going originalist in one case but not the other. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

I made my suggestion and you did not trust my researchers. I don't trust your researchers.

It should not be funded publicly, and it is already going on. You don't trust one side and I don't trust the other. I also do not believe "we all want the same thing: a safe place to live and freedom from fear of violence in any form." The only reason that serious gun restrictions are not already a done deal is not because the government is "sitting on their backsides doing nothing about gun control." It is because the American people oppose the gun grabbers to an adequate degree. Remember that the NRA would not be able to swing enough power to stop the gun grabbers without significant public support. Some the left have openly admitted that their goal is the ultimate confiscation of all guns in private hands, and I believe many others agree but are not being honest. I use the term "gun grabbers" because I beliee that is the ultimate goal of the Big Government crowd. (Be glad that I did not use my usual "Gun Grabbing Ghouls" instead of just gun grabbers.)I am angry at the liberals who are in government, and at supposed conservatives who are as liberal as can be. At least one of Alaska's legislators falls into that category. I am not angry at you, only disappointed in the hackneyed arguments I hear. I think we have too much gun control and you think we have too little. Where can we meet?

This is a bit confused since I tried to answer too much, but I hope you get the drift.

I think I get the drift, Jedidiah. Thanks for the exchange. It was informative.

[Sparko]

Then the gun control lobbies are doing the same thing gun proponents are doing: confusing correlation with causation. We do not have any research, that I know of, to substantiate this claim.



Again, Sparko - correlation is not causation. Both sides continue to make this error over and over and over again, so they end up talking past each other instead of to each other.

Probably. Because we already know gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, just people who obey the law. So making stricter laws won't reduce guns in the hands of criminals. Unless we somehow make the penalty for having a gun in the commission of a crime so severe that no criminal will want to take the chance. That MIGHT reduce the number of guns used in crimes. But most criminals don't expect to get caught so I don't think it would be a perfect deterrant. But like Jed said, it would be one way to keep them out of circulation. I think giving them mandatory maximum sentences without parole if a gun is used in any crime, and life without parole or the death penalty if someone is killed. no three strikes. first strike and you are done.

[Roy]

I think it was trying to have sex with him. Didn't he spray doe urine on himself or something? and it was rutting season?

What a great plan!

[Jedidiah]

Then the gun control lobbies are doing the same thing gun proponents are doing: confusing correlation with causation. We do not have any research, that I know of, to substantiate this claim.



Again, Sparko - correlation is not causation. Both sides continue to make this error over and over and over again, so they end up talking past each other instead of to each other.

Gun control lobbies are not confusing correlation with causation. They are declaring that the correlation does not exist. And while correlation is not necessarily causation, it can certainly point to an area to investigate, and does support the idea that availability of guns does not increase gun crime, and even decreases it. Certainly not proof, but legitimate evidence.

[carpedm9587]

Probably. Because we already know gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, just people who obey the law.

I do not see how you could know this, Sparko - the research has not been done.

So making stricter laws won't reduce guns in the hands of criminals.

Same comment

Unless we somehow make the penalty for having a gun in the commission of a crime so severe that no criminal will want to take the chance. That MIGHT reduce the number of guns used in crimes. But most criminals don't expect to get caught so I don't think it would be a perfect deterrant. But like Jed said, it would be one way to keep them out of circulation. I think giving them mandatory maximum sentences without parole if a gun is used in any crime, and life without parole or the death penalty if someone is killed. no three strikes. first strike and you are done.

Again - you are assuming. You have no more evidence to back this up then the person who claims to KNOW that gun control will solve the problem. That is problem today with both the right AND the left on this front: a lot of glib talking points from their favorite lobby - but no real research to back up the assertion.

We started a war on drugs in the Nixon era. Clinton escalated it in the 1990s. We started locking people away right and left, to the point that we, today, incarcerate more of our own citizens than ANY other country on earth. I have not noticed that we've made a significant dent in our drug problems in the U.S. And the cost to us in prisons, social upheaval, lost productivity, is enormous. So what on earth do you offer as evidence to show that, if we do the same thing with guns, we'll get better results?

[Sparko]

I do not see how you could know this, Sparko - the research has not been done.

1. We have a lot of gun control laws. Including laws that say it is illegal to use guns in crimes, or for felons to have guns.
2. Criminals still have guns. Lots of guns.

[carpedm9587]

1. We have a lot of gun control laws. Including laws that say it is illegal to use guns in crimes, or for felons to have guns.
2. Criminals still have guns. Lots of guns.

We have some gun control laws. We have some enforcement. We have some criminals with guns.

We have no data that show us the extent to which those laws have impacted the number of guns. We have no way of knowing how many they would have without those laws (more or less), or if there were more of them (more or less). So you are speculating based on a single data point: the existence of laws and the existence of guns.

My son noted to me, the other day, that his flu shot was a waste. I asked him how he knew that. He answered, "because I got the shot and I got the ^&%%*& flu!"

My response was, "how do you know that your flu, which only lasted a few days, wouldn't have been a lot WORSE without the shot? Maybe the shot helped; it just didn't solve the problem entirely.

I am not saying gun control solves the problem. I am also not letting you say it doesn't - because you cannot know - the research has not been done. It is not permitted to be done - by law.

I wonder why? Who could possibly benefit from shutting down all research into gun violence?

[EvoUK]

[Sparko]

Who could possibly benefit from shutting down all research into gun violence?

Elvis.

[Sparko]

I do agree not enforcing the laws we have is a bad thing. I think we should be more diligent in enforcing them first before add more laws, right? Maybe even adding stricter penalties for violating them.

[carpedm9587]

Elvis.

I suspect we both know who benefits...

What I don't understand is, why we tolerate it.

[Sparko]

I suspect we both know who benefits...

What I don't understand is, why we tolerate it.

Because we have a constitutional right to have guns.

[EvoUK]

I do agree not enforcing the laws we have is a bad thing. I think we should be more diligent in enforcing them first before add more laws, right? Maybe even adding stricter penalties for violating them.

And stricter penalties for not enforcing them.

[carpedm9587]

Because we have a constitutional right to have guns.

First of all - that is a point of debate. Until the 1970s, that amendment was intepreted to be what the founders intended: for the support of a citizen militia. Since then, it has been re-interpreted to include personal protection. For all that Scalia was an originalist, he actually sided with an interpretationalist viewpoint when it served him.

Second - we also have the right to "free speech." That right, however, is not absolute. It has constraints that have been repeatedly affirmed in U.S. courts.

No right is "absolute." There is always the question of how far does the right extend, and when does it not apply. Reasonable people can have differences on where they think that point is, but no one can simply say "absolute right" and not face some serious questions from their fellow citizens.

[Sparko]

First of all - that is a point of debate. Until the 1970s, that amendment was intepreted to be what the founders intended: for the support of a citizen militia. Since then, it has been re-interpreted to include personal protection. For all that Scalia was an originalist, he actually sided with an interpretationalist viewpoint when it served him.

Second - we also have the right to "free speech." That right, however, is not absolute. It has constraints that have been repeatedly affirmed in U.S. courts.

No right is "absolute." There is always the question of how far does the right extend, and when does it not apply. Reasonable people can have differences on where they think that point is, but no one can simply say "absolute right" and not face some serious questions from their fellow citizens.

Are you insane? The US didn't believe in personal protection until the 1970's?

Never watched a western I guess? Or read a history book?

The amendment is pretty clear and has always allowed personal protection.