What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Warren Zevon]

How long until Trumpers refuse to turn left because the direction is associated with liberals?

[TakeYouToTasker]

5 minutes ago, garybusey said:

How long until Trumpers refuse to turn left because the direction is associated with liberals?

I'm not sure, though it appears many of you have abandoned trying to make correct arguments because you don't want to be "right".

[row_33]

it's better to have your own principles and views, subject to being open to change when it is wise to change

 

demanding that people you will never meet fall in lockstep with you is just plain silly

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

It might be in your best interest to repeat this post, declare victory, and disappear for a while again.

 

Interestingly, all he was doing was repeating the same simplistic, embarrassing "I have the only argument because there is no other argument, so I wiped the floor with everyone" approach, while you, at lest, offered a look into the future.

 

On 12/5/2015 at 3:08 PM, DC Tom said:

...because, if Trump wins, Armageddon starts to look like an appealing alternative.

 

[LA Grant]

34 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

Interestingly, all he was doing was repeating the same simplistic, embarrassing "I have the only argument because there is no other argument, so I wiped the floor with everyone" approach, while you, at lest, offered a look into the future.

 

Correct. The gun "debate" has been settled for years, if we're being rational beings able to interpret contextual data, it was settled before 2018, and before 2015. In fact, you're also correct in comparing the issue to climate change — the data is there, and the more time lurches forward under our current broken policies, the data only grows. How many school shootings have occurred even since this thread started? 

 

For you personally, LA, is there a point in which the data becomes impossible to dismiss? What is that point? If it's "never," why?

 

If you think the issue is that the solutions proposed by others are unworkable, what is the better solution, and how does it work in practice?

 

I'd like to know because it'd be great if we could simply agree on facts & data, if not solutions, instead of playing dumbass political games to score fantasy points for the tribe. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[3rdnlng]

Hey everyone, the gun debate has been settled for years. It's just as settled as climate change and abortion rights. Get with the program!

[IDBillzFan]

12 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The gun "debate" has been settled for years.or the tribe. 

 

Really?  Tell everyone...what has been settled?

 

 

[row_33]

what's been settled?

 

that some won't give up anything and want a tank in their living room

 

and that some want all private ownership of a slingshot banned

 

and a lot of people who lean towards private ownership are realizing this is crazy with the status quo

 

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, garybusey said:

How long until Trumpers refuse to turn left because the direction is associated with liberals?

 

[DC Tom]

54 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Correct. The gun "debate" has been settled for years,

 

That must be why you're still bothering everyone.

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, LABillzFan said:

Really?  Tell everyone...what has been settled?

 

Support for background checks. That's pretty damn settled.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-10/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-09/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html

 

We also know the advocates for "unfettered access" are a small but vocal minority, as are advocates for "ban all guns," though only the extreme positions seem to be the ones discussed online. Chapter 5 of the report goes deeper into the specifics of where there is strong agreement & where there is division. 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-04/

 

Perhaps you'd use the counterpoint of the overall decline in firearms deaths since 1993 as proof that guns aren't actually a problem, and gun control isn't necessary. Let's consider.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/#u-s-firearm-deaths

 

The timing of the decline mostly coincides with the Brady Act and the Assault Ban, which may or may not be a factor, which is less settled. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act#Opposition_by_National_Rifle_Association

 

Nonetheless, gun deaths are on the rise in present day, up 17 percent since the Supreme Court loosened existing gun control laws in 2008 Heller decision.

http://www.vpc.org/press/u-s-gun-death-rate-jumps-17-percent-since-2008-supreme-court-district-of-columbia-v-heller-decision-affirming-right-to-own-a-handgun-for-self-defense/

 

When Missouri repealed background checks, the result continued to show exactly what you'd expect.

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html

 

73% of murders in 2016 involved firearms.  

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

It really shouldn't be an impossible computation that "more guns" = "more gun violence." Perhaps we could have additional facts for your benefit, if the NRA didn't strongly oppose additional research into the subject. Here's a juicy headline from 2003:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-proof-gun-laws-reduce-violence/ 

 

A recent study from RAND also had similar issues — the lack of available studies — but was still able to collect compelling data in favor of the measures that we continue to see receive support from the public & researchers.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/background-checks.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/02/rand-corp-urges-more-scientific-studies-gun-policies-violent-crime/383083002/

 

There is, of course, all of the additional data from other developed nations where stronger gun laws dramatically reduced gun violence, but I've seen you shrug that off already, so why bother with that.  

 

Looking forward to your casual two-line dismissal of all of this!!!

[keepthefaith]

55 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

 

Nonetheless, gun deaths are on the rise in present day, up 17 percent since the Supreme Court loosened existing gun control laws in 2008 Heller decision.

http://www.vpc.org/press/u-s-gun-death-rate-jumps-17-percent-since-2008-supreme-court-district-of-columbia-v-heller-decision-affirming-right-to-own-a-handgun-for-self-defense/

 

 

 

I only read this particular link and it's not convincing data IMO at all.  To correlate the increase in guns deaths to that ruling which confirmed the right to own a handgun for protection you would have to directly tie new handgun ownership to those deaths.  In other words show that more people bought handguns as a result of that ruling and those particular guns were used to kill people.  Then you'd have to show that those killed were not justified killings. 

 

What is probably more likely given the timing of the increase on the chart (2014) is that less aggressive police work in high risk areas was deployed in reaction to the BLM push.  I've spoken with people in Chicago law enforcement and they have stated that both through police procedure changes and also self imposed practice changes, they are less likely to take some of the risks necessary to prevent violent crimes.  They have instead taken more of a posture of cleaning up the mess after it happens. 

[IDBillzFan]

54 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Support for background checks. That's pretty damn settled.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-10/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-09/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html

 

We also know the advocates for "unfettered access" are a small but vocal minority, as are advocates for "ban all guns," though only the extreme positions seem to be the ones discussed online. Chapter 5 of the report goes deeper into the specifics of where there is strong agreement & where there is division. 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-04/

 

Perhaps you'd use the counterpoint of the overall decline in firearms deaths since 1993 as proof that guns aren't actually a problem, and gun control isn't necessary. Let's consider.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/#u-s-firearm-deaths

 

The timing of the decline mostly coincides with the Brady Act and the Assault Ban, which may or may not be a factor, which is less settled. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act#Opposition_by_National_Rifle_Association

 

Nonetheless, gun deaths are on the rise in present day, up 17 percent since the Supreme Court loosened existing gun control laws in 2008 Heller decision.

http://www.vpc.org/press/u-s-gun-death-rate-jumps-17-percent-since-2008-supreme-court-district-of-columbia-v-heller-decision-affirming-right-to-own-a-handgun-for-self-defense/

 

When Missouri repealed background checks, the result continued to show exactly what you'd expect.

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html

 

73% of murders in 2016 involved firearms.  

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

It really shouldn't be an impossible computation that "more guns" = "more gun violence." Perhaps we could have additional facts for your benefit, if the NRA didn't strongly oppose additional research into the subject. Here's a juicy headline from 2003:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-proof-gun-laws-reduce-violence/ 

 

A recent study from RAND also had similar issues — the lack of available studies — but was still able to collect compelling data in favor of the measures that we continue to see receive support from the public & researchers.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/background-checks.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/02/rand-corp-urges-more-scientific-studies-gun-policies-violent-crime/383083002/

 

There is, of course, all of the additional data from other developed nations where stronger gun laws dramatically reduced gun violence, but I've seen you shrug that off already, so why bother with that.  

 

Looking forward to your casual two-line dismissal of all of this!!!

 

Oh, bother.

 

Let's start with your first link. Broad support for not giving guns to the mentally ill and people on the no-fly list. I'm in, except the last administration put people they didn't like on the no-fly list for no apparent reason, so I am skeptical about that as a barrier.

 

Let's move to your next link, which showed the same data as the first link, but with a different headline. When you're ready, please define "assault-style rile," because absolutely NO ONE is able to do it, yet it keeps showing up in the media and surveys. Please define. Thank you.

 

Your third link is stupid lazy, just like your argument. It's the same poll, with yet a third different headline, this one stating that "Few say ‘almost everyone’ or ‘almost no one’ should be able to legally own guns." Gee, thanks for that brainchild. In the middle of that: 64% believe most people should be able to own guns. In fact, A MAJORITY of those polled agreed people should be able to carry their guns in "most places." 

 

Did you even bother to look at what you posted, or did you just copy/paste based on a headline?

 

Next up, your poll showing that ever since more people are allowed to carry guns for self-defense, more people are killed? Wow, did you really need a poll for that?

 

How many of those gun deaths were as a result of gun owners defending themselves against a criminal? A home invasion? A rapist? Nothing cited WHO was shot. Just that people were shot. Dig deeper, you lazy puck.

 

And this is why you get a sentence or two from me: because you're nothing but another Facebook anti-gun warrior whose emotion drives what little ability he has to reason.

 

But hey...let's keep the discussion going.

 

Define "assault-style weapon."

 

We'll wait.

 

[LA Grant]

3 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Oh, bother.

 

Let's start with your first link. Broad support for not giving guns to the mentally ill and people on the no-fly list. I'm in, except the last administration put people they didn't like on the no-fly list for no apparent reason, so I am skeptical about that as a barrier.

 

Let's move to your next link, which showed the same data as the first link, but with a different headline. When you're ready, please define "assault-style rile," because absolutely NO ONE is able to do it, yet it keeps showing up in the media and surveys. Please define. Thank you.

 

Your third link is stupid lazy, just like your argument. It's the same poll, with yet a third different headline, this one stating that "Few say ‘almost everyone’ or ‘almost no one’ should be able to legally own guns." Gee, thanks for that brainchild. In the middle of that: 64% believe most people should be able to own guns. In fact, A MAJORITY of those polled agreed people should be able to carry their guns in "most places." 

 

Did you even bother to look at what you posted, or did you just copy/paste based on a headline?

 

Next up, your poll showing that ever since more people are allowed to carry guns for self-defense, more people are killed? Wow, did you really need a poll for that?

 

How many of those gun deaths were as a result of gun owners defending themselves against a criminal? A home invasion? A rapist? Nothing cited WHO was shot. Just that people were shot. Dig deeper, you lazy puck.

 

And this is why you get a sentence or two from me: because you're nothing but another Facebook anti-gun warrior whose emotion drives what little ability he has to reason.

 

But hey...let's keep the discussion going.

 

Define "assault-style weapon."

 

We'll wait.

 

Thanks for waiting.

 

Defining "assault style weapon:"

Practically speaking, I understand the support for the AR-15, that its presence in mass shootings is as much due to its popularity & versatility as anything else, and that other firearms can provide the same rate of fire.

 

I agree with you that such definitions are impractical & this is why I'm not advocating for bans. Defining "assault style weapon" is essentially the same debate of defining "arms" in some ways. Is a baseball bat an assault weapon? Is it an arm? Sure, one could make the case. But if we follow the logic through to the end, it basically just ends in nihilism, right? If any object that can be used as a weapon could be used for assault is an "assault style weapon," then nothing is an assault weapon, therefore it is impossible to ban assault weapons as it can't even be defined. Banning or regulating bats is obviously completely ridiculous — will the government be keeping databases of little league teams? — therefore banning or regulating AK-47s is completely ridiculous. 

 

I possess no additional clarity on defining this than you do, and  I'm inclined to say I'm not qualified to define "assault style weapon" because I'm not an expert on different makes and models of firearms, that wouldn't be my trivia category. "Qualified" implying that some definitions are necessarily technocratic, although... I don't know. It's tricky because on one hand, if you say that only the firearms trivia experts should define policy, who are the experts? Researchers? Military? NRA? 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview

 

Theoretically(!), we live in a democracy, so ultimately the definition of it would be up to lawmakers, which is theoretically, citizens or voters or we the dirty unwashed. In the same way that Trump doesn't have to be even mostly literate to be elected president, we don't actually need to be experts, hobbyists, or lobbyists to have a say in how that is defined, and what it means in practice. In terms of applying policy, the most practical & fair solution is to keep a sensibly broad definition of "firearm" — from a crossbow to everything above, let's say — and apply it evenly. IMHO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

 

Quote

Your third link is stupid lazy, just like your argument. It's the same poll, with yet a third different headline, this one stating that "Few say ‘almost everyone’ or ‘almost no one’ should be able to legally own guns." Gee, thanks for that brainchild. In the middle of that: 64% believe most people should be able to own guns. In fact, A MAJORITY of those polled agreed people should be able to carry their guns in "most places." 

Next up, your poll showing that ever since more people are allowed to carry guns for self-defense, more people are killed? Wow, did you really need a poll for that?

 

How many of those gun deaths were as a result of gun owners defending themselves against a criminal? A home invasion? A rapist? Nothing cited WHO was shot. Just that people were shot. Dig deeper, you lazy puck.

 

lol, christ almighty. This is to show that the faux-philosophical debates of one extreme or another have been "settled" (your prompt) — nobody is talking about a world where it's all or nothing, except Tasker. You asked me to get pedantic, so pedantry was supplied. 

 

I agree with the majority in the bolded. If guns are harder to get, and gun-owners want to walk around with their piece, then that's fine. Y'know, be proud, you actually had to do something, pass a bare minimum to be the walkin' wannabe sheriff of the mall movie theater. Or you want it on you when you walk the dog. Concealed carry, maybe different, seems unnecessary to me unless one is either law enforcement or with criminal intent. What are real world examples when concealed carry is necessary for Joe Gun Owner? Seems logical if you're going to have guns in public, have them in the open with the big ol' holsters and belts and whatnot. Cool with me.

 

If you had read, or looked up some reading on your own, or even just plainly state your thoughts instead of making a f***ng Guess Who game of it, you'd see there is a reason we don't have all of the gun violence data you're requesting. Jesus f**k. Everyone in the world has to do all the work for you, I have to make the airplane noises then also chew your food for you, so you can then say I'm the lazy puck?? Good lord, man. You're how old?? No wonder the world is what it is. Your generation led to Trump and Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader so maybe we're all wrong for expecting better.

 

Quote

Broad support for not giving guns to the mentally ill and people on the no-fly list. I'm in, except the last administration put people they didn't like on the no-fly list for no apparent reason, so I am skeptical about that as a barrier.

 

Great. Agreed, the no-fly list is flawed.

 

Agreed on not giving to the mentally ill. However, it is similar to define assault weapon. How do you define "mentally ill"?  (It's the same answer as above for assault weapons or arms). How do you feel about tests to determine mentally ill? Similar to a more thorough background check? What about tests & classes in terms of competency, separate from mental illness? 

Edited March 3, 2018 by LA Grant

[3rdnlng]

5 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Thanks for waiting.

 

Defining "assault style weapon:"

Practically speaking, I understand the support for the AR-15, that its presence in mass shootings is as much due to its popularity & versatility as anything else, and that other firearms can provide the same rate of fire.

 

I agree with you that such definitions are impractical & this is why I'm not advocating for bans. Defining "assault style weapon" is essentially the same debate of defining "arms" in some ways. Is a baseball bat an assault weapon? Is it an arm? Sure, one could make the case. But if we follow the logic through to the end, it basically just ends in nihilism, right? If any object that can be used as a weapon could be used for assault is an "assault style weapon," then nothing is an assault weapon, therefore it is impossible to ban assault weapons as it can't even be defined. Banning or regulating bats is obviously completely ridiculous — will the government be keeping databases of little league teams? — therefore banning or regulating AK-47s is completely ridiculous. 

 

I possess no additional clarity on defining this than you do, and  I'm inclined to say I'm not qualified to define "assault style weapon" because I'm not an expert on different makes and models of firearms, that wouldn't be my trivia category. "Qualified" implying that some definitions are necessarily technocratic, although... I don't know. It's tricky because on one hand, if you say that only the firearms trivia experts should define policy, who are the experts? Researchers? Military? NRA? 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview

 

Theoretically(!), we live in a democracy, so ultimately the definition of it would be up to lawmakers, which is theoretically, citizens or voters or we the dirty unwashed. In the same way that Trump doesn't have to be even mostly literate to be elected president, we don't actually need to be experts, hobbyists, or lobbyists to have a say in how that is defined, and what it means in practice. In terms of applying policy, the most practical & fair solution is to keep a sensibly broad definition of "firearm" — from a crossbow to everything above, let's say — and apply it evenly. IMHO.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

 

 

lol, christ almighty. This is to show that the faux-philosophical debates of one extreme or another have been "settled" (your prompt) — nobody is talking about a world where it's all or nothing, except Tasker. You asked me to get pedantic, so pedantry was supplied. 

 

I agree with the majority in the bolded. If guns are harder to get, and gun-owners want to walk around with their piece, then that's fine. Y'know, be proud, you actually had to do something, pass a bare minimum to be the walkin' wannabe sheriff of the mall movie theater. Or you want it on you when you walk the dog. Concealed carry, maybe different, seems unnecessary to me unless one is either law enforcement or with criminal intent. What are real world examples when concealed carry is necessary for Joe Gun Owner? Seems logical if you're going to have guns in public, have them in the open with the big ol' holsters and belts and whatnot. Cool with me.

 

If you had read, or looked up some reading on your own, or even just plainly state your thoughts instead of making a f***ng Guess Who game of it, you'd see there is a reason we don't have all of the gun violence data you're requesting. Jesus f**k. Everyone in the world has to do all the work for you, I have to make the airplane noises then also chew your food for you, so you can then say I'm the lazy puck?? Good lord, man. You're how old?? No wonder the world is what it is. Your generation led to Trump and Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader so maybe we're all wrong for expecting better.

 

 

Great. Agreed, the no-fly list is flawed.

 

Agreed on not giving to the mentally ill. However, it is similar to define assault weapon. How do you define "mentally ill"?  (It's the same answer as above for assault weapons or arms). How do you feel about tests to determine mentally ill? Similar to a more thorough background check? What about tests & classes in terms of competency, separate from mental illness? 

Edited March 3, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[3rdnlng]

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/the_cascading_failures_of_government.html

 

In the case of the Parkland high school shooting, the cascade of failures began at the very top of government, with Barack Obama and his push to reduce the number of disruptive students sent into the "school-to-prison pipeline."  Like so many feel-good leftist initiatives, the unintended consequences of this Obama policy contributed to disaster.

 

As the Washington Post reported, "In recent years, Broward schools became a leader in the national move toward a different kind of discipline – one that would not just punish students, but also would help them address the root causes of their misbehavior.  Such policies aim to combat what is known as the 'school-to-prison pipeline,' giving teenagers a chance to stick with their education rather than get derailed, often permanently, by criminal charges."

They continue: "Beginning in 2013, Broward stopped referring students to police for about a dozen infractions ranging from alcohol and drug use to bullying, harassment and assault.  Instead, students who get in trouble for those infractions are offered an alternative program that emphasizes counseling, conflict resolution skills and referral to community social service agencies."  The article noted that Barack Obama hailed Broward County as a "national model" for his new initiative, having reduced arrests in Broward schools from 1,057 in the 2011-12 academic year to 392 in the 2015-16 academic year.

Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland killer, according to disciplinary records obtained by a local news station, was involved in an assault at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School on January 19, 2017 – more than a year before his shooting rampage.  However, he was not arrested.  Instead, he was subject to a "threat assessment" by the school district and removed from the school three weeks later.

According to CNN, citing law enforcement sources, Cruz purchased ten firearms in the past year.  That would be the year after the January 2017 assault occurred.  Had he been arrested and convicted for felony assault, those firearms purchases would presumably not have been possible, per federal gun law.  Additionally, in January 2013, police were called to Cruz's home when he assaulted his mother after she took away his Xbox at age 14.  He was handcuffed and put in the back of a police car until he calmed down.  Had he been charged in that incident, even with a misdemeanor, federal gun law would have prevented his purchasing firearms based on a misdemeanor domestic assault provision in the law.

Then you have Florida's "Baker Act," which allows for the involuntary examination and commitment to a mental health facility of persons whose behavior demonstrates potential harm to themselves or others.  The act appeared designed specifically for people like Nikolas Cruz.  Despite police notifications that Cruz was cutting himself in September 2016 and posting pictures of it to Snapchat, no effort was made to commit him.  Involuntary commitment to a mental health facility would also have precluded his purchasing firearms.

So with all these systems in place to prevent a deranged individual from committing an atrocity like what happened in Parkland, we saw multiple incidents of cascading failure.  When I mentioned my analogy to friend Lou Churchville, a commercial pilot and flight instructor, he noted that my comparison was not only "spot on," but more apt than even I realized.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/the_cascading_failures_of_government.html#ixzz58gndxHOr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[/dev/null]

14 hours ago, LA Grant said:

Correct. The gun "debate" has been settled for years,. 

 

14 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Hey everyone, the gun debate has been settled for years. It's just as settled as climate change and abortion rights. Get with the program!

 

Since 1791

[unbillievable]

The question is whether 2 deaths per 100k (about the same chance of dying from dengue/hanta virus) is a price you're willing to pay for the right to protect your family.

 

Americans who carry guns everywhere is comparable to the Japanese wearing breathing masks over their face.

Edited March 5, 2018 by unbillievable

[LA Grant]

No reason to ever doubt the NRA. They're just trying to protect their free dumbs.

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, unbillievable said:

The question is whether 2 deaths per 100k (about the same chance of dying from dengue/hanta virus) is a price you're willing to pay for the right to protect your family.

 

Americans who carry guns everywhere is comparable to the Japanese wearing breathing masks over their face.

 

But what if we outlaw assault-style dengue?