From the Guardian - "The surprising factors driving murder rates"

[Rucker61]

There is no reason whatsoever that smaller states should have an equivalent representation at a national level.

Why do you believe this?

 

[Lafayette]

No, but one exception precludes a universal claim. When the claim is that strict countries in Europe have lower homicide rates because of their strict gun control, and I point out that one European country with strict laws has a terrible homicide rate, then the general statement doesn't hold.

I organize and judge debates at a university level.

You are DEAD wrong. That argument simply does not hold water logically. One exception to the norm does not rule over all others - never did, never will ...

 

[Rucker61]

I organize and judge debates at a university level.

You are DEAD wrong. That argument simply does not hold water logically. One exception to the norm does not rule over all others - never did, never will ...

One exception proves a universal claim wrong. If the claim was "most European countries", you'd have an argument.

What affect did the 1996 gun laws in the UK have on their homicide rate? What affect did the 1996 Australian gun confiscation have on their crime levels?

 

[Lafayette]

It doesn't matter what we tell them. The ATF examined the bumpstock and determined that it did not fall under the definition of a NFA item and therefore the ATF had no legal authority to ban the item. If Congress wishes to do so, it will have to write a new law. Current proposed legislation is so poorly written as to outlaw aftermarket triggers, rubber bands and belt loops.



I'll be glad to argue Constitutionality, efficacy and enforceability of current and proposed gun control. I can't argue the emotional aspects, though.

There is no emotion. But, on your part, there are "loop-holes".

And your bunk about bumpstocks is just that - a loop-hole. They are rapidly-repeating "machine guns" that kill EXACTLY LIKE MACHINE GUNS.

Cut the BS about the ATF not having the legal-right to forbid them. You may be right in terms the law, but that simply means that the law is badly made. There is no way in heaven or hell that you can excuse the Las Vegas massacre because the ATF could not prevent the sale of bumpstock machine-guns?

What you are arguing is factually correct, but nonsensical in its consequences. It is there that we part company - those guns should have never been allowed to be altered to fire at higher rates ...

Put machine-guns into the hands of "kooks" and they will use them on people to kill ... !

 

[Lursa]

From here: The surprising factors driving murder rates: income inequality and respect

Excerpt:


America will remain one of the most unsafest places on earth to live for as long as there is no effective control on guns. Can't be done?

Then we live and die as a result of the consequences. As a nation, we should know better ...

So...being male is the highest risk factor in killings in the US.

great.

 

[Rucker61]

There is no emotion. But, on your part, there are "loop-holes".

And your bunk about bumpstocks is just that - a loop-hole. They are rapidly-repeating "machine guns" that kill EXACTLY LIKE MACHINE GUNS.

Cut the BS about the ATF not having the legal-right to forbid them. You may be right in terms the law, but that simply means that the law is badly made. There is no way in heaven or hell that you can excuse the Las Vegas massacre because the ATF could not prevent the sale of bumpstock machine-guns?

I'll agree that the NFA 1934 is a bad law, but not for the reasons you think. I'm not excusing the LV shooting; that's a straw man argument you're creating. Laws must be written very specifically, or they cannot be enforced.

Are you aware that the "bump fire" firing rate can be replicated by rubber bands, belt loops and wooden dowels? Does the ATF have the power to ban those because of the increase in rate of fire? How would you word the law you'd like to see in place to prevent any future use of a bump fire technique?

What you are arguing is factually correct, but nonsensical in its consequences. It is there that we part company - those guns should have never been allowed to be altered to fire at higher rates ...

But how would that have been prevented?

Put machine-guns into the hands of "kooks" and they will use them on people to kill ... !

Yet of the thousands of bump stocks sold, one buyer committed murder with them. Why weren't all of the other buyers driven to mass murder?

Are you aware that the worst shooting was committed in Norway with a rifle that did not have a bump stock and has been exempted from every AWB law and proposal we've had?

 

[Absentglare]

Are cars related to car related deaths? Are there any other factors that have an affect on the crime rate?

Yes and yes. But we must agree on some basic things to find common ground so we can manage this conflict.

 

[Rucker61]

Yes and yes. But we must agree on some basic things to find common ground so we can manage this conflict.

Ain't seen much of that around here, have we?

 

[Absentglare]

Ain't seen much of that around here, have we?

It is scarce, but not completely gone.

 

[jaeger19]

? Invalid? You're admitting that it's a valid relationship.

If the pro gun side could manage being at least half way to halfway realistic, it would really help the conversation about gun control.

No.. I am not admitting its a valid measure. Its an invalid measure.

Say you were studying the effect on bicycles on a society. IF we used the same measure as "gun deaths"... we would study bicycle "deaths". And what would we find.. that communities that used bicycles had more "bicycle deaths".. than communities that do not. Its a self fulfilling prophesy.

SO.. you would then claim that bicycles need to be controlled as they are unsafe for a community.

HOWEVER.. if you actually used a VALID statistic.. like overall death/injury rate.. you would likely find that communities that had bicycles suffered a LOWER death and injury rate than communities that did not use bicycles.

WE have been over this.. If the anti gun side could even be a BIT rationale it would help the conversation about gun control. Of course your whole argument is based on emotion and not logic and facts. its why you use "gun deaths" as a measure.

Meanwhile.. when someone kills a bunch of people with a truck.. you don't call it "truck death".

 

[jaeger19]

Yes and yes. But we must agree on some basic things to find common ground so we can manage this conflict.

Okay,.

Can we agree that criminals will not follow gun laws?

 

[Absentglare]

No.. I am not admitting its a valid measure. Its an invalid measure.

Say you were studying the effect on bicycles on a society. IF we used the same measure as "gun deaths"... we would study bicycle "deaths". And what would we find.. that communities that used bicycles had more "bicycle deaths".. than communities that do not. Its a self fulfilling prophesy.

SO.. you would then claim that bicycles need to be controlled as they are unsafe for a community.

HOWEVER.. if you actually used a VALID statistic.. like overall death/injury rate.. you would likely find that communities that had bicycles suffered a LOWER death and injury rate than communities that did not use bicycles.

WE have been over this.. If the anti gun side could even be a BIT rationale it would help the conversation about gun control. Of course your whole argument is based on emotion and not logic and facts. its why you use "gun deaths" as a measure.

Meanwhile.. when someone kills a bunch of people with a truck.. you don't call it "truck death".

I'm not arguing that it should singularly determine policy. It's simply an obvious truism that guns are related to gun related crime.

I mean, it seems obvious, but when the tools and technologies we develop have harmful consequences, it makes sense that society should manage those harmful consequences, no? Acceptance is a form of management, but i expect us to be honest about acceptance rather than lying about it.

 

[Absentglare]

Okay,.

Can we agree that criminals will not follow gun laws?

Criminals can be affected by gun laws. For example, the brady bill has denied thousands of gun sales to prohibited persons. Now, we can't prevent those prohibited persons from illegally acquiring weapons, but if we make it easy for them, then we're willfully negligent in the harm they cause.

 

[Rucker61]

Criminals can be affected by gun laws. For example, the brady bill has denied thousands of gun sales to prohibited persons. Now, we can't prevent those prohibited persons from illegally acquiring weapons, but if we make it easy for them, then we're willfully negligent in the harm they cause.

How is the current process making it "not easy" for them? We have no objective measurement of how hard it is for criminals to get a gun. If we actually arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated those we catch in a Brady Act background check felony, we would be making it harder for at least 30k criminals a year from getting a gun.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm not arguing that it should singularly determine policy. It's simply an obvious truism that guns are related to gun related crime.

I mean, it seems obvious, but when the tools and technologies we develop have harmful consequences, it makes sense that society should manage those harmful consequences, no? Acceptance is a form of management, but i expect us to be honest about acceptance rather than lying about it.

I believe that the two sides differ in the way we should go about managing those harmful consequences. No one denies that criminals use guns in harmful ways.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Criminals can be affected by gun laws. For example, the brady bill has denied thousands of gun sales to prohibited persons. Now, we can't prevent those prohibited persons from illegally acquiring weapons, but if we make it easy for them, then we're willfully negligent in the harm they cause.

Gun proponents tend to gloss over that aspect.
When guns are hard to get, then the black market price "shoots" up, making illegal guns harder to get too. When a $300 Walmart AR15 clone costs $1500 from a backstreet gunsmith, then that restricts access to a lot of people. Apart from anything else, if you have $1500 to spend, you're not going to hold up a liquor store, are you?
It makes access more difficult for the average "crazy" shooter too. First he has to find the extra cash, then he has to find a backstreet criminal gun dealer, then he has to persuade that gun dealer that said crazy person won't: A. Shoot him with it, or B. Give him away to the authorities if he's captured. Your average crazy person is too disorganised for that extended process.

 

[Rucker61]

Gun proponents tend to gloss over that aspect.
When guns are hard to get, then the black market price "shoots" up, making illegal guns harder to get too. When a $300 Walmart AR15 clone costs $1500 from a backstreet gunsmith, then that restricts access to a lot of people. Apart from anything else, if you have $1500 to spend, you're not going to hold up a liquor store, are you?
It makes access more difficult for the average "crazy" shooter too. First he has to find the extra cash, then he has to find a backstreet criminal gun dealer, then he has to persuade that gun dealer that said crazy person won't: A. Shoot him with it, or B. Give him away to the authorities if he's captured. Your average crazy person is too disorganised for that extended process.

Unless you're talking about banning guns, guns aren't that hard to get for criminals. Straw purchasing continues to be the largest source for guns for criminals. Pretty much every crazy mass shooter has passed a background check to buy their guns.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm not arguing that it should singularly determine policy. It's simply an obvious truism that guns are related to gun related crime.

I mean, it seems obvious, but when the tools and technologies we develop have harmful consequences, it makes sense that society should manage those harmful consequences, no? Acceptance is a form of management, but i expect us to be honest about acceptance rather than lying about it.

It depends on what we define as "acceptance. For example.. I accept that studies show that heart medications can have harmful consequences. I ALSO accept that heart medications have beneficial consequences as well. And because of that.. in our efforts to limit the harmful consequences.. we do not end up limiting the beneficial consequences as well.

Pro gun advocates have no problem understanding this.. and are truthful about it. Pro gun advocates certainly see the need for laws that carry extra penalties when someone uses a firearm to commit a crime. Pro gun advocates certainly support laws that prevent a 6 year old from going into a walmart and buying a Glock 9mm.

Anti gun advocates.. like yourself.. are the ones that want to lie. They purposely focus on "gun deaths".. those negative consequences... but they ignore the fact that as the number of guns has increased.. as more people get concealed permits, as gun laws have become more relaxed.. our country has experienced LESS violent crime. Our violent crime rates have been going down and we are among one of the safest periods in American history.

Anti gnners like yourself want to promote the lie that guns are harming our society as a whole.. and the evidence simply doesn't support that.

And as far as limiting those harmful consequences.. the anti gun group of which you are a member.. proposes "solutions" that have been proven to DO NOTHING to lessen the negative consequences.. (i.e. decrease crime, etc) but only reduce the positive effects of law abiding citizens having firearms.

 

[Absentglare]

How is the current process making it "not easy" for them? We have no objective measurement of how hard it is for criminals to get a gun. If we actually arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated those we catch in a Brady Act background check felony, we would be making it harder for at least 30k criminals a year from getting a gun.

If you're a person who is prohibited from buying a firearm, then you can't just walk into any random gun store and buy a firearm.

The more convenient something is, generally speaking, the more often it will occur across a large data set. Making it more expensive for prohibited persons to acquire firearms means that fewer prohibited persons will acquire firearms.

 

[Rucker61]

If you're a person who is prohibited from buying a firearm, then you can't just walk into any random gun store and buy a firearm.

True, although the NICS database is incomplete enough to allow some prohibited persons to pass a background check. However, there doesn't seem to be any problem for a prohibited person getting a straw purchaser to make the actual purchase.

The more convenient something is, generally speaking, the more often it will occur across a large data set. Making it more expensive for prohibited persons to acquire firearms means that fewer prohibited persons will acquire firearms.

Friends and family don't typically charge overhead for straw purchases.

 

[jaeger19]

Criminals can be affected by gun laws. For example, the brady bill has denied thousands of gun sales to prohibited persons. Now, we can't prevent those prohibited persons from illegally acquiring weapons, but if we make it easy for them, then we're willfully negligent in the harm they cause.

Actually you have no idea that the Brady bill denied anything... because there was little prosecution or even follow up to see if those prohibited persons obtained a firearm or not.

Now, we can't prevent those prohibited persons from illegally acquiring weapons, but if we make it easy for them, then we're willfully negligent in the harm they cause

Interesting... please explain exactly your logic here.

Criminal gets firearm by easy way..

Criminal gets firearm more difficulty.

In both cases the criminal was not stopped from obtaining a firearm.. as you just admit :

Now, we can't prevent those prohibited persons from illegally acquiring weapons

So.. you admit that criminal has a firearm..

why are we negligent in the harm that they cause? What difference does it make whether it was easy.. or hard for the criminal if at the end of the day..; they still obtain that firearm and commit a crime with it?

why are "we" responsible.. and not the criminal for the harm they cause.?

 

[Absentglare]

I believe that the two sides differ in the way we should go about managing those harmful consequences. No one denies that criminals use guns in harmful ways.

I think it's fine for us to have disagreements.

What i demand is a shared commitment to honesty.

Let me give an example. If we had a hypothetical where, essentially, "this gun law will significantly inconvenience tens of millions of gun owners, and it will only save a single persons life," i think it would be reasonable for one person to say "the single life is too valuable" and for another person to say "the inconvenience is too great."

The second person is essentially saying that the life saved is not worth the inconvenience. That's essentially acceptance of that single death.

So when people say "gun laws cannot save lives," i feel like it's hyperbolic to the point of dishonesty. Of course, we don't know whose lives will be saved by what laws, we can't see the future, but it seems obvious that there is non-zero harm that could be prevented by at least some gun control laws.

If we as a country decide that accepting the price of freedom is the way to go, then i can deal with that, because we've addressed the issue with honesty. I can choose to move if it really bothers me. But i cannot stand that we deny ourselves the ability to converse to the point of reaching even a shared understanding.

 

[jaeger19]

Gun proponents tend to gloss over that aspect.
When guns are hard to get, then the black market price "shoots" up, making illegal guns harder to get too. When a $300 Walmart AR15 clone costs $1500 from a backstreet gunsmith, then that restricts access to a lot of people. Apart from anything else, if you have $1500 to spend, you're not going to hold up a liquor store, are you?
It makes access more difficult for the average "crazy" shooter too. First he has to find the extra cash, then he has to find a backstreet criminal gun dealer, then he has to persuade that gun dealer that said crazy person won't: A. Shoot him with it, or B. Give him away to the authorities if he's captured. Your average crazy person is too disorganised for that extended process.[/QUOTE

Bingo.. you have now confirmed your agenda.. which is not to "prevent criminals from getting guns".. but by denying law abiding citizens access to firearms.. you hope that in some vague way.. its going to restrict criminals from getting them.

 

[jaeger19]

If you're a person who is prohibited from buying a firearm, then you can't just walk into any random gun store and buy a firearm.

The more convenient something is, generally speaking, the more often it will occur across a large data set. Making it more expensive for prohibited persons to acquire firearms means that fewer prohibited persons will acquire firearms.

You just stated that criminals cannot be stopped from obtaining firearms illegally. Now you are claiming the opposite..

 

[Rucker61]

I think it's fine for us to have disagreements.

What i demand is a shared commitment to honesty.

Let me give an example. If we had a hypothetical where, essentially, "this gun law will significantly inconvenience tens of millions of gun owners, and it will only save a single persons life," i think it would be reasonable for one person to say "the single life is too valuable" and for another person to say "the inconvenience is too great."

The second person is essentially saying that the life saved is not worth the inconvenience. That's essentially acceptance of that single death.

Are you claiming that the only argument for person two is that "the inconvenience is too great"? Are you putting forth the argument that regardless of Constitutional protections, the government should be allowed to impose any restrictions on the people if the potential to save a single life exists? That's what I'm inferring based on this part of your post. For if a single life is worth the inconvenience that laws designed to protect each and every life from any harm, then the government can impose restrictions on every single action that has been shown to cause death. I don't feel that the Constitution has given the government that power, nor would I want the current Administration to assume that they had such power.

So when people say "gun laws cannot save lives," i feel like it's hyperbolic to the point of dishonesty. Of course, we don't know whose lives will be saved by what laws, we can't see the future, but it seems obvious that there is non-zero harm that could be prevented by at least some gun control laws.

Is anyone actually saying "gun laws cannot save lives"? Yes, we can't see the future, and we know that laws are imperfectly written and enforced, so we don't know whose lives would be saved or not. While the net effect of any law should certainly be looked at, we must also look at Constitutionality, efficacy, enforceability and the willingness to enforce those laws. We have evidence to suggest that even enforceable laws are not being enforced against the violence felons who break them.

If we as a country decide that accepting the price of freedom is the way to go, then i can deal with that, because we've addressed the issue with honesty. I can choose to move if it really bothers me. But i cannot stand that we deny ourselves the ability to converse to the point of reaching even a shared understanding.

If it's your position that saving even a single life is worth any "inconvenience" or any other type of infringement of a right, then we will never have a shared understanding.