Once more, gun control opponents...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should gun buyback programs be limited to inner cities?  For that matter, is there any evidence that they do anything other than give burglars a way to safely fence stolen guns?

I'd support them universally. What does the bolded mean?

Gun buyback programs usually do so with cash or other goodies provided no questions asked, so they provide an easy way to dispose of stolen firearms.

[dead0man]

BTW I hate when radical libertarians like you resort to the nonsense argument of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" whenever you know you're beat. I don't know why you guys can't just discuss and debate the issue without resorting to paranoid rants about government trying to control the people by rounding up guns.

The ironing is delicious.

[WVdemocrat]

BTW I hate when radical libertarians like you resort to the nonsense argument of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" whenever you know you're beat. I don't know why you guys can't just discuss and debate the issue without resorting to paranoid rants about government trying to control the people by rounding up guns.

The ironing is delicious.

Ironing? I suppose you mean irony?

Tell me, how is that ironic?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that liberals always revert to the "FOR GOD'S SAKE, WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!" argument. That's my prediction. Of course, that's obviously a ridiculous point because liberals in this thread have been the ones debating logically, but nonetheless I predict that's what you're going to tell me.

[bedstuy]

That's "ironing is delicious" line is from the Simpsons.

[WVdemocrat]

That's "ironing is delicious" line is from the Simpsons.

I'm slightly ashamed that I didn't get that reference. I pride myself on being a Simpsons aficionado.

[dead0man]

BTW I hate when radical libertarians like you resort to the nonsense argument of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" whenever you know you're beat. I don't know why you guys can't just discuss and debate the issue without resorting to paranoid rants about government trying to control the people by rounding up guns.

The ironing is delicious.

Ironing? I suppose you mean irony?

Tell me, how is that ironic?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that liberals always revert to the "FOR GOD'S SAKE, WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!" argument. That's my prediction. Of course, that's obviously a ridiculous point because liberals in this thread have been the ones debating logically, but nonetheless I predict that's what you're going to tell me.

Nope.

Read the thread again.  From the OP.  Notice anything?  Do you notice how one side, from the word go, has posted one strawman after another strawman, right before a string of inults?  So while it's true (which is why you guessed it) that many of you do go to the "children" card too quickly when you don't get your way, you haven't done that (much) here.  You've done something that is much more common.  You made up arguments for the other side, you've insulted and you've lied.  Your side has serious issues debating with libertarians because of the hate.

I know, I know, they all live in the basement of mommy, polishing their guns, smoking weed and some insulting third thing.....but I often wonder, how do people on your side that live off their parents feel about such things.  That's like 3/4rs of this place isn't it?  It's like the fat thing and Update......aren't many Updaters huge lumbering balls of lard?  I know some are, and assume most of the rest are.  How does somebody fatter than the victim feel when the victim is bullied for being fat?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I know, I know, they all live in the basement of mommy, polishing their guns, smoking weed and some insulting third thing.

You forgot to mention Somalia. Apparently the only choices are to always increase the power and scope of government or else you are an advocate for Somalia.

[WVdemocrat]

BTW I hate when radical libertarians like you resort to the nonsense argument of "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" whenever you know you're beat. I don't know why you guys can't just discuss and debate the issue without resorting to paranoid rants about government trying to control the people by rounding up guns.

The ironing is delicious.

Ironing? I suppose you mean irony?

Tell me, how is that ironic?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that liberals always revert to the "FOR GOD'S SAKE, WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!" argument. That's my prediction. Of course, that's obviously a ridiculous point because liberals in this thread have been the ones debating logically, but nonetheless I predict that's what you're going to tell me.

Nope.

Read the thread again.  From the OP.  Notice anything?  Do you notice how one side, from the word go, has posted one strawman after another strawman, right before a string of inults?  So while it's true (which is why you guessed it) that many of you do go to the "children" card too quickly when you don't get your way, you haven't done that (much) here.  You've done something that is much more common.  You made up arguments for the other side, you've insulted and you've lied.  Your side has serious issues debating with libertarians because of the hate.

I don't hate libertarians. I disagree with them on many issues, but I don't hate them.

And I'm not trying to insult them. I respond to their points with my points. That is all.

[Torie]

Probably a combination of cultural and legal factors. Basically, the U.S. culture is more violent in general and the U.S. government criminalizes a broader range of activity, which increases violence (gun-related and otherwise) for obvious reasons. The solution is just to give people more freedom. Fewer laws, less crime, less violence.

Here's a question for Atlas hoplophobes, if guns are the cause of relatively high U.S. violent crime rates, why is there no correlation whatsoever between the two:



Furthermore, when other Western industrialized nations tightened their gun control policies, crime in those nations went up, which suggests that the reason those nations have lower gun crime rates than the United States has nothing to do with gun control, and than gun control itself is completely ineffective at reducing crime.

But, none of these facts really matter to the people who truly drive the power-agendas of the world. They want everyone to rely on the State for protection so that they can be easily controlled and won't object to crap like police militarization and various police-state measures. It starts in kindergarten when they indoctrinate kids into the pussy mentality of "don't fight back, tell a teacher." They want you to be absolutely reliant on authority and unable to defend yourself or anyone else.

You are using that chart to assert a causative effect between a higher incidence of gun ownership and a decline in crime. First the decline might be due to other factors, and at least a substantial part of it is due to other factors, e.g., abortions (yes abortions), more effective policing, demographic factors, including lower birth rate, etc. Second, as I think someone else noted somewhere, the higher incidence of guns may be more due to some households having more guns, as opposed to more households having guns, and in fact the percentage households having guns has I think declined. Of more interest, to the extent valid at all, was that John Lott study that found lower crime in the high gun owning part of the Cincinnati metro area in Kentucky, versus the less high gun owning part of the Cincinnati metro area in Ohio, corrected for demographics. That is one of his most famous studies, if not the most famous.

[ag]

Read the thread again.  From the OP.  Notice anything?  Do you notice how one side, from the word go, has posted one strawman after another strawman, right before a string of inults? 

Is it an "insult" when I say that I do not like certain types of people? Like those who voluntarily choose to carry guns in peacetime?

Well, yeah, then I am insulting people.

[Mercenary]

We are a violent country.
It goes all the way up to the President and the general lust for war they have.
Gun control would change little even if it was constitutional.

I dont even like guns, but there is not really a reason to support gun control. You need to change the violent culture of America if you want to actually stop gun violence.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Okay. Let's settle this. Every anti gun person here besides ag who is paranoid. What do you propose we do in terms of gun laws? At this point we are arguing in circles.

Off the top of my head.

Close the loopholes to make sure all non-antique guns are purchased with a background check.

Gun-buyback programs in inner-cities

Create new penalties and regulations on straw purchases.

Civil Liability for straw purchasers and/or improperly selling a gun used in a crime.

An excise tax on firearms to pay for gun-buybacks, community policing and other crime prevention programs.

Repeal DC v. Heller

All excellent proposals, though I don't know how you can repeal a court ruling.

Straw purchases are already federal crimes with major penalties.   The issue is not that there haven't been enough laws passed against it, it's that it's basically impossible to detect unless there is an investigation over the weapon for another reason.

[Potus]

Supporters of gun control are advocating law changes to address a gun violence problem. So, this is a matter of policy. It's a matter of law. We shouldn't allow policy to be defined by the emotional reaction to tragedy.

Handguns are the most widely available guns that are explicitly designed to kill people. That is the only purpose for which handguns are manufactured. They're also the guns used in the vast majority of gun crimes across the country. Gun control supporters should be supporting policies that resemble Chicago's handgun ban, which was deemed unconstitutional so it's also a fruitless conversation. The handgun ban didn't work. Penalties for gun ownership were put in place, sales were banned, and the killing kept on. The data Deus presented from the Australian crime statistics group is also equally compelling in terms of a handgun ban's practicality.

Assault weapons are a favorite target of the gun control crowd. Ignoring the extremely small role they play in gun crimes, there is also the fact that crime trends were generally not impacted by the assault weapons ban. The chart used earlier in the thread to try to create a causal relationship between the two ignores a glaring fact. Decline in crime continued despite the ban's expiration and increased sale in assault weapons.

The point is often made that the vast majority of violent crimes aren't gun crimes. More violent crimes are committed with knives, by unarmed perpetrators, and with blunt objects than are committed with guns. This leads to the conclusion that violence is the result of people, not a result of weapons. Therefore, whatever policy prescription we put forward should address the problems that exist in people, not in weapons.

The conversation over gun culture is a much more troubling addition to the conversation. Gun culture in America is surrounded by learning how to use a gun. This means teaching things like muzzle control, knowing the area around you, etc. Getting a gun safe is important in gun culture. America's gun culture places a very heavy emphasis on safety and treating weapons with respect.

Concealed carry is important for personal safety. As has been said before, if one of the patrons at the movie theater shooting in Denver had been armed, the shooting could have been minimized. Having responsible, trained people carrying is hardly a threat to public safety. The reality in much of this country is one of long police response times. Especially in much of rural America, police officers can take a significant amount of time to respond to violent crime. A fast, effective response to violent crime is crucial. Concealed carry provides that response.

This conversation is also in need of some intellectual modesty. We shouldn't talk past the evidence. The evidence is clear. There is no data to suggest that concealed carry is a threat to public safety. There is also no data to reasonably suggest that stricter gun laws, such as those present in American cities, reduce crime or make communities safer. The evidence renders a clear verdict: we don't have a gun problem.

[ag]

The evidence renders a clear verdict: we don't have a gun problem.

There is also precious little data to suggest that

One thing one learns, being a social scientist, is how frequently we can say very little about very interesting problems. There are very few good studies on the impact of gun control laws (and even fewer of them recent). Gun control is, generally speaking, not a random thing and there are very few good "natural experiments" that would allow proper testing - and even there external validity is, generally, quite suspect.

So, you could argue, gun control has not been conclusively shown to matter. True. But, then, the same is true of a lot of things. For instance (closer home for me) there are very few clean studies that have been able to find ANY effect of exposure to political advertising on voting behavior. The impacts that have been measured are either minute, or statistically insignificant, or restricted to very strange places and demographics - or else can have all sorts of natural explanations other than that watching adds affects votes.  Nevertheless, parties and candidates seem to be spending fortunes on that

[ag]

In any case. I would like to stress that I have not been proposing any gun regulation. I have just been expressing my own personal feeling of severe dislike and apprehension of the sorts of people who like owning-carrying-using guns.

[WVdemocrat]

We are a violent country. It goes all the way up to the President and the general lust for war they have. Gun control would change little even if it was constitutional.

What is gun control? It's such a vague term that you could literally be talking about anything. I don't know what you're talking about. Tell me, what specific policy proposals are unconstitutional? List them. List actual policies that are supported by the political left, which are unconstitutional.

I dont even like guns, but there is not really a reason to support gun control. You need to change the violent culture of America if you want to actually stop gun violence.

https://youtu.be/Lu5SJcNp0J0?t=15s

Ah, welp - people aren't gonna change, so we might as well do nothing. -Right wingers

No! That's absurd. That's not a policy proposal, that's a cop out. You know how you stop gun crime? Stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

The point is often made that the vast majority of violent crimes aren't gun crimes. More violent crimes are committed with knives, by unarmed perpetrators, and with blunt objects than are committed with guns. This leads to the conclusion that violence is the result of people, not a result of weapons. Therefore, whatever policy prescription we put forward should address the problems that exist in people, not in weapons.

And what exactly is your brilliant plan to stop the criminal mentality in America? Please, do share.

Concealed carry is important for personal safety. As has been said before, if one of the patrons at the movie theater shooting in Denver had been armed, the shooting could have been minimized. Having responsible, trained people carrying is hardly a threat to public safety. The reality in much of this country is one of long police response times. Especially in much of rural America, police officers can take a significant amount of time to respond to violent crime. A fast, effective response to violent crime is crucial. Concealed carry provides that response.

We don't need people taking the law into their own hands. Let police officers deal with it, end of story. If everybody's running around with guns trying to be vigilantes, then suddenly America turns into the wild, wild west. It'd be chaos.

[dead0man]

I don't hate libertarians. I disagree with them on many issues, but I don't hate them.

And I'm not trying to insult them. I respond to their points with my points. That is all.

Fine, you don't hate libertarians (though there are many here that do) you've still posted enough strawmen to start a nasty fire in Oz.

Read the thread again.  From the OP.  Notice anything?  Do you notice how one side, from the word go, has posted one strawman after another strawman, right before a string of inults?

Is it an "insult" when I say that I do not like certain types of people? Like those who voluntarily choose to carry guns in peacetime?

Well, yeah, then I am insulting people.

Which is against the rules, right?

[bedstuy]

Supporters of gun control are advocating law changes to address a gun violence problem. So, this is a matter of policy. It's a matter of law. We shouldn't allow policy to be defined by the emotional reaction to tragedy.

Handguns are the most widely available guns that are explicitly designed to kill people. That is the only purpose for which handguns are manufactured. They're also the guns used in the vast majority of gun crimes across the country. Gun control supporters should be supporting policies that resemble Chicago's handgun ban, which was deemed unconstitutional so it's also a fruitless conversation. The handgun ban didn't work. Penalties for gun ownership were put in place, sales were banned, and the killing kept on. The data Deus presented from the Australian crime statistics group is also equally compelling in terms of a handgun ban's practicality.

That's not fair.  One city can't implement gun control.  If you can still easily buy illegal guns or just drive 20 minutes out of Chicago to buy a gun, whatever Chicago policy is going to be circumvented.  If you look at the data, the vast majority of guns seized by cops in Chicago come from outside Cook County.   In fact, many come from out of the state of Illinois.

Not to mention, the Chicago handgun ban did coincide with a reduction in homicides in Chicago.  It's possible that it was extremely successful.

Assault weapons are a favorite target of the gun control crowd. Ignoring the extremely small role they play in gun crimes, there is also the fact that crime trends were generally not impacted by the assault weapons ban. The chart used earlier in the thread to try to create a causal relationship between the two ignores a glaring fact. Decline in crime continued despite the ban's expiration and increased sale in assault weapons.

Assault weapons aren't generally used in street crime.  You can't tote a large rifle around an urban area without someone noticing.  I get that.  But, the government needs to enforce a limit on firepower at some point.

The point is often made that the vast majority of violent crimes aren't gun crimes. More violent crimes are committed with knives, by unarmed perpetrators, and with blunt objects than are committed with guns. This leads to the conclusion that violence is the result of people, not a result of weapons. Therefore, whatever policy prescription we put forward should address the problems that exist in people, not in weapons.

Of course weapons don't create crime by themselves.  That's a blatant straw man.  Nobody thinks guns shoot themselves. 

And, that statistic is meaningless.  Many people committing a violent crime don't want to use a gun because they don't want to or need to.  In some cases, a gun is too effective a weapon for someone's purposes.   The problem is that guns are used in the large majority of murders. 

Murders are especially bad crimes in most people's book.  And, that's what guns do, they take aggressive, dumb situations and turn them into tragedies. 

The conversation over gun culture is a much more troubling addition to the conversation. Gun culture in America is surrounded by learning how to use a gun. This means teaching things like muzzle control, knowing the area around you, etc. Getting a gun safe is important in gun culture. America's gun culture places a very heavy emphasis on safety and treating weapons with respect.

Tell that to the crips.

Concealed carry is important for personal safety. As has been said before, if one of the patrons at the movie theater shooting in Denver had been armed, the shooting could have been minimized. Having responsible, trained people carrying is hardly a threat to public safety. The reality in much of this country is one of long police response times. Especially in much of rural America, police officers can take a significant amount of time to respond to violent crime. A fast, effective response to violent crime is crucial. Concealed carry provides that response.

That might be true in one incident.  We don't know.  "The good guy with a gun" in a dark movie theater could have easily been shot before he got a chance to return fire or he could have missed.  People aren't trained to use guns in that way and they're not walking around prepared to engage in a shootout. 

But, the bigger issue is that guns increase the danger in the aggregate.  Maybe one person with a conceal carry permit would stop a crime, maybe another person with a conceal carry permit commits a crime.  Guns are used in crimes way more often than they're used in self-defense.  This is just a fact."For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die."  So, maybe you could stop one mass shooting every 40 years at the cost of tons of other shootings and suicides.  Not worth it.

This conversation is also in need of some intellectual modesty. We shouldn't talk past the evidence. The evidence is clear. There is no data to suggest that concealed carry is a threat to public safety. There is also no data to reasonably suggest that stricter gun laws, such as those present in American cities, reduce crime or make communities safer. The evidence renders a clear verdict: we don't have a gun problem.

ag has it right.  Lack of data cannot render a clear verdict on anything.

You're basically asking for data that's impossible to create, and then concluding on the basis that said data doesn't exist.  Are you nuts?

But, just as an illustration, imagine this study.

We pick a group of similar neighborhoods with similar amounts of property crime and robbery in a range of urban areas.

Sketchy neighborhoods in low gun control cities: New Orleans, Birmingham, Al.
Sketchy neighborhoods in medium gun control cities:  New York, DC.
Sketchy neighborhoods in high gun control cities: London, Berlin.

Do you think there would be a trend in homicide and gun violence?

[ag]

I don't hate libertarians. I disagree with them on many issues, but I don't hate them.

And I'm not trying to insult them. I respond to their points with my points. That is all.

Fine, you don't hate libertarians (though there are many here that do) you've still posted enough strawmen to start a nasty fire in Oz.

Read the thread again.  From the OP.  Notice anything?  Do you notice how one side, from the word go, has posted one strawman after another strawman, right before a string of inults?

Is it an "insult" when I say that I do not like certain types of people? Like those who voluntarily choose to carry guns in peacetime?

Well, yeah, then I am insulting people.

Which is against the rules, right?

If it is an "insult"... well, then you are welcome to report me

[tschandler]

Obviously, I have come to realize this site is populated by leftists, but how can anyone call themselves "liberal" and believe only the government can have a monopoly on the use of force?

I would suggest that what an average citizen is allowed definitely has a utility argument but not one to be determined by government.  See how "common sense" gun laws passed in New York state made many legal guns illegal simply because of their magazines.  As far as a utility argument, the private citizen should carry anything the police carry - semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, even non lethel chemical suppressants (more pepper spray than tear gas but you get the general idea).   As far as utility, these things all have purposes.  A semi-automatic fires one bullet per trigger pull.  There is no need for full auto because it is a useless feature for self defense.  Full auto even in military circles is primarily for crowd suppression/sweeps.   It barely has practical use in the military (some think the Army's eventual replacement for the M4 won't even do full auto)

Semi-automatic rifles are also great hunting rifles.  My deer rifle is a semi-automatic in 30-06.  Semi-automatic pistols have utility as a self defense weapon.  My sister is living alone in another city across state lines.  She carries a .380 semi auto.  Guns are the great equalizer.  So yes gun laws have to respect the useful utility of peaceful citizens. 

In closing, I propose two questions.  To restate my original question, do you believe government should have a monopoly on the use of force especially deadly force?   And in the nature of compromise, accept the same regulations on voting that you would on gun ownership? 

[free my dawg]

Obviously, I have come to realize this site is populated by leftists, but how can anyone call themselves "liberal" and believe only the government can have a monopoly on the use of force? 

You'd be surprised. There's a decent chunk of the far-left on here that's actually pro-gun.

[dead0man]

If it is an "insult"... well, then you are welcome to report me

I've never reported anybody, that's for children.

[Panda Express]

Semi-automatic rifles are also great hunting rifles.  My deer rifle is a semi-automatic in 30-06. 

I bet you feel cool when you shoot deer with your big rifle, don't you? Well, I hate to break it to you Yellow Avatar but what you do is not impressive at all. You shot and killed an animal that couldn't defend itself. Creep.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Semi-automatic rifles are also great hunting rifles.  My deer rifle is a semi-automatic in 30-06. 

I bet you feel cool when you shoot deer with your big rifle, don't you? Well, I hate to break it to you Yellow Avatar but what you do is not impressive at all. You shot and killed an animal that couldn't defend itself. Creep.

I take it that you are a vegetarian. Oh, and no leather belts or shoes either.

[Panda Express]

Semi-automatic rifles are also great hunting rifles.  My deer rifle is a semi-automatic in 30-06. 

I bet you feel cool when you shoot deer with your big rifle, don't you? Well, I hate to break it to you Yellow Avatar but what you do is not impressive at all. You shot and killed an animal that couldn't defend itself. Creep.

I take it that you are a vegetarian. Oh, and no leather belts or shoes either.

Well, no, that wasn't my point at all. I'm basically calling people who brag about killing deer (or posting pictures of the deer they hunted on facebook or instargram) creeps, which they are.  Again, why should I be impressed you killed something that couldn't fight back?