Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

[ataraxia]

I can live with things the way they are. Except I would like to see full enforcement and no plea bargaining for any firearm violation.
How 'bout Stop and Search for weapons? That would cut down all crime right away.

Except I would like to see full enforcement and no plea bargaining for any firearm violation.
How 'bout Stop and Search for weapons? That would cut down all crime right away.

We can talk about details. Here are some common-sense measures which have been proven to reduce crime and save lives (text generated by Chat GPT):

1. Permit-to-Purchase (PTP) Laws​

2. Universal Background Checks​

3. Red Flag Laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders)​

4. Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws​

5. Firearm Waiting Periods​

6. Restrictions on High-Risk Individuals​

7. High-Capacity Magazine Bans and Assault Weapon Restrictions​

Policy	Proven Effects
Permit-to-Purchase	↓ Homicide rates, ↑ enforcement of gun laws
Universal Background Checks	↓ Gun deaths (esp. with PTP laws)
Red Flag Laws	↓ Suicide, may prevent mass shootings
Child Access Prevention Laws	↓ Accidental deaths, ↓ youth suicides
Waiting Periods	↓ Gun suicides, ↓ homicides
Domestic Violence Gun Restrictions	↓ Intimate partner homicides
High-Capacity Magazine Bans	↓ Mass shooting fatalities

 

[RF667799]

So firearms don't have rear view mirror and turn signal requirements. Do you think we should have the same regulations on both if we are going to have any regulations at all?

Neither do motor vehicles have those requirements except as a condition of being used on public roads.

It's revealing that you edited out the part of my post where I said I would rectify the situation concerning background checks for possession. (After you lied about my position on that earlier.)

What troubles you about people having to pass a criminal background check?

 

[L88]

Well most Americans can't. Heck even most gun owners can't.

Who’s Driving Gun Policy? | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

A dedicated and vocal group is leading the opposition to common-sense gun policy.

publichealth.jhu.edu

Most Gun Owners Support Stricter Laws—Even NRA Members

Even NRA members

time.com

But let's first make it clear this is not about infringement on your rights, or some unlimited supposed right you have to haul around any crazy weapon you want on the street.

Hey, right your congress critters and local elected on what you want.
I send an email every few months to mine to enforce current laws to the fullest and ask why a firearm charge was dropped on a criminal in a particular case.

 

[ataraxia]

Neither do motor vehicles have those requirements except as a condition of being used on public roads.

So we agree that different potentially hazardous equipment require different regulations. Progress?

It's revealing that you edited out the part of my post where I said I would rectify the situation concerning background checks for possession. (After you lied about my position on that earlier.)

What troubles you about people having to pass a criminal background check?

Nothing. See #2 on post #426.

 

[ataraxia]

Hey, right your congress critters and local elected on what you want.
I send an email every few months to mine to enforce current laws to the fullest and ask why a firearm charge was dropped on a criminal in a particular case.

We are having this discussion to clarify and rationally argue our positions, not effect policy change. Two different things- and we can do both.

It seems you just say that when you have nothing left to defend your position.

 

[RF667799]

We can talk about details. Here are some common-sense measures which have been proven to reduce crime and save lives:

1. Permit-to-Purchase (PTP) Laws​

• Description: Require individuals to obtain a license or permit from law enforcement before purchasing a firearm, often with background checks and sometimes fingerprinting.
• Evidence:
  • Connecticut (1995): Implementing a PTP law was associated with a 40% reduction in firearm homicide.
  • Missouri (2007 repeal): Repealing its PTP law was associated with a 25% increase in firearm homicide.
  • (Source: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research)

---

2. Universal Background Checks​

• Description: Mandate background checks for all gun sales, including private and gun show sales.
• Evidence:
  • States with stricter background checks tend to have lower rates of gun homicide and suicide.
  • Universal background checks are most effective when combined with PTP laws.
  • (Source: JAMA, The Lancet, Journal of Urban Health)

---

3. Red Flag Laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders)​

• Description: Allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others.
• Evidence:
  • In Connecticut and Indiana, red flag laws have been linked to reductions in firearm suicides.
  • May also help prevent mass shootings, although data here is more limited.
  • (Source: Psychiatric Services, Annals of Internal Medicine)

---

4. Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws​

• Description: Penalize gun owners who fail to store firearms safely, particularly when children could access them.
• Evidence:
  • Associated with reductions in unintentional shootings and suicides among children.
  • More stringent CAP laws (e.g., requiring locked storage) are more effective.
  • (Source: Pediatrics, Journal of the American Medical Association)

---

5. Firearm Waiting Periods​

• Description: Require a delay between purchasing and receiving a firearm.
• Evidence:
  • Waiting periods are linked to decreases in gun suicides and homicides, likely by reducing impulsive acts.
  • One study estimated 51 fewer gun homicides per month nationwide if all states had waiting periods.
  • (Source: PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

---

6. Restrictions on High-Risk Individuals​

• Description: Laws that prohibit firearm possession by individuals with certain histories (e.g., domestic violence, mental health adjudication).
• Evidence:
  • Domestic violence firearm prohibitions reduce intimate partner homicide rates.
  • Closing loopholes in these laws increases their effectiveness.
  • (Source: Annals of Internal Medicine, American Journal of Public Health)

---

7. High-Capacity Magazine Bans and Assault Weapon Restrictions​

• Evidence:
  • Evidence on overall crime reduction is mixed.
  • However, these bans may reduce casualties in mass shootings.
  • (Source: RAND Corporation, Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery)

---

Summary Table:​

Policy	Proven Effects
Permit-to-Purchase	↓ Homicide rates, ↑ enforcement of gun laws
Universal Background Checks	↓ Gun deaths (esp. with PTP laws)
Red Flag Laws	↓ Suicide, may prevent mass shootings
Child Access Prevention Laws	↓ Accidental deaths, ↓ youth suicides
Waiting Periods	↓ Gun suicides, ↓ homicides
Domestic Violence Gun Restrictions	↓ Intimate partner homicides
High-Capacity Magazine Bans	↓ Mass shooting fatalities

You understand 6 is already federal law?

I wonder if you understand weasel words like "may", "linked", "associated with" are not indication of proven causation.

Your unsourced copy and paste seems to understand that.

 

[RF667799]

So we agree that different potentially hazardous equipment require different regulations. Progress?

You need explain the rationale behind the different regulations. You seem to be arguing in opposition to background checks for the possession of motor vehicles, but support them for guns. Are you under the impression motor vehicles aren't used in criminal activities?

See #2 on post #426.

Yes, I advocate for those background checks on guns and motor vehicles. You don't.

 

[L88]

We are having this discussion to clarify and rationally argue our positions, not effect policy change. Two different things- and we can do both.

It seems you just say that when you have nothing left to defend your position.

Regarding your list of laws. New Hampshire's and Maine's violence rates negate any of those claims.

Now, what position are you defending?

 

[ataraxia]

You need explain the rationale behind the different regulations. You seem to be arguing in opposition to background checks for the possession of motor vehicles, but support them for guns. Are you under the impression motor vehicles aren't used in criminal activities?

Did so already, with the along with the evidence, links, and the references to the data supporting them. Post #426.

Yes, I advocate for those background checks on guns and motor vehicles. You don't.

So then you should have no problem with those background checks on ALL sales.

 

[RF667799]

Motor vehicles aren't designed to murder people.

I bet you think guns are. I bet you can't support that without simultaneously supporting that motor vehicles are as well.

 

[RF667799]

Did so already, with the along with the evidence, links, and the references to the data supporting them. Post #426.

So then you should have no problem with those background checks on ALL sales.

You mean like the sale of a can of tomatoes?

 

[ataraxia]

Regarding your list of laws. New Hampshire's and Maine's violence rates negate any of those claims.

It’s true that states like New Hampshire and Maine have relatively low rates of gun violence despite having fewer gun laws—but that doesn’t actually disprove the effectiveness of gun regulations overall. These states are more rural, have lower poverty rates, and tend to have strong community ties and lower population density—all of which are factors that naturally contribute to lower crime. So while they’re relatively peaceful places, it’s not necessarily because of lax gun laws, and it wouldn’t be accurate to generalize their situation to the whole country. This is a little like showing people who smoke AND exercise are healthier than some people who smoke without exercise, and that means that smoking is not really bad for you.

Most research on gun policy uses national (as well as international) data and controls for things like demographics, income levels, and urbanization. When you zoom out, states with stronger gun laws consistently show lower rates of firearm deaths, especially when those laws include permit-to-purchase requirements, background checks, and red flag laws. These policies have a much more noticeable impact in high-risk, urban areas where gun violence is more common. So Maine and New Hampshire may be exceptions, but exceptions don’t invalidate the rule—they just show that violence is complex and shaped by more than one factor. That's what these studies do though: control for confounding factors.

Now, what position are you defending?

The ones on post #426.

And that "the right to arms shall not be infringed" is not an unlimited right.

 

[ataraxia]

You mean like the sale of a can of tomatoes?

?

Not following you there.

 

[RF667799]

?

Not following you there.

You said "ALL sales". I'm attempting to have you clarify that.

 

[ataraxia]

You said "ALL sales". I'm attempting to have you clarify that.

Oooooooh, OK. Got it. So clever! Yay you! Good job- you made a funny!

 

[RF667799]

Oooooooh, OK. Got it. So clever! Yay you! Good job- you made a funny!

No, I asked for clarification. If by "ALL sales" you meant private and commercial sales of cars and guns, then yes I include private sales as well as commercial, retail sales.

 

[The Brad Dad]

I bet you think guns are. I bet you can't support that without simultaneously supporting that motor vehicles are as well.

Guns are designed with the intention to be a destructive weapon. Cars are not. This isn’t arguable.

 

[rahl]

Vs the imaginary crimes you're going to save people from with your heroism because you have a gun.

1.7 million justifiable defensive gun uses annually isn’t imaginary lol.

A constitutional amendment wouldn't be stripping anyone of anything. It means people wanted it, pols debated it, and an amendment was passed.

If a constitutional amendment was passed making slavery legal, would that not be stripping people of their right to freedom?

You do know how the constitution works despite not believing in it, right?

 

[ataraxia]

No, I asked for clarification. If by "ALL sales" you meant private and commercial sales of cars and guns, then yes I include private sales as well as commercial, retail sales.

Yeah- because when I say sales of potentially deadly equipment needs to be regulated, then it requiring clarification as to whether that includes cans of tomatoes. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[ataraxia]

1.7 million justifiable defensive gun uses annually isn’t imaginary lol.

There are even more in war zones. That doesn't make war zones safe or desirable places to live.

 

[rahl]

Cars have to be registered.

No they don’t. Only to drive in a public road.

Users of cars have to pass tests and be licensed to drive said registered cars.

No they don’t. Only to drive on a public road.

Users need to retake eye exams and renew their DL every so often.

Only to drive on public roads.

Cars need to be registered yearly. With the place of home being listed.

No they don’t. Only to drive on public roads.

Are you sure the left is the ones who doesn't get it?

Yes, as you just demonstrated.

Afterall, every person in the world has their very little own line in the sand drawn when it comes to arms infringements.

Where's your line?
You ok with citizens bearing claymore mines? They are bearable arms.

 

[ataraxia]

No they don’t. Only to drive in a public road.

No they don’t. Only to drive on a public road.

Only to drive on public roads.

No they don’t. Only to drive on public roads.

Yes, as you just demonstrated.

Different hazardous equipment require different regulations.

Unless you want rear view mirror and turn signal requirements for your firearm.

 

[The Brad Dad]

1.7 million justifiable defensive gun uses annually isn’t imaginary lol.

Is this from the same silly online survey someone else butchered?

If a constitutional amendment was passed making slavery legal, would that not be stripping people of their right to freedom?

I don’t know why you think an inanimate object is comparable to a black person. Your premise needs a little work.

 

[RF667799]

Guns are designed with the intention to be a destructive weapon. Cars are not. This isn’t arguable.

That isn't what you said. We can't discuss what you said if you won't stick by it.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

How can anyone stop a kid or any person for that matter, from shooting themselves?
Or knifing themselves.
Or taking drugs to kill themselves?

Are you asking how to prevent suicide and self harm? Because one of the best strategies used is denial of means. You literally deny someone the means with which they harm themselves.

So, you admit to deliberately trolling and lying about what I said. Thank you for that confirmation of your lack of integrity.

And you once again proved your lack of knowledge.

“Always keep the gun unloaded till ready to use.”

- A self defense firearm is ready for use, hence it should be loaded.
- Condition three. The magazine inserted but around is not chambered. It is a compromise for safety reasons.

Hey listen if you don't want to follow universal gun safety rules that's fine, just admit you don't want to follow universal gun safety laws. Ammo and guns are always stored and locked separately to avoid accidental discharge, because as the NRA puts it, even mechanical locks on guns can fail.