H. Lee White
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 1,014
- Location
- The great lakes
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
So... there isn't enough data to form a reasoned, sound argument for stricter gun laws.The second amendment hurdle is the big one, but the effects of gun restrictions on a nationwide level is highly debated among those those who have studied it professionally, with the basic belief being that there simply is not enough accurate data to draw real conclusions from.
I think you will acknowledge that when we talk about a rise in crime we're not talking about what you wrote. I was referring to a rise in gun crime / violent crime because of the ban on certain weapons and clips.well it did in the sense that some people bought Post ban weapons and converted them to Pre ban. this normally involved buying an AR 15 style rifle which was sold without "flash hiders" "bayonet lugs" etc and replacing the top half of the rifle with ones that had those features. the people who wanted normal capacity (15-21 round) pistol magazines are the competition practical shooters where you are scored on TIME as well as accuracy so less reloading of the pistol is an advantage. If you came into the sport after the ban the magazines were extremely (150 dollar rather than 20-30 pre ban) expensive but there were "replacement" kits available meaning if you OWNED a 20 round magazine and it broke you could replace the broken part. Some people broke the law by actually creating new normal capacity magazines
So... there isn't enough data to form a reasoned, sound argument for stricter gun laws.
I'd also add that most suggestions for stricter gun laws cannot be shown to prevent the acts that they are poroposed in response to.
I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?Do you believe it would be constitutional....not if you'd agree with it, not if you'd think it'd be needed, not if you think it's "wrong"....to require people to be liscensed prior to be able to speak in a public venue about politics?
I think you will acknowledge that when we talk about a rise in crime we're not talking about what you wrote. I was referring to a rise in gun crime / violent crime because of the ban on certain weapons and clips.
I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?
I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?
I do not understand your analogy?
I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?
there is no evidence the law impacted crime at all. we do know that several well publicized mass murders did occur during the ban period including Columbine. of course pipe bombs are 100% contraband and the two killers had those devices as well
4: The ban didnt ban anything as the manufacturers modified their designs to comply with the law and continued selling them.True, there is no statistical support for the proposition that the AWB reduced gun homicides. OTOH, the results are probably skewed for several reasons:
1. Gun manufacturers ramped up AW manufacture and import prior to the ban going into effect;
2. That contributed to the already large stockpile of existing AWs;
3. The ban didn't last long enough to see a meaningful reduction in the stockpile.
4: The ban didnt ban anything as the manufacturers modified their designs to comply with the and continued selling them.
So... there isn't enough data to form a reasoned, sound argument for stricter gun laws.
I'd also add that most suggestions for stricter gun laws cannot be shown to prevent the acts that they are poroposed in response to.
It seems to have achieved just that in Australia in the narrow goal of preventing more mass murders.
And by your own criteria, those were the events that the Australian law was proposed in response to. There, you got exactly what you seem to want.
5. There was no reduction in the "stockpile"4: The ban didnt ban anything as the manufacturers modified their designs to comply with the law and continued selling them.
Except the murder rate and the violent crime rate have jumped 300 %
The results are hard to argue with. According to a Harvard University study, 13 gun massacres (in which four or more people died) occurred in the 18 years before the law was enacted. In the 16 years since there has been none. Zero.
The overall firearm homicide rate dropped from 0.43 per 100,000 in the seven years before the law to 0.25 in the seven years after. By 2009, the rate had dropped further, to just 0.1 per 100,000, or one per million.
In the USA, the 2009 firearm homicide rate was 3.3 per 100,000, some 33 times higher than Australia's.
Do you know what percentage of gun violence / murders annually in the USA are committed as a "crime of passion" not by criminals but by registered gun users? Is there any correlation to crimes of passion gun incidents and non-registered guns?you cannot require a criminal to apply for a license or register a gun since that violates his right against incrimination. so such schemes cannot even apply to the people most likely to misuse a gun. its illegal to fire a gun in a theater unless you are being attacked-just as its legal to yell fire if there is indeed a fire
don't confuse use restrictions with bans on possession
No. Do you?Do you know what percentage of gun violence / murders annually in the USA are committed as a "crime of passion" not by criminals but by registered gun users?
The vast majority of guns in the US are not registered, and so it stands to reason that the vast majoirty of gun-related "crimes of passion" involve unregistered guns.Is there any correlation to crimes of passion gun incidents and non-registered guns?
I asked the question because I do not know.No. Do you?
So if the vast majority of guns were registered how would that increase crime? I think it would reduce crime especially if gun owners are required to pass some tests in order to be licensed. Are you against driver's licences too? Are you against hunting licenses etc.?The vast majority of guns in the US are not registered, and so it stands to reason that the vast majoirty of gun-related "crimes of passion" involve unregistered guns.
I asked the question because I do not know.
So if the vast majority of guns were registered how would that increase crime? I think it would reduce crime especially if gun owners are required to pass some tests in order to be licensed. Are you against driver's licences too? Are you against hunting licenses etc.?
Do you know what percentage of gun violence / murders annually in the USA are committed as a "crime of passion" not by criminals but by registered gun users? Is there any correlation to crimes of passion gun incidents and non-registered guns?
No one claims that it would.So if the vast majority of guns were registered how would that increase crime?
Specifically, why?I think it would reduce crime especially if gun owners are required to pass some tests in order to be licensed.
These are provileges, not rights.Are you against driver's licences too? Are you against hunting licenses etc.?
Someone who owns a gun registered to him.What is a "registered" gun user?
Someone who owns a gun registered to him.
Same here - none are registered.Registered how? I have some guns but none are registered. It must be a NY thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?