United states to become a constitution carry majority nation.

[uptower]

It isn't specifically about traffic. It's about this: "In any case since you feel it is worth the sacrifice, several more school kids paid the ultimate price today to spare you the inconvenience of proper background checks and permits, so you really should consider sending their families a thank you note."

Frankly, I don't believe you would "consider speed regulators on cars", other than asserting you would on an anonymous forum. Not because you don't consider traffic fatalities a necessary evil. But because you don't consider them to be your fault. After all, you drive "like a granny". Guess what? I don't murder people with my AR-15.

It isn't an off topic scenario. It's an entirely apt analogy, and you had no substantive response. Whether you want to pursue it or not, you probably can't. And that's okay, because I made my point.

Dude said he thought gun freedom was (or would be) worth the loss of life.

But that raises an important tangential point: Even if there were some sort of actual harm caused by guns, our freedom would still be worth that price.

As for the driving analogy, I'd like everyone else to drive like grannies too. The roads would be safer (though granted if they actually were all old folks, there might be more bumper scrapes in carparks, lol). If we all play along, or at least most of us, then safety laws do work, most of the time.

And this is where the big objections to more gun regs come up against reality too. When most gun owners consider themselves law-abiding citizens, they end up abiding by new gun laws. They might grumble at first, but suck it up for the greater good.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Such a bad idea...

It’s a great idea.

 

[RF667799]

Dude said he thought gun freedom was (or would be) worth the loss of life.

Like the freedom to drive 75 mph is worth the loss of life?

As for the driving analogy, I'd like everyone else to drive like grannies too. The roads would be safer (though granted if they actually were all old folks, there might be more bumper scrapes in carparks, lol). If we all play along, or at least most of us, then safety laws do work, most of the time.

And this is where the big objections to more gun regs come up against reality too. When most gun owners consider themselves law-abiding citizens, they end up abiding by new gun laws. They might grumble at first, but suck it up for the greater good.

Yeah? Is that how you think the motoring public would react to their vehicles being limited to 25 mph and Nascar safety equipment being required for all occupants? Everyone's commute just got over twice as long, and they're just going to suck it up? Okay....why hasn't it happened? There's no question at all that it would reduce traffic fatalities by a huge amount. Perhaps to virtually nil. Does the motoring public not care about traffic fatalities?

I can get very few anti gun zealots to support the idea of criminal background checks as a requirement for possessing guns or motor vehicles. Yet they profess to believe criminal background checks are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. So what causes that disconnect? I believe it is that they simply don't want to be bothered by even that small inconvenience, no matter how many lives it might save.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

First, to get a permit to have a gun a person would have to go through a safety course, or pass an exam, and a background check not just for personal criminal record but for psychological red flags. Most don’t have the wherewithal or criminal connections to find gun on the black market (indeed in such countries that alone is pretty hard) so these checks go some way to stopping the wrong people having access to them. That’s how it works in say the UK or Australia or Canada.

It is considerably more draconian than that in Australia and the UK. Serfs in those countries also have to have their lord agree that they "legitimately need" a gun before they are allowed to have it.

I haven't kept up with Canadian gun law changes but things seem to be pretty totalitarian there these days.

Now back to the cases in the US. We know some had a history of violence, online threats or other issues that might prevent them getting a permit to own a gun if such laws were in place. They might also prevent a relative in the same household getting one even. In some of those cases the offender may not have had the opportunity to act on their dark thoughts, or may have done it in a less efficient way like a stabbing or a car ramming or something that guarantees fewer victims before getting stopped.

No such guarantee of fewer victims with killers who use knives or vehicles.

Correct me if I am wrong but on page 9 you said something to the effect that the odd mass killing would be worth it for the sake of gun freedom. I don’t see a difference.

You are missing the IF in my sentences. Guns do not actually cause harm to society.

I was saying that they would still be worth it IF they did.

Could their killer have killed so many so efficiently with a different weapon?

I don't know about efficiency but they still could have racked up a large body count using different weapons.

Those kinds of mass killings are much rarer than gun killings,

Only because murderers are able to choose guns.

Take away the guns and murderers choose different weapons.

and usually end up in the perp getting stopped in the act before as much carnage can be done.

I am unaware of such things usually happening.

The dude said on page 9 that gun deaths are worth it to preserve freedom. Since he brought it up, it’s fair to call him on it. We don’t need to introduce any more off topic scenarios to keep the thread alive.

My sentence said:
Even if there were some sort of actual harm caused by guns, our freedom would still be worth that price.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

We should instead be looking at similarly developed countries like the UK, Australia, or New Zealand; Canada is probably the best example of what America (or an American state) might look like with better gun control.

I would rather that America be destroyed in a nuclear war than adopt those sorts of laws.

 

[jaeger19]

LOL A dealer who sells multiple weapons to the same person multiple times should be well aware what is going on. But you are right it is impossible to prove and even if they do the penalties are low. That is how it should be right?

Um why? What is " multiple weapons multiple times?
Define that.

The penalties for making a straw purchase are 10 years in jail and a 250000 dollar fine.
The penalty for a dealer is loss of license that ends his business and potential jail time depending on level of involvement.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes, there was less violent crime. I'm not arguing that guns make a society more violent. I'm arguing that they make what violence exists more dangerous. Guns used in crimes are dangerous to the victim, to innocent bystanders, and to the criminal if the victim and/or the bystander is armed.

I'm pro second amendment. But guns unequivocally do make violence deadlier. They don't create or contribute to violence, they just make what violence occurs more deadly. If there were no guns, the rate of homicide from 1993 would have been somewhat lower, and the rate of violence in 2013 would have been somewhat lower. And the drop rate would likely have been the same.

If what you said was true..then as guns increased. Then homicides should increase as criminals get ahold of more " effective killing tools".

But that didn't happen.

 

[jaeger19]

Of course not. Do you dispute that it is more difficult to kill someone with a knife than with a gun?

Yes. There are a number of scenarios where a knife is a much more effective killing tool.

 

[uptower]

My sentence said:
Even if there were some sort of actual harm caused by guns, our freedom would still be worth that price.

1. Guns do actually cause a lot of harm its not hypotheitcal
2. They still wouldn't be worth it, hypothetical or not.
3. So it's still a callous thing to suggest.

 

[uptower]

Like the freedom to drive 75 mph is worth the loss of life?

Yeah? Is that how you think the motoring public would react to their vehicles being limited to 25 mph and Nascar safety equipment being required for all occupants? Everyone's commute just got over twice as long, and they're just going to suck it up? Okay....why hasn't it happened? There's no question at all that it would reduce traffic fatalities by a huge amount. Perhaps to virtually nil. Does the motoring public not care about traffic fatalities?

I can get very few anti gun zealots to support the idea of criminal background checks as a requirement for possessing guns or motor vehicles. Yet they profess to believe criminal background checks are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. So what causes that disconnect? I believe it is that they simply don't want to be bothered by even that small inconvenience, no matter how many lives it might save.

Traffic laws haven't changed for the same reason gun laws haven't : political pressure and the need for balance. Nobody gets it all their way in this system. I get it, but we're still not here to talk about traffic.

We don't need traffic as an analogy for guns because we have comparable nations with working gun laws to look at instead.

Americ has a shit ton of gun freedoms and a shit ton of gun deaths. Other countries as free or freer in most respects don't.

 

[jaeger19]

There are many reason for the high crime rates in the 80's that have nothing to do with the number of guns in circulation. But crime rates are going up again and the % of gun homicides is at an all time high. You will ignore anything that remotely targets guns as a culprit for anything. It's like you are living in a dream.

Nope. I just know the data and I understand statistics.

If there was a causal relationship between guns and crime then.
1. Consistently when guns increase crime should increase...but that doesn't happen consistently.
2. The increase in guns should cause a proportional increase in crime. But that doesn't happen.
3. The increase in guns should proceed an increase in violence but again it doesn't happen consistently.

See..its you live in a dream. No matter the evidence...it must be the guns.

Mass shooters almost invariably have mental health histories . In Uvalde and parkland so much so that a social worker was dispatched to see if they were a danger to themselves or others.
Now..where are the questions,around that?
Why didn't these folks get help. Why did tgey gave to be a danger already to get help? Is a social worker the most appropriate person to do this evaluation and was the evaluation using valid indicators?..
But we never hear these things be because folks like you are too focused on the gun..and calling for background checks that the shooters already passed.

Violence has increased..could it be because of the stress of the epidemic?
Of course not..it must be guns right..it didn't cause an increase for a decade but now. Now they do.
Sheesh.

 

[jaeger19]

Traffic laws haven't changed for the same reason gun laws haven't : political pressure and the need for balance. Nobody gets it all their way in this system. I get it, but we're still not here to talk about traffic.

We don't need traffic as an analogy for guns because we have comparable nations with working gun laws to look at instead.

Americ has a shit ton of gun freedoms and a shit ton of gun deaths. Other countries as free or freer in most respects don't.

Name a nation that has working gun laws.

 

[jaeger19]

Dude said he thought gun freedom was (or would be) worth the loss of life.



As for the driving analogy, I'd like everyone else to drive like grannies too. The roads would be safer (though granted if they actually were all old folks, there might be more bumper scrapes in carparks, lol). If we all play along, or at least most of us, then safety laws do work, most of the time.

And this is where the big objections to more gun regs come up against reality too. When most gun owners consider themselves law-abiding citizens, they end up abiding by new gun laws. They might grumble at first, but suck it up for the greater good.

Yeah no. Likely gun owners don't abide by many of the new gun laws.
In New York state..the statecenacted tge safe act. The gun laws were so onerous and frankly stupid that even law enforcement refused to abide by them.

Another Challenge to New York’s Gun Law: Sheriffs Who Won’t Enforce It (Published 2022)

Some say the measure, which was passed after a Supreme Court opinion, ignores common sense, the Second Amendment and the way people live outside big cities.

www.nytimes.com

 

[RF667799]

Traffic laws haven't changed for the same reason gun laws haven't : political pressure and the need for balance. Nobody gets it all their way in this system. I get it, but we're still not here to talk about traffic.

We don't need traffic as an analogy for guns because we have comparable nations with working gun laws to look at instead.

Americ has a shit ton of gun freedoms and a shit ton of gun deaths. Other countries as free or freer in most respects don't.

My analogy isn't directed at guns.

It points out that most anti-gun zealots don't give a shit about saving lives when it inconveniences them. Even when that is the criticism they level at the pro-civil rights advocates.

 

[uptower]

Name a nation that has working gun laws.

Oh Jesus I said "guns" three times in front of a mirror didn't I?

 

[jaeger19]

Oh Jesus I said "guns" three times in front of a mirror didn't I?

Don't get mad because you are being asked to provide evidence of your claims.
The uk gas much more stringent gun laws than sweden..than new .Zealand..
And has a higher homicide rate than both countries.
Please explain.

 

[Noodlegawd]

A lot of developing countries have amplified problems due to poverty, civil conflict and corruption, sure. They also have porous borders with weapons traffickers easily defying poorly enforced laws. I don't think those are a good comparison.

The US. has all those things as well, just to a smaller degree (and thus it has a much lower homicide rate than those places).

We should instead be looking at similarly developed countries like the UK, Australia, or New Zealand; Canada is probably the best example of what America (or an American state) might look like with better gun control.

Why? The U.S. is nothing like those countries. Canada is especially not a good example for your argument. There are states in US with relatively loose gun laws that have murder rates comparable to Canada's, and quite a bit less than some of Canada's provinces. Where that isn't the case, you can always point to demographic and socioeconomic differences.

 

[iguanaman]

Nope. I just know the data and I understand statistics.

If there was a causal relationship between guns and crime then.
1. Consistently when guns increase crime should increase...but that doesn't happen consistently.
2. The increase in guns should cause a proportional increase in crime. But that doesn't happen.
3. The increase in guns should proceed an increase in violence but again it doesn't happen consistently.

See..its you live in a dream. No matter the evidence...it must be the guns.

Mass shooters almost invariably have mental health histories . In Uvalde and parkland so much so that a social worker was dispatched to see if they were a danger to themselves or others.
Now..where are the questions,around that?
Why didn't these folks get help. Why did tgey gave to be a danger already to get help? Is a social worker the most appropriate person to do this evaluation and was the evaluation using valid indicators?..
But we never hear these things be because folks like you are too focused on the gun..and calling for background checks that the shooters already passed.

Violence has increased..could it be because of the stress of the epidemic?
Of course not..it must be guns right..it didn't cause an increase for a decade but now. Now they do.
Sheesh.

Stop denying the obvious which is that anyone in America can get a gun no matter what his criminal record is. That is really the goal of the NRA/gunmakers and you do not object. Like some have said on this board "It is the price we pay for freedom". This attitude is what will bring big changes to our gun laws when the inevitable happens and people can no longer tolerate the death and destruction. It will be your fault too.

 

[CLAX1911]

Stop denying the obvious which is that anyone in America can get a gun no matter what his criminal record is.

Kind of removes the common sense from background checks huh

That is really the goal of the NRA/gunmakers and you do not object.

Yes. Make it impossible for the government to control if you want to be controlled by your government move to North Korea

Like some have said on this board "It is the price we pay for freedom". This attitude is what will bring big changes to our gun laws when the inevitable happens and people can no longer tolerate the death and destruction. It will be your fault too.

Idiocy will bring change in our gun laws because of the first statement you made in this post. And it'll only make it worse.

 

[RF667799]

Stop denying the obvious which is that anyone in America can get a gun no matter what his criminal record is. That is really the goal of the NRA/gunmakers and you do not object. Like some have said on this board "It is the price we pay for freedom". This attitude is what will bring big changes to our gun laws when the inevitable happens and people can no longer tolerate the death and destruction. It will be your fault too.

Everyone can get a car and drive it drunk, as well.

People will do illegal things. We have laws to punish them when they do.

 

[iguanaman]

Everyone can get a car and drive it drunk, as well.

People will do illegal things. We have laws to punish them when they do.

How does that prevent criminals from murdering people with illegal guns? Why is it so important that they are not denied them? Drunk driver deaths are nowhere near the problem that illegal guns are but we are proactively passing laws and increasing enforcement to reduce them. We need to do the same for guns.

 

[CLAX1911]

How does that prevent criminals from murdering people with illegal guns?

You're making the program argument it doesn't all the laws in the world haven't yet that's what makes you think more will change that you know the difference between genius and insanity?

Why is it so important that they are not denied them?

It's not so much about denying criminals of that's not what any of this is about. It's treating everyone like very criminal because they buy a gun that's a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I would be no different than treating Jews like criminals.

 

[iguanaman]

You're making the program argument it doesn't all the laws in the world haven't yet that's what makes you think more will change that you know the difference between genius and insanity?

It's not so much about denying criminals of that's not what any of this is about. It's treating everyone like very criminal because they buy a gun that's a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I would be no different than treating Jews like criminals.

How are universal background checks or cracking down on strawbuyers

treating everyone like very criminal?

The nonsense about being guaranteed a gun is going to be your downfall. Most Americans want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals first.

 

[CLAX1911]

How are universal background checks or cracking down on strawbuyers

There's no such thing as universal background checks. In the background they're looking at is the information they put in the NICS database they aren't doing a check on your background they're doing a check on how incompetent the government is at something as simple as storing criminal information.

The nonsense about being guaranteed a gun is going to be your downfall.

How could something don't believe in don't say be my downfall? Nobody's guaranteed a gun if they buy your own. They're guaranteed that the government won't interfere.

This has been the law since 1791 and it hasn't caused the downfall yet

Most Americans want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals first.

So why would they support taking them away only from people who aren't criminals?

This idea that you can punish the criminals by punishing the non-criminals is your downfall.

 

[JMB1911A1]

How gun control advocates would enforce drunk driving laws.