Do you support the second amendment?

[pnewton]

That is why I want research. This thread is way too long, but I started by saying, like so many, I support the Second Amendment, but not in the way the NRA does. Surely there would be middle ground here somewhere between disarmament and hands off.

 

[JonNC]

That is why I want research. This thread is way too long, but I started by saying, like so many, I support the Second Amendment, but not in the way the NRA does. Surely there would be middle ground here somewhere between disarmament and hands off.

Well, we are already at that middle ground, and The NRA certainly hasn’t called for “hands off”.
For example, the NRA has not supported the use of bump stocks. The BRA doesn’t oppose NICS.
It opposes registration because it is a precursor to confiscation.

 

[upant]

they would now be confiscating arms in crazyfornia if the judge didn’t stay the law.

 

[upant]

the number of households with guns

how do you get an honest count.

 

[Vonsalza]

It is amazing how the left uses similar faulty arguments regardless of topic.

Funny, given that your primary evidence for this particular example is a time-series that 1) provides no explanation for the date range selected (particularly the beginning value) and 2) starts from “zero” using marginal percentage rather than actual values and 3) no treatment at all is given toward the data just correlating (poorly, in your case) or being causal.

More often than not, dubious presentations like that are “cooked” to serve a half-baked agenda. Yours is almost certainly no exception.

Even after the tick up between 2004 to 2006, gun the crime line continues its trend downward. More guns in the hands of civilians does not translate to more gun vcrime.

Relating to the aforementioned concept, your chart conveniently leaves out the recent jump in homicides (8% per the FBI, if I recall correctly) and the explosion of firearms sales due to fear of a ban during 2016. Inclusion of that data would help you see your chart for the junk that it is.

There were roughly 11,000 gun homicides in the US in 2016. In a country of 320,000,000 people.
You’re noticing the increase recently: about 20% of that increase is in Chicago alone!!!

Sure. As we’ve covered earlier, any ban in Chicago is readily by-passed by a 20 minute drive to gun-lax Indiana.

11,000 divided by 320,000,000 is 0.000034375. That’s your chances of being shot and killed in the US.

Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.

Okay. I’m cool with that. Place your $100 tax on the purchase of automatic weapons.

Progress!

However, it’s already a reality, so you don’t have to be “cool” with it. And it’s a lot more than $100.

Lets just expand something like it to auto-loaders and I’m happy!

 

[Vonsalza]

Regarding your target the poor tax plan, you made no mention of the type of weapon.

Yeah I did. Roughly post 980: “Most gun crime is committed by poor people. A $100 per year permit for, say, anything self-loading would save lives.”

You’re just not paying attention and then accusing folks of not providing info that you were just too lazy to read. Tsk tsk.

You made a specific comment that If she can’t afford to shoot it, then she shouldn’t own it. She’s EVERY BIT as great a danger to herself and innocents near her as she is to the “bad guy” she’d try to shoot. You didn’t say they. You said she.

Because the example you provided included as “she” and I was responding specifically to your example.

So I’m sexist because I maintained the gender of the person in YOUR “for-instance”?

Are you serious???

Your target seems to be all law abiding poor people.

Just “poor people”. Ya know, the ones that commit that vast vast majority of gun crime in the country.

 

[JonNC]

Lets just expand something like it to auto-loaders and I’m happy!

Because, as you said, you favor keeping guns and gun rights out of the hands of people for gender and economic reasons.

 

[JonNC]

Sure. As we’ve covered earlier, any ban in Chicago is readily by-passed by a 20 minute drive to gun-lax Indiana.

As we’ve covered earlier, if “lax” gun laws in Indiana are the cause of more crime in Chicago, but not the cause of a similar crime rate it Indiana, then it probably isn’t the cause in Chicago.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Do you realize just how common 9mm, .38, .40, and .45 pistols are? That is hardly going to narrow down your pool of suspects. In your hypothetical scenario, the police would already be talking to those people anyway. No need to consult a gun registry which still would not prove that the gun in question fired the shot(s).

 

[JonNC]

Just “poor people”. Ya know, the ones that commit that vast vast majority of gun crime in the country.

Most gun crime in Chicago is committed by blacks. Should we target blacks for special taxes?
And what about males? Males commit the vast amount of gun crime.

Gun policies that target a particular group, other than criminals, is, frankly, bigoted

 

[JonNC]

So I’m sexist because I maintained the gender of the person in YOUR “for-instance”?

No. Because you assumed in your comment "She’s EVERY BIT as great a danger to herself and innocents near her as she is to the “bad guy” she’d try to shoot. "

 

[upant]

this page appears to be old but it shows to me why the nra won’t give an inch. the gun control group wants an ultimate ban and will take one piece at a time. it isn’t a new battle. their goal is the same even if the players names have changed. ymmv

http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.
Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).

 

[starshiptrooper]

Why are semi-auto firearms so scary that I need to pay an extra $100 to own one?

 

[Theo520]

The only thing stopping real gun reform in the United States is a paranoid fear that has long been quietly peddled by the gun lobby. Any system of regulation, they maintain, would create lists of gun owners that some future, tyrannical regime would use to seize Americans’ guns and impose a totalitarian state.

That might sound like hyperbole (and it is), but propaganda about a federal government registry or list of gun owners is the chief obstacle to meaningful gun reform in the United States.

Hate to burst your bubble but the gun mfg industry has had little to do with peddling / creating resistance to eliminating the 2nd. Right or wrong, it’s a home grown or innate fear, not manufactured. The NRA is an organization of individuals, funded by individuals.

This is in complete contrast to say the pharmaceutical lobby, which is funded by the producers, not the users.

On second thought, maybe I enjoyed bursting that bubble

 

[starshiptrooper]

I really do wonder if certain gun manufacturers donate to Democrats. Think about it, their sales would go up and their stock prices would increase if they win.

 

[Theo520]

Though Obama was the best gun salesman ever, they wouldn’t do it for fear of disclosure laws ‘outing’ what they have done.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic:
.

I don’t think anybody here is talking about “opposing the government” pnewton.

.
pnewton’s reply?

.

pnewton:

I found these.
phil19034:
The colonial govts agreed to rebel, just like the Confederate States voted to rebel.

jcrichton:
Jon, it is naïve to think that as selfish as Americans (and other people are) having access to weapons will guarantee their safety if their government would turn on them.

JonNC:
So, your philosophy is that, since you don’t think people can defend their liberty from government tyranny, we should take the tools away from them and give those tools to the government?

phil19034:

So the US founding is actually very unique, and the use of guns are critical part of our founding.

This is just plain over-dramatizing pnewton. (It illustrates that you do not have any real arguments).

.
Do you REALLY think these posters like JonNC, jcrichton, and phil19034 are trying to overthrow our Government??

.

phil19034:
The colonial govts agreed to rebel, just like the Confederate States voted to rebel.

.
phil19034 is talking about history. Not marching on Washington D.C. today.

.

jcrichton:
Jon, it is naïve to think that as selfish as Americans (and other people are) having access to weapons will guarantee their safety if their government would turn on them.

Jcrichton has been advocating gungrabbing positions here (like you).

I have no idea how you think jcrichton’s post is “opposing Washington” in the context of today’s Government.

That you would cite this to make such a claim is bizarre.

.

JonNC:
So, your philosophy is that, since you don’t think people can defend their liberty from government tyranny, we should take the tools away from them and give those tools to the government?

.

I have no idea how you are drawing such conclusions from JonNC’s post either.

.

phil19034

So the US founding is actually very unique, and the use of guns are critical part of our founding.

.

phil19034 makes a historical observation and YOU have phil19034 marching on Washington in your mind?
.

Really pnewton. You are drawing conclusions that just don’t exist.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton. You cited a study saying . . .

Gun waiting periods could save hundreds of lives a year, study says.

.

So what?

How many lives could this COST?

If a woman is threatened by her ex-boyfriend and now he’s threatening to murder her, should she have to “wait” the extra time to get her gun so she can begin to get the process started to be trained to defend herself immediately?

How about the surrender of our Constitutional protections (even incrementally)?

Is THAT not a risk too?

Why don’t you show some studies on THAT sort of thing?

I have to tell you pnewton. Your line of gun-grabbing argumentation just is not persuasive.

 

[Cathoholic]

jcrichton (in post 1037) . . .

.

…'cause feds will come get them in the middle of the night, haven’t you seen what happens in Latin America? ‘the feds, are coming, the feds, are coming!’

.

Laugh it up jcrichton. (Sometimes when things get out of control, Governments don’t wait until the “middle of the night”).

.

Katrina ILLEGAL Gun Grab

.

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

 

[po18guy]

I still support ALL of the amendments. I do not support any violation of the 10 Commandments.

Our shallow, emotion and hysteria-driven culture blames the inanimate object, which is incapable of doing anything, either good or bad, by itself. Should we not focus on the brokenness of the human heart, which conceives of such violence? Should we not ask why our culture is saturated with murderers?

Very few desire to address that - it is easier to blame inanimate objects. Freedom and responsibility then pay the price.