Yet another school shooting.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

When it comes to why gun crime happens, there are many contributing factors.

Let's change that to gun deaths as that's what we've been talking about. Yes, I agree.

When it comes to the frequency of gun crime, there are other contributing factors, but availability of guns is the primary factor. The word "gun" is in the phrase "gun crime", after all.

Yes, I agree

When it comes to the potency of gun crime (i.e. casualties), guns are the problem.

Yes, I agree

I'll add ...

When it comes to who is doing the pulling of the trigger, it is primarily criminals and mentally unstable. So why start with law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens first?

The statistics around successful self-defense with a gun are so low as to be immaterial to the debate (see page 12).

So .9% is not relevant to debate? I actually think it is. So < 1% of abortions take place after 24st week. No need to talk about that?

[thesloppy]

I think the common suggestion that gun-control proponents have to improvise acceptable gun control legislation on the spot is fucking stupid. The only thing you or I can do is vote, and as long as one party is lock-step in favor of absolutely no gun-control, then the entirely obvious solution is to not vote for that party. Everything/anything else is just noise.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

That's what I was thinking about why start with law abiding citizens first.

Because that is where the vast majority of the guns used to commit crimes come from. It is more likely your legal gun is going to a) accidentally kill a member of your family, b) be stolen and used in a crime or c) be used by you in a crime, then it is ever going to be used in self defense.
I know of many people that have had guns stolen, and I know of several that have been accidentally killed by legal guns. I don't know anyone that has successfully used a gun in self defense.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Because that is where the vast majority of the guns used to commit crimes come from. It is more likely your legal gun is going to a) accidentally kill a member of your family, b) be stolen and used in a crime or c) be used by you in a crime, then it is ever going to be used in self defense.
I know of many people that have had guns stolen, and I know of several that have been accidentally killed by legal guns. I don't know anyone that has successfully used a gun in self defense.

I have been trying to find metrics on similar questions on gun deaths (not just crimes) and was not successful. Admittedly a central tenant to my beliefs is that law abiding citizens (and not mentally unstable) and their guns do not cause a lot of gun deaths compared to criminals and suicides (mentally unstable). Can you provide a link to a, b & c?

[RainMaker]

A gun doesn't fire itself. It requires a person to do so. People live throughout the Western world and yet we are the only country with this problem.

[RainMaker]

Both the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters were law-abiding citizens with no criminal records up until they slaughtered people. Same with many mass shooters.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A gun doesn't fire itself. It requires a person to do so. People live throughout the Western world and yet we are the only country with this problem.

Waiting on link above that may result in not needing this question answered. But in the meantime …

So why not start with the criminal elements and mentally unstable first?

Come back in 3-5 years and let’s see where we’re at and we’ll talk about the law abiding folks.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Both the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters were law-abiding citizens with no criminal records up until they slaughtered people. Same with many mass shooters.

I’ve been pretty consistent about start with criminal elements and mentally unstable. I’m pretty sure those were mentally unstable but feel free to propose otherwise.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

That's what I was thinking about why start with law abiding citizens first.

Still not an answer, and I most certainly did answer your question. I would be fine with a total gun ban like Australia, the UK, etc...you know all these other countries that once they removed guns stopped having mass shootings, you know, that you can't or won't explain the reason for that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

When it comes to who is doing the pulling of the trigger, it is primarily criminals and mentally unstable. So why start with law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens first?

Because, again, it's about the widespread availability of guns.

So .9% is not relevant to debate? I actually think it is. So < 1% of abortions take place after 24st week. No need to talk about that?

Sure, works for me.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd guess the majority of the pro-choice crowd would be OK with a ban (or not seek to overturn such a ban) on 2nd/3rd trimester abortions were it not for the fact that the pro-life crowd would (and does) simply use such a ban as a foundation upon which to build support for a full ban (and abstinence-only sex education, and raising the age of consent, and a ban on some contraception methods, etc...). Conversely, I'd guess a large chunk of the pro-life crowd would be OK with a certain flexibility during the 1st trimester, especially in cases of rape, incest or severe medical danger to the mother, fetus or both, but will never agree to this since it's tacitly conceding defeat to a portion of the pro-choice crowd's argument.

I'm 100% OK with a ban on 3rd trimester abortions with exceptions only where the life of the mother is threatened. Not even rape or incest because IMO you've still got the first two trimesters to deal with that.

[flere-imsaho]

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Still not an answer, and I most certainly did answer your question. I would be fine with a total gun ban like Australia, the UK, etc...you know all these other countries that once they removed guns stopped having mass shootings, you know, that you can't or won't explain the reason for that.

Your answer to me was conditioned on ‘There will never be anymore gun control’ and therefore a choice between status quo or full ban. Again, I did not see this as a real assumption or answer.

If you want me to answer your questions directly, it’s only fair to answer mine directly. If you answer with weird caveats, don’t complain if I don’t answer clearly myself.

[flere-imsaho]

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
firearm during their offense. Among these, more than
half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street
or from the underground market (43%). Most of
the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer.

Source.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

Have to pee first. If you counted Lathums answer go ahead and subtract -1

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So my counter trick question is how does a gun fire by itself?

Give me a break with that nonsense. A car doesn't drive itself yet we have a myriad of laws when it comes to driving them and in some cases total restrictions.

The reality is you can't explain why every other nation doesn't have the same problem because you know the answer and it would blow a hole in your argument. Pun intended.

So instead you'll deflect, make bad faith arguments, half asses solutions that won't solve shit, and ask silly questions, because at the end of the day a classroom full of kids, a nightclub full of gays, or a church full of parishioners is a price you're willing to pay for your toy.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Have to pee first. If you counted Lathums answer go ahead and subtract -1

caveats aside ban them all. There is your answer. They cause FAR more harm than good and there is no way our forefathers could have anticipated this nor can I imagine they would have approved of how it is being used to excuse mass shootings so people can keep their arsenal.

[Edward64]

Because I'm doing Q&A with 4 folks here, let me summarize my core assumptions, beliefs and questions first just to level set and make sure we are clear on what I believe in.

1) I assume that law abiding citizens and their guns do not contribute significantly to gun deaths vs criminal elements and mentally unstable. This is gun deaths, not gun crime as was posted somewhere else. It could be basically the same thing but haven't had time to digest that yet.

2) I am okay with increased gun control (e.g. see prior post which I described going from 4 to a 7). I am not okay with a total or near total ban as has been proposed by Brian, Lathum (I think but that was based on a weird assumption he made) and Flere (bolt action guns only).

Therefore 3 questions I've asked throughout. And would appreciate clear answers to. Caveat if you wish but if you don't answer my questions clearly, don't expect me to answer yours clearly.

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

For no. 4, I believe Grantdawg has some metrics and I've asked for a link. Flere has provided a source but on a cursory note, I don't think it makes a distinction between law abiding vs criminal elements vs mentally unstable. But I'll look more.

..... okay, now to read and address Flere's question

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

caveats aside ban them all. There is your answer. They cause FAR more harm than good and there is no way our forefathers could have anticipated this nor can I imagine they would have approved of how it is being used to excuse mass shootings so people can keep their arsenal.

Thanks. Simple enough question and simple enough answer. I'll answer your question shortly now that you've answered mine.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Edward64

When it comes to who is doing the pulling of the trigger, it is primarily criminals and mentally unstable. So why start with law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens first?

This goes back to what was discussed a few pages ago - there are the "typical" gun deaths, and then there are mass shootings.

I've noticed a thing going around the GOP talking points when a mass shooting occurs that essentially equates the fact of committing such a crime to being mentally unstable. "Someone who would murder 19 children must be mentally ill."

Except, that's not usually the case.

Here's a study that found that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness.

Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core

How many times have we seen histories on these people where they had a few relatively minor run-ins with the law, or were underage when some underlying activity occurred, but were otherwise, up until the moment they decided to try to slaughter people in a school/church/grocery store/public building, "a good guy with a gun"?

The angry loner or hot-headed guy who always got pissed at work but has a clean record is still a "good guy," right? Until he's not. Then he goes directly from good guy to the deranged/sick/mentally ill pile, and we need to do something about these deranged people who shoot their families, or target workplaces, or indiscriminately shoot up a public place. Forget that he was the "good guy" yesterday.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This goes back to what was discussed a few pages ago - there are the "typical" gun deaths, and then there are mass shootings.

I've noticed a thing going around the GOP talking points when a mass shooting occurs that essentially equates the fact of committing such a crime to being mentally unstable. "Someone who would murder 19 children must be mentally ill."

Except, that's not usually the case.

Here's a study that found that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness.

Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core

How many times have we seen histories on these people where they had a few relatively minor run-ins with the law, or were underage when some underlying activity occurred, but were otherwise, up until the moment they decided to try to slaughter people in a school/church/grocery store/public building, "a good guy with a gun"?

The angry loner or hot-headed guy who always got pissed at work but has a clean record is still a "good guy," right? Until he's not. Then he goes directly from good guy to the deranged/sick/mentally ill pile, and we need to do something about these deranged people who shoot their families, or target workplaces, or indiscriminately shoot up a public place. Forget that he was the "good guy" yesterday.

Not to be a smartass but I've been accused of not being responsive. Hard to do when responding to 4 other people and watching Obi-Wan. It'll take me some time to get back to you. Appreciate your understanding

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I’ve been pretty consistent about start with criminal elements and mentally unstable. I’m pretty sure those were mentally unstable but feel free to propose otherwise.

There are mentally unstable people in all the other countries where this doesn't happen on a regular basis.

There is also no evidence the Buffalo shooter was mentally ill. His manifesto is incredibly coherent for a person his age. It reads eerily similar to a major political party platform in this country. He simply chose to act out his beliefs.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

Because it is the availability of the guns. It's like having a no pissing section in the pool. Great, someone is identified as a criminal or unstable, can't have a gun, but grandpa can, dad can, brother can, etc...as for stats, I am sure they are out there, and likely ones that reinforce the arguments for both sides. What we do have is undeniable proof that this works in every other country, so yes, ban all the guns.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

Just doublechecked and Lathum's version is the same as yours.

So how do you explain literally every other developed nation with gun restrictions having virtually no mass shootings?

To answer your question ...

I am not saying banning all guns will not solve the problem of no more gun killings. Logically it will. Other developed nations have significant gun restrictions and bans and therefore gun deaths have declined significantly.

Just like for me, logically removing criminal elements and mentally unstable will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths. (This is apparently a point of debate from Grantdawg and Flere, I've not had a chance to look through their sources yet. But until then, this is my default assumption)

Do we want law abiding citizens to give up their privilege & constitutional right to own any guns because criminal elements and mentally unstable are the cause of the majority of gun deaths? The other developed nations used as examples never had a constitutional right to own guns.

Where we differ is

1) I'm not willing to give up my privilege & constitutional right to own guns with significant controls (e.g. my previous example of 7 of 10) as a law abiding citizen with no significant mental health challenges.

It seems many of you are willing to abandon this privilege at this point in time. We'll agree to disagree.

2) For me to even consider this, I want the authorities to ban & remove all/most guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first. Then let's see where we are in 3-5 years. The gun death rates may be so significantly lowered that it's not as pressing of an issue anymore.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Because it is the availability of the guns. It's like having a no pissing section in the pool. Great, someone is identified as a criminal or unstable, can't have a gun, but grandpa can, dad can, brother can, etc...as for stats, I am sure they are out there, and likely ones that reinforce the arguments for both sides. What we do have is undeniable proof that this works in every other country, so yes, ban all the guns.

Some are willing to give up their constitutional right to own guns so easily. Not me.

No problem with more controls. But total ban for law abiding citizens is ... weird to me.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Some are willing to give up their constitutional right to own guns so easily. Not me.

No problem with more controls. But total ban for law abiding citizens is ... weird to me.

It shouldn't be weird. Mostly countries do it and are considerably safer than the United States.

You don't have to argue it anymore. Many people, like yourself, find a few classrooms full of dead kids an acceptable price to pay to have their toys. It's a popular stance, just be man enough to own it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It shouldn't be weird. Mostly countries do it and are considerably safer than the United States.

You don't have to argue it anymore. Many people, like yourself, find a few classrooms full of dead kids an acceptable price to pay to have their toys. It's a popular stance, just be man enough to own it.

You are putting me on the defensive. Please stop.

And don't forget to ignore me and not reply to any of my posts. The Nordics are only an immigration application away

Oh, I heard a rumor that Kaepernick was already there.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Two people have now answered your question on bans, Edward, yet you refuse to answer the question as to why every other developed nation has virtually zero mass shootings. Why will you not answer?

Just because we are keeping count. My 3 questions are:

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

Lathum answered
Flere answered but I need to respond (responded)

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

Grantdawg answered but waiting on source
Flere provide source but had to read more. On initial review, it does not seem to delineate between law abiding, non-law abiding and mental health ... but will do more due diligence later (responded)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

Lathum answered (finally)
Kodos answered but used same invalid (IMO) assumption as Lathum first did
Flere answered

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sure, works for me.

I'm 100% OK with a ban on 3rd trimester abortions with exceptions only where the life of the mother is threatened. Not even rape or incest because IMO you've still got the first two trimesters to deal with that.

You got me here on your stance. But will suggest there is a significant group that won't ignore that 1%. And I agree with them.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Because, again, it's about the widespread availability of guns.

My stance is "widespread availability of guns in the hands of criminal elements and mentally unstable" is the cause of majority of gun deaths. Not in the hands of law abiding, not mentally unstable citizens.

This seems to be a point of contention.

My question to you is - if it can be shown that majority of guns deaths are caused by criminal elements and mentally unstable, and NOT by law abiding citizens or their guns (e.g. stolen), will that change your mind?

If the answer is yes, I'll dig around more and try to back up my assumption.

If the answer is no, then we're pretty far apart and don't see how we can reconcile so won't bother.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Source.

I read through the study. I believe this study was your response to my question below ...

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

The study did not have a "was there a prior record?" which would have indicated non-law abiding. It also talks about gun crimes and gun deaths/homicides were not broken out (see below for an example). The only section that provided some data on that was

. Among those who had possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source

This indicates 7-8% were "law abiding" enough to pass the background check. But this 7-8% does not break down into how many of those were involved in gun deaths/homicides.

I understand the level of detail I'm asking about (law abiding, non-law abiding, mentally unstable) may not exist. FWIW, it is the crux of my belief - if law abiding citizens and their guns do not contribute to the majority of gun deaths (vs criminal elements and mentally unstable), why start with them first?

[thesloppy]

So let's hear your immediate solution for reducing the availability of guns to the criminal element and the mentally unstable then.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

So let's hear your immediate solution for reducing the availability of guns to the criminal element and the mentally unstable then.

You are #6 right now. I rather wait to make sure I've answered the questions that #1-#4 wanted first. Then I have to answer #5 Kodos' question and then will get to you #6.

But in the meantime, can you answer my 3 questions?

Therefore 3 questions I've asked throughout. And would appreciate clear answers to. Caveat if you wish but if you don't answer my questions clearly, don't expect me to answer yours clearly.

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

[NobodyHere]

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

You are #7. Wait in line.

I'm sensitive to Flere's comment (IMO unfair) about not being responsive enough to his and Lathum's question. So I am limiting my responses until #1-#4 come to some sort of natural conclusion.

In the meantime, just like I asked thesloppy

Therefore 3 questions I've asked throughout. And would appreciate clear answers to. Caveat if you wish but if you don't answer my questions clearly, don't expect me to answer yours clearly.

3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly

4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)

5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are #7. Wait in line.

My question was directed at the board in general.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

My question was directed at the board in general.

Oh sorry. Been typing alot.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You are putting me on the defensive. Please stop.

And don't forget to ignore me and not reply to any of my posts. The Nordics are only an immigration application away

Oh, I heard a rumor that Kaepernick was already there.

Not sure what the Nords or Kaepernick have to do with this conversation unless it's one of our routine racial jabs.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Oh sorry. Been typing alot.

Dare I say take a breather?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Dare I say take a breather?

I will. Have to watch Obi-Wan ep 4 and rest of Stranger Things.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not sure what the Nords or Kaepernick have to do with this conversation unless it's one of our routine racial jabs.

One pouty statement meaning to put one of the defensive and followed by a pithy response shouldn't surprise you.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My question to you is - if it can be shown that majority of guns deaths are caused by criminal elements and mentally unstable, and NOT by law abiding citizens or their guns (e.g. stolen), will that change your mind?

No, because, again, the issue isn't who commits crimes with guns, it's about the widespread availability of guns with which to commit deadly & potently deadly crimes.

If the answer is no, then we're pretty far apart and don't see how we can reconcile so won't bother.

Agreed. If you can't even logically understand the above contention then we're operating on different planes of rhetorical existence right now.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The study did not have a "was there a prior record?" which would have indicated non-law abiding. It also talks about gun crimes and gun deaths/homicides were not broken out (see below for an example).

This indicates 7-8% were "law abiding" enough to pass the background check. But this 7-8% does not break down into how many of those were involved in gun deaths/homicides.

You missed the point. The point was that over 50% of the crimes were committed with guns that were either stolen directly by the criminal, or obtained in a likely illegal manner (e.g. black market) by the criminal.

I mean, think of gang shootings. Do know think those young men buy their guns legitimately? No, they steal them or they get them from someone who steals them.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Dare I say take a breather?

you DO know who you are talking to right?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To answer your question ...

I am not saying banning all guns will not solve the problem of no more gun killings. Logically it will. Other developed nations have significant gun restrictions and bans and therefore gun deaths have declined significantly.

Just like for me, logically removing criminal elements and mentally unstable will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths. (This is apparently a point of debate from Grantdawg and Flere, I've not had a chance to look through their sources yet. But until then, this is my default assumption)

Do we want law abiding citizens to give up their privilege & constitutional right to own any guns because criminal elements and mentally unstable are the cause of the majority of gun deaths? The other developed nations used as examples never had a constitutional right to own guns.

Where we differ is

1) I'm not willing to give up my privilege & constitutional right to own guns with significant controls (e.g. my previous example of 7 of 10) as a law abiding citizen with no significant mental health challenges.

It seems many of you are willing to abandon this privilege at this point in time. We'll agree to disagree.

2) For me to even consider this, I want the authorities to ban & remove all/most guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first. Then let's see where we are in 3-5 years. The gun death rates may be so significantly lowered that it's not as pressing of an issue anymore.

This doesn't answer the question at all except to admit that indeed removing guns would reduce the number of gun deaths significantly. Apparently though your constitutional rights are more important to you than the safety of school children.

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

[PilotMan]

I really wish digamma was here for this discussion.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Just out of curiosity, what laws are you going to pass that criminals will follow?

Not sure if your angle is that if we ban guns only the criminals will be armed. That is a common right wing scare tactic.

If you look at gun homicide rates per 100K the US is at 4.46 per year. The UK is .06 and Australia is .18. It just follows all the other data that shows removing guns is an overwhelmingly positive move for a developed nation.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The constitutional argument is, and always has been, bullshit. When it was written women couldn't vote, blacks weren't even considered a person, etc...but this one amendment is so sacred god forbid we change it, despite tens of thousands of preventable deaths.

EXACTLY. If you’re good with a musket have at it. If we’re going with what the founders had in mind because that would be the literal interpretation at the time.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not sure if your angle is that if we ban guns only the criminals will be armed. That is a common right wing scare tactic.

If you look at gun homicide rates per 100K the US is at 4.46 per year. The UK is .06 and Australia is .18. It just follows all the other data that shows removing guns is an overwhelmingly positive move for a developed nation.

That doesn't answer the question.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That doesn't answer the question.

I guess I don't really understand your question then. You are never going to eliminate crime, but if you remove the violent tools used to commit those crimes as other countries have you see a drastic difference in homicide rates with guns.

[NobodyHere]

How feasible do you think it is to remove all guns (or even a vast majority of them). People that already possess an illegal weapon aren't going to give them up. And currently law-abiding citizens generally aren't too keen on their property getting taken away because of the actions of criminals.

[NobodyHere]

Also just a side note I do have trouble seeing this as a "number of guns" issue because shouldn't we be a higher gun homicide rate in rural areas than urban areas if this was true?