Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[esmith]

We have the most proliferation of guns of any industrialized nation, roughly one gun for every man, women, and child, and yet we have a homicide rate much higher than any of them. If all these guns in the hands of civilians supposedly protects us, it obviously ain't working out to well.

Maybe so, but I'm still short a couple that would be nice to have, so how about letting me acquire them before you decided we have enough.
In other words......what's your point.

 

[Jake1001]

We have the most proliferation of guns of any industrialized nation, roughly one gun for every man, women, and child, and yet we have a homicide rate much higher than any of them. If all these guns in the hands of civilians supposedly protects us, it obviously ain't working out to well.

This is one of the most complex policy issues that our society needs to deal with. Just look at Bernie Sanders position on this issue ! I think it will take many years for us to evolve to a more logical position. In the meantime, increasing the required qualifications for gun ownership makes sense. Requiring gun training and education should reduce accidents. We need to develop a long term strategy to deal with this issue. It won't be easy.

 

[metis]

This is one of the most complex policy issues that our society needs to deal with. Just look at Bernie Sanders position on this issue ! I think it will take many years for us to evolve to a more logical position. In the meantime, increasing the required qualifications for gun ownership makes sense. Requiring gun training and education should reduce accidents. We need to develop a long term strategy to deal with this issue. It won't be easy.

Well said, imo, and I fully agree with you. The most basic lesson one should learn from the stats alone is that the proliferation of guns in our society has not made us any safer. Just in my own area whereas I have lived for most of 70 years, there are streets I used to ride my track bike on when in high school that I wouldn't dare even consider trying today. What changed? It wasn't the demographics-- it's the fact that with guns so available I would be terribly at risk. Revoltingest would basically know the area : Grand Blvd. between Gratiot and Belle Isle.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well said, imo, and I fully agree with you. The most basic lesson one should learn from the stats alone is that the proliferation of guns in our society has not made us any safer. Just in my own area whereas I have lived for most of 70 years, there are streets I used to ride my track bike on when in high school that I wouldn't dare even consider trying today. What changed? It wasn't the demographics-- it's the fact that with guns so available I would be terribly at risk. Revoltingest would basically know the area : Grand Blvd. between Gratiot and Belle Isle.

I wouldn't attribute Detroit's descent into murder capital of the country to gun proliferation.
Moreover, the police chief even praises gun ownership.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/detroit-police-chief-armed-citizens-deter-terroris/

 

[metis]

I wouldn't attribute Detroit's descent into murder capital of the country to gun proliferation.
Moreover, the police chief even praises gun ownership.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/detroit-police-chief-armed-citizens-deter-terroris/

The chief of police said that people in certain areas of Detroit, plus the recognition that the DPD is understaffed, whereas responding in some areas can be very slow, is his concession that some families may be better off with a gun in the house. In the past, Detroit has had gun buy-back programs.

There are always going to be various factors involved with crime, but what guns do is to make killing much easier. If I'm riding my track bike down Grand Blvd, but guns are not readily available, I'm far less likely to have someone try and run me down and stab me with a knife or successfully throw a brick at me. But with guns readily available, that situation is then very different.

One of my neighbors in the suburb I grew up in became chief of police there, and through his career he was stabbed 17 times and survived them all. Would he likely have survived 17 shots that hit their mark? Not too likely.

 

[Revoltingest]

The chief of police said that people in certain areas of Detroit, plus the recognition that the DPD is understaffed, whereas responding in some areas can be very slow, is his concession that some families may be better off with a gun in the house. In the past, Detroit has had gun buy-back programs.

There are always going to be various factors involved with crime, but what guns do is to make killing much easier. If I'm riding my track bike down Grand Blvd, but guns are not readily available, I'm far less likely to have someone try and run me down and stab me with a knife or successfully throw a brick at me. But with guns readily available, that situation is then very different.

One of my neighbors in the suburb I grew up in became chief of police there, and through his career he was stabbed 17 times and survived them all. Would he likely have survived 17 shots that hit their mark? Not too likely.

We all know that guns are deadlier than knives.
Nonetheless, Detroit's problem weren't caused by guns.

 

[metis]

We all know that guns are deadlier than knives.
Nonetheless, Detroit's problem weren't caused by guns.

I didn't say it was, but guns made killing so much easier. Now we have myriads of people who live in the burbs who refuse to even go into Detroit, and I betcha you're across you share of them, right? It used not to be that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say it was, but guns made killing so much easier. Now we have myriads of people who live in the burbs who refuse to even go into Detroit, and I betcha you're across you share of them, right? It used not to be that way.

Then I misinterpreted this....
"What changed? It wasn't the demographics-- it's the fact that with guns so available I would be terribly at risk."
I say it was the demographics.

 

[metis]

Then I misinterpreted this....
"What changed? It wasn't the demographics-- it's the fact that with guns so available I would be terribly at risk."
I say it was the demographics.

Actually, it wasn't because Grand Blvd even back in the 60's was mostly poor and black. I know that well as I used to ride my track-bike there on a regular basis during the summers.

There's plenty of other examples I could give as I used to go into Detroit on a regular basis even as a teen, and I still do. The DPD has estimated that there is three guns for every household in Detroit, and do you seriously think that this has made Detroit safer?

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, it wasn't because Grand Blvd even back in the 60's was mostly poor and black. I know that well as I used to ride my track-bike there on a regular basis during the summers.

There's plenty of other examples I could give as I used to go into Detroit on a regular basis even as a teen, and I still do. The DPD has estimated that there is three guns for every household in Detroit, and do you seriously think that this has made Detroit safer?

In the case of Detroit, where the cops are thin & of questionable utility, guns are a help to the innocent.
I recall a Detroit which had strong employment & safe neighborhoods back in the early 60s.
Then came the auto industry decline, destruction of Poletown, white flight, & the likes of Kwame in charge.

 

[metis]

In the case of Detroit, where the cops are thin & of questionable utility, guns are a help to the innocent.
I recall a Detroit which had strong employment & safe neighborhoods back in the early 60s.
Then came the auto industry decline, destruction of Poletown, white flight, & the likes of Kwame in charge.

I don't disagree with any of that. With your first sentence I already mentioned that and agree. With the others, that is obviously true as well, but that doesn't at all counter what I said. If having an average of three guns per household supposedly makes us safer, then why hasn't it done just that? Rhetorical question-- it hasn't. Maybe you didn't grow up in this area, but I have and experienced the changes and still continue to do so.

And no, I'm not trying to take away your guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree with any of that. With your first sentence I already mentioned that and agree. With the others, that is obviously true as well, but that doesn't at all counter what I said. If having an average of three guns supposedly makes us safer, then why hasn't it done just that? Rhetorical question-- it hasn't. Maybe you didn't grow up in this area, but I have and experienced the changes and still continue to do so.

I view it very differently.
It isn't the number of guns which is significant.
It's more about who has them, & the nature of society.

 

[metis]

I view it very differently.
It isn't the number of guns which is significant.
It's more about who has them, & the nature of society.

I would suggest, and the comparative stats confirm this, that it's really all of the above. Having a great proliferation of guns in a society just makes it easier to get one both legally and illegally, which should come as no surprise. One can ignore or deny the many non-partisan studies done on this, but I don't. Nuff said.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nuff said.

Weird.....that's exactly how my father (may he rest in agony) would end some malignant diatribe.

Note:
This is not to say your post was a malignant diatribe.
You're merely wrong.
I can respect that.