Republican House Whip Shot!

[suncowiam]

Well, the flaw as I see it is the often ignored section: "Well Regulated". The NRA and it's goons conveniently ignore that bit.

Note that "well regulated" does not mean full ban, but rather, limited rights and/or access to firearms.

I own guns, but I think stricter regulations would be a good idea.

Like I said before, the amendment is archaic and needs to be modernized.

Way too many ways to translate it.

 

[suncowiam]

Well what regulations would you like to see being put into place? What would be the positive outcome of your regulation?

I mentioned before that the gun industry leads in statistics where their products are used for homicide and crimes. I like to see regulation that will reduce this to a reasonable figure. What those regulations should be are beyond my knowledge.

 

[esmith]

Like I said before, the amendment is archaic and needs to be modernized.

Way too many ways to translate it.

Ok, let change the 2nd Amendment to read:
The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except when that right has been removed by adjudication.

 

[esmith]

I mentioned before that the gun industry leads in statistics where their products are used for homicide and crimes. I like to see regulation that will reduce this to a reasonable figure. What those regulations should be are beyond my knowledge.

I think you would be more honest to say "can be" vice "are".
In your regulation that would be government control of a legally established private businesses. Sure you want to go down that road?

 

[metis]

And the FBI stats back-up the fact that the felony crime rate has gone down and the number of firearms in the US has increased. No I am not advocating that the increase of the number of firearms brought the felony crime rate down. What I am saying is that the facts prove that just because the number of firearms in the US has increased does not cause a rise in the felony crime rate.

But one simply does not automatically lead towards another as there are numerous factors that may lead to a higher homicide rate. But we well know through comparative studies that the greater the proliferation of guns, on the average, the higher the overall homicide rate.

Let me use an example. This year, the homicide rate in Baltimore has dramatically increased from even last year, so should we blame Trump and the Republicans for that, especially since a decrease in federal dollars under Republican control of the fed that had been used to help keep police levels higher in previous years? Would you agree that this is their fault?

I don't, but that's because I simply don't know if there's a direct cause and effect here. But if I had posted the above without this disclaimer, you know you'd be all over me.

 

[icehorse]

Really? At least one Republican Congressman was shot and you're going to take the opportunity to take verbal shots at Republicans? Really?

(I saw some reports that a Texas Congressman, Roger Williams, was taken away on a stretcher, but it was reported as not know if he had been shot.)

What evidence do you have that the shooter may be a disgruntled veteran?

IMO, congress is perhaps more consistently and deeply corrupt then it has ever been. While I hold the GOP a bit more accountable than the Dems, congress is too frequently the enemy of the American people.

While I'm not advocating what this shooter did, to me this sort of incident is predictable and I suspect we will see more and more of it. I hope that the direction that congress is heading can be reversed without insurrection, but insurrection wouldn't surprise me. sigh.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Second Amendment gives us the right to own guns. However, the government is trying to limit this right.

It was the government that decided that a well regulated militia included any private citizen that wished to own a firearm for any reason, and it is the government that enforces that right.

 

[esmith]

But one simply does not automatically lead towards another as there are numerous factors that may lead to a higher homicide rate. But we well know through comparative studies that the greater the proliferation of guns, on the average, the higher the overall homicide rate.

Let me use an example. This year, the homicide rate in Baltimore has dramatically increased from even last year, so should we blame Trump and the Republicans for that, especially since a decrease in federal dollars under Republican control of the fed that had been used to help keep police levels higher in previous years? Would you agree that this is their fault?

I don't, but that's because I simply don't know if there's a direct cause and effect here. But if I had posted the above without this disclaimer, you know you'd be all over me.

But your statement (highlighted) is proven wrong. However, I don't know what you mean by "on the average". Do you still disregard the data from the CDC as the chart shows?

 

[tytlyf]

But your statement (highlighted) is proven wrong. However, I don't know what you mean by "on the average". Do you still disregard the data from the CDC as the chart shows?

Sources esmith. How many times do I have to repeat this? Your chart was 'inspired' from the below link. Do you see what GOP media did?
We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

 

[metis]

But your statement (highlighted) is proven wrong. However, I don't know what you mean by "on the average". Do you still disregard the data from the CDC as the chart shows?

The post below yours shows more of the real story, plus the mistake you continue to make is stating that any particular reduction supposedly must be due to there being more guns around, but that's not necessarily the case. Matter of fact, long-term international studies indicate the opposite of what you're claiming as well as even common sense when it comes to gun-related deaths.

We have several times more gun-related deaths versus most other industrialized countries, including Canada, and yet you completely ignore that basic fact. You also ignore why police forces all over the country have buy-back programs and most discourage people from having loaded guns in the home, and then you completely ignore what the FBI has said on numerous occasions.

Like with your other views on politics, you only see what you want to see.

 

[Falvlun]

The post below yours shows more of the real story, plus the mistake you continue to make is stating that any particular reduction supposedly must be due to there being more guns around, but that's not necessarily the case.

I thought @esmith specifically denied this.

He's pointing out that the liberal claim-- that more guns = more gun violence-- is not supported since we now have less gun violence even though we have more guns.

He's not saying that guns caused the reduction in violence: he's just saying that there's evidence against the idea that more guns cause more violence. Do you see the distinction?

But I do think that comparing gun violence in America with other first world countries does present a different picture that should be addressed.

 

[metis]

He's pointing out that the liberal claim-- that more guns = more gun violence-- is not supported since we now have less gun violence even though we have more guns.

Yes, I am aware that is what he's saying, but the balanced studies do not confirm that. Nor do the police or the FBI agree with him in most, but not all, cases.

But I do think that comparing gun violence in America with other first world countries does present a different picture that should be addressed.

Yes it does.

We have to remember that there are almost 300,000,000 guns here in the U.S., which is almost one for every man, woman, and child, so an increase in gun sales, lets say by 5%, is not going to have much of an effect one way or the other, especially since it's so easy for anyone to get a gun here legally or illegally.

One officer that I brought into my political science class once asked how long it would take them to get his/her hands on a gun if they didn't already have one, and one said in probably less than 10 minutes they could get one, and some of my other students nodded yes.

 

[tytlyf]

He's pointing out that the liberal claim-- that more guns = more gun violence-- is not supported since we now have less gun violence even though we have more guns.
.

States with more guns have more gun deaths
States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths
It's not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths
Most gun deaths are suicides
States with more guns have more gun suicides

From this we can see that the higher the quantity of weapons in a specific area, the higher the gun suicide and homicides.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well what regulations would you like to see being put into place? What would be the positive outcome of your regulation?

One of the most obvious? Chips embedded in guns in such a way that disabling the chip, also disables the gun. Something like the things you put into pets.

Think about that: if all guns had tracking chips? There goes the market for stolen guns; police could easily track them from a distance if desired.

Tracking engines would inform security if a gun passes a doorway; (what you subsequently do with such information could vary, depending on the situation-- it might simply be a notification).

Responsibility of gun ownership would suddenly be enforceable; something that the NRA goons assure us is what they wanted all along. Of course-- that is just another of their mountain of lies-- lies that have ONE purpose: increase profit and sales of guns and ammo.

Another possibility: put tracking particles in bullets, even reloads. There are now, tracking particles that can be placed in explosives, and these can uniquely identify the explosive-- where it was made, when and so on.

But I'm just one guy-- thoughtful intelligent regulations could reduce gun crimes by a great deal, if society had the will to do so. Enforcing responsible gun ownership is an obvious move.

But the ammsexual crowd is against anything reasonable; they consider that personal nuclear weapons would be just fine so long as you kept them outside city limits...

 

[leibowde84]

Heh. Just where do you get your reading comprehension?

You said: "Certainly, it's not anything goes, as we have enough protections already."
I said: "So, you don't think people who buy guns should have to pass a background check?"

Currently, due to the private sale loophole, anyone can buy a gun without going through a background check. Since you said that we have all of the protections we need, it follows that you don't think background checks are necessary.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Wow. Neither of the two is "Alt-Right" anything. Wikipedia is neutral and more laden with facts than you'd ever dream to be, and Bob Woodward is a mild conservative these days.

Why don't you try opening your mind a bit, instead of attacking the sources you ask for?

I asked for responsible sources, not some alt-right EDITORIAL. As for Wiki? It is not even slightly neutral, if the subject is at all controversial--- and the Alt-Right Clinton Haters are more than willing to keep putting lies in there day in and day out.

All you could come up with are grossly out of date opinion pieces and PopMedia?

I maintain your claim of Clinton Foundation corruption is BS, as I stated originally.

 

[esmith]

States with more guns have more gun deaths
States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths
It's not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths
Most gun deaths are suicides
States with more guns have more gun suicides

From this we can see that the higher the quantity of weapons in a specific are, the higher the gun suicide and homicides.

As usual you and others are looking at this in the wrong manner. You are blaming the firearm for suicides whereas you should be looking a why their are more suicides. But those like you can't see past your obsession with what you want to blame.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Like I said before, the amendment is archaic and needs to be modernized.

Way too many ways to translate it.

Agreed. But we do not need an army of bottom-feeders creating a giant 1000 page tome of legalese either-- that way leads to madness.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think you would be more honest to say "can be" vice "are".
In your regulation that would be government control of a legally established private businesses. Sure you want to go down that road?

We have MANY examples of government control of "legally" established private businesses.

I reject the claim that "private businesses" should be given free rein to do whatever.

In fact, I'd go much further: private citizens rights should always-- no exceptions-- trump businesses so-called 'rights'.

A business is not a person, and I utterly reject the fiction that "corporations" have rights. I would never have permitted such a boondoggle; it's largely what is wrong with the US today...

 

[esmith]

Currently, due to the private sale loophole, anyone can buy a gun without going through a background check. Since you said that we have all of the protections we need, it follows that you don't think background checks are necessary.

Not necessarily. Yes private sales can be conducted without a background check but these sales must comply with the GCA of 1968 and state laws
From : Buying and Selling a Firearm: Private Sales Explained
There are many things to consider when dealing with private sales, and the first is if it is legal in your state. Not all states allow private sales, and some have certain restrictions that you should be aware of. For example, in California private sales must be completed through licensed firearm dealers. Connecticut requires the person making the transfer to get an authorization number before such sales can be completed, and forbids the transfer of long guns unless certain conditions are met. A number of other states have similar restrictions. It is also illegal to sell a firearm to a resident of another state without going through a dealer, and sellers cannot ship directly to (non-FFL) buyers in another state. Selling to convicted felons and any other prohibited purchaser is illegal as well.