"Where a rational conversation about guns ought to start"

[Father Heathen]

No, it doesn't. It just means allowing for restrictions on guns above and beyond what the Second Amendment allows.

The amendment ensures a right. Why else would you desire to repeal the amendment unless you wished to deny that right?

I think the question here is whether smoking in public is more analogous to carrying in public or shooting in public. You've picked the more extreme - and IMO ridiculous - analogy.

I thought we were discussing what poses a danger to others. Other people can't get second hand smoke if your pack of cigarettes remain in your pocket. Likewise no one is going to get shot if your gun remains concealled.

 

[Alceste]

Yet oddly enough you seem to be quite emotionally invested in our culture, laws, and politics.
How so?
By who?



This is true. "Liberal" and "socialism" are tossed around like dirty insults by people who have very limited to no understanding of what the terms actually mean.


The difference is that no one is trashing Canada for not fitting their personal ideal. I make no judgement regarding Canada's laws, cultures, or politics unless there would happen to be a serious social injustice.



I don't think anyone was.

The point of that part about people from other countries also having opinions about gun control was to illustrate that not every person expressing an opinion about guns is trying to meddle with America's domestic policy. Their thoughts and opinions are relevant to the subject and perfectly applicable in their own homes and countries. As anybody who actually stopped to think about it for half a second should be able to understand. American gun nuts stop and think, though? Maybe that's asking too much. It has to be all about proud M'ericans vs. dirty feriners who hate freedom. So boring.

 

[Apex]

Consider that a large increase of the reduction of homicides is greatly influenced by the fact people don't die.



BALTIMORE—The number of U.S. homicides has been falling for two decades, but America has become no less violent.

Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.

A team of medical workers treat a stabbing victim at R Adams Cowley trauma center. Melissa Golden for The Wall Street Journal

"Did everybody become a lousy shot all of a sudden? No," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, a union that represents about 330,000 officers. "The potential for a victim to survive a wound is greater than it was 15 years ago."

In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn't account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.

Emergency-room physicians who treat victims of gunshot and knife attacks say more people survive because of the spread of hospital trauma centers—which specialize in treating severe injuries—the increased use of helicopters to ferry patients, better training of first-responders and lessons gleaned from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Our experience is we are saving many more people we didn't save even 10 years ago," said C. William Schwab, director of the Firearm and Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the professor of surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.

In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence - WSJ.com

Your source requires a subscription making it next to impossible to verify or analyze.

Also, those graphs only cover 3 years. Since about 1990 the homicide rate in the US has been cut in half. For those graphs to truly be useful they would need to go back to the same time that the homicide rate started to take a dive. Also, using homicide data from 2007 (rate of 5.7) and 2010 (rate of 4.8) the homicide rate fell by 16%. Yet that graph seems to show the number of people who died as a result of gun shot wounds only fell by about 1.8%.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The amendment ensures a right. Why else would you desire to repeal the amendment unless you wished to deny that right?

So in your mind, anyone who wants any sort of gun control measure that violates the Second Amendment to the slightest degree wants to get rid of all guns?

I thought we were discussing what poses a danger to others. Other people can't get second hand smoke if your pack of cigarettes remain in your pocket. Likewise no one is going to get shot if your gun remains concealled.

When someone has a pack of cigarettes in their pocket, they're merely carrying them for convenience in order to use them later. A proper analogy to this situation would be carrying your gun unloaded in a lockbox when you stop for dinner on your way to the firing range.

If a gun is loaded and holstered, and the person isn't on their way to or from a place where they plan to use their firearm, then the apparent intent is to have it available for use then and there. Not the same thing as having a pack of cigarettes in your pocket, is it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Really?
How does banning a 30 round magazine prevent criminals from getting firearms?

Um... Seriousy? Banning 30 round magazines, which have absolutely ZERO utility in any sporting function (as I can attest as a lifelong hunter- if you need 30 rounds, you need to find a new hobby), would prevent criminals from getting... you guessed it, 30 round magazines! Alot harder to pull off a 20 person killing spree when you have to reload every few rounds.

The weird part about this whole debate is, a little common sense resolves the whole matter- there's absolutely no defensible reason to oppose the sorts of legislation that has been proposed, such as bans on unnecessarily large magazines, closing loopholes that bypass backgrounds checks, and so on.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Moreover, whereas most opinions have little or no ethical import- one's view is just one's view, agree or disagree- this case is arguably different; when you have such an alarming level of firearm-related violence, and people are looking under rocks to find any laughable reason under the sun to (selfishly) oppose common-sense regulatory measures, you have to question the morality of this, as it is a real impediment to minimizing violence, and minimizing violence is a pretty universally acknowledged ethical goal.

 

[Apex]

Moreover, whereas most opinions have little or no ethical import- one's view is just one's view, agree or disagree- this case is arguably different; when you have such an alarming level of firearm-related violence, and people are looking under rocks to find any laughable reason under the sun to (selfishly) oppose common-sense regulatory measures, you have to question the morality of this, as it is a real impediment to minimizing violence, and minimizing violence is a pretty universally acknowledged ethical goal.

What is your idea of "common-sense regulatory measures"?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

the sorts of legislation that has been proposed, such as bans on unnecessarily large magazines, closing loopholes that bypass backgrounds checks, and so on.

The "common sense regulatory measures" sort of says it all- which ones? Well, the common sense ones, which, as it happens, are most of the ones that I've ever heard proposed.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Buying a gun? Background check? Regardless of where you buy it? Duh! 30 round magazines that serve no practical purpose whatsoever but can be devastating in the hands of someone intent on doing violence? No thanks! Armor-piercing ammunition? Seriously?! Assault weapons? Only if we're playing modern warfare 3. Seriously, common sense people.

 

[Apex]

Buying a gun? Background check? Regardless of where you buy it? Duh! 30 round magazines that serve no practical purpose whatsoever but can be devastating in the hands of someone intent on doing violence? No thanks! Armor-piercing ammunition? Seriously?! Assault weapons? Only if we're playing modern warfare 3. Seriously, common sense people.

Each person's idea of "common sense" varies, sometimes greatly. I agree that UBCs are common sense. But someone else's idea of common sense is a complete ban of all firearms. For others it goes even farther, they think it is common sense to not only ban all firearms, but pocket knifes as well.

Claiming "common sense" says it all, could not be any farther from the truth.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Each person's idea of "common sense" varies, sometimes greatly.

If that we the case, it wouldn't really be common sense then, now would it?

I agree that UBCs are common sense. But someone else's idea of common sense is a complete ban of all firearms. For others it goes even farther, they think it is common sense to not only ban all firearms, but pocket knifes as well.

In that case, they're simply mistaken about what common sense entails. Banning all firearms is clearly not common sense, for so, so many reasons. And I doubt anyone thinks that we should ban "pocket knives". But the sorts of regulations that were proposed, e.g. in the wake of Sandy Hook, are win-win proposals, against which there isn't really a cogent argument. Like I said, simple common sense.

 

[Apex]

If that we the case, it wouldn't really be common sense then, now would it?


In that case, they're simply mistaken about what common sense entails. Banning all firearms is clearly not common sense, for so, so many reasons. And I doubt anyone thinks that we should ban "pocket knives". But the sorts of regulations that were proposed, e.g. in the wake of Sandy Hook, are win-win proposals, against which there isn't really a cogent argument. Like I said, simple common sense.

So the only true common sense is what fits your own definition. No one else's. Got it.

 

[McBell]

Um... Seriousy? Banning 30 round magazines, which have absolutely ZERO utility in any sporting function (as I can attest as a lifelong hunter- if you need 30 rounds, you need to find a new hobby), would prevent criminals from getting... you guessed it, 30 round magazines! Alot harder to pull off a 20 person killing spree when you have to reload every few rounds.

So you honestly think that banning 30 round magazines will make all 30 round magazines disappear?
Or perhaps you do not understand what "criminal" means?

The weird part about this whole debate is, a little common sense resolves the whole matter- there's absolutely no defensible reason to oppose the sorts of legislation that has been proposed, such as bans on unnecessarily large magazines, closing loopholes that bypass backgrounds checks, and so on.

Except you are not using common sense when you claim that the mere banning of something will make that which is banned magically disappear.

So much for your "common sense" snark....

Interesting your absolutism.
Seems you are not ready for "rational" discussion, eh?

 

[Uberpod]

Why not just move? If I hated my country, that is what I would do.

I pretty much hate you and your attitude, btw.

 

[Revoltingest]

I pretty much hate you and your attitude, btw.

He's a likable guy, & nicer than I am by far.
Try to separate the some time combative stances we take here at times from the underlying person.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you honestly think that banning 30 round magazines will make all 30 round magazines disappear?

But once the the magazines are emptied, they're of no use.
Oops....I've been reading too many anti-gun rants.
I forgot they can be reloaded.

I'm such a b**ch!

 

[Uberpod]

He's a likable guy, & nicer than I am by far.
Try to separate the some time combative stances we take here at times from the underlying person.

I like you tons more than him. Go figure.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like you tons more than him. Go figure.

Obviously, you have very bad judgement.

 

[dust1n]

Your source requires a subscription making it next to impossible to verify or analyze.

Hmm. It didn't when I posted it. WSJ must make articles subscription only after a certain time period.

 

[CMike]

Um... Seriousy? Banning 30 round magazines, which have absolutely ZERO utility in any sporting function (as I can attest as a lifelong hunter- if you need 30 rounds, you need to find a new hobby), would prevent criminals from getting... you guessed it, 30 round magazines! Alot harder to pull off a 20 person killing spree when you have to reload every few rounds.

The weird part about this whole debate is, a little common sense resolves the whole matter- there's absolutely no defensible reason to oppose the sorts of legislation that has been proposed, such as bans on unnecessarily large magazines, closing loopholes that bypass backgrounds checks, and so on.

It's also harder to stop one.

Who are the liberals to decide what is necessary for people to have?

Those are the principles of Marx.

A democratic society isn't based on making things legal because they are needed.