Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-16-2017, 03:12 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 14,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If that were true (and I'm deeply skeptical that gun companies are a significant source of funding for election campaigns), why does the left place such an emphasis on the NRA?

ETA: take this thread, for an example. It's "Why not an anti-NRA lobby" and not 'Why not an anti-Ruger/S&W/Remington lobby'
/Taurus/Glock/Beretta, and like three other big ones? Gee, maybe because those companies have a single lobbying organization that they use effectively, and even get their customers to pay for, named the NRA?

Last edited by foolsguinea; 11-16-2017 at 03:13 AM.
  #52  
Old 11-16-2017, 06:53 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by andylongino View Post
The sheepdogs in the words of wolves resemble one another but they are very different dogs are non-felons That can legally carry wolves are the criminals and the sheep Are all you people who will be standing behind the sheepdogs when chaos breaks out.
Call me unreasonable if you must, but I think allowing people to legally carry wolves is a bad idea.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #53  
Old 11-16-2017, 08:18 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,163
Not wolves, bears.

Regards,
Shodan
  #54  
Old 11-16-2017, 08:54 AM
DrFidelius DrFidelius is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 11,968
The right to arm bears?

(I know many people who carry legal wolves, but they are mostly the chihuahua or other easily concealed varieties. )
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #55  
Old 11-16-2017, 09:56 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
/Taurus/Glock/Beretta, and like three other big ones? Gee, maybe because those companies have a single lobbying organization that they use effectively, and even get their customers to pay for, named the NRA?
i don't know about you, but I take this post as delightful progress in dispelling the myth that the NRA is primarily funded by gun companies.
  #56  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:19 AM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 8,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
As the OP, maybe I should clarify what I meant by “anti-NRA”: an effort that’s not against the NRA per we, but one that uses the NRA’s tactics for exactly the opposite ends: raising funds, lobbying lawmakers and organizing voters for gun control.
There already exists many "anti-NRA" gun-banning groups which raise funds, lobby lawmakers, and organize voters. The current crop have existed in one form or another since the 60's. When the voters grow weary of their "storyline", they change their name and start over. If you wish to reinvent the wheel one more time, I say, "Go for it". The futile exercise could do you some good.
  #57  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:30 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
There's no intrinsic contradiction between owning a gun or hiring an armed bodyguard on one hand and pursuing gun control legislation on the other hand. I can do a thing I wish I didn't have to do.
So the "I've got mine, so screw you" argument is not a contradiction? Got it.
__________________
It is abjectely terrifying to me that the future of firearms in this country is being decided by people who have no concept of how they are realistically or properly employed. -Solosam
  #58  
Old 11-17-2017, 01:35 PM
shiftless shiftless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,269
Directly opposing gun ownership with something like an anti-NRA might push the needle a little one way but unless it can totally overcome the NRA it can't ever hope to win, whatever that means.

Now, if someone were to create an NRA-like organization for those people who want the benefits but aren't as hardline in their politics we might see a reduction in the NRA membership. Is there such an organization? Because I might join that.
  #59  
Old 11-17-2017, 02:08 PM
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftless View Post
Directly opposing gun ownership with something like an anti-NRA might push the needle a little one way but unless it can totally overcome the NRA it can't ever hope to win, whatever that means.

Now, if someone were to create an NRA-like organization for those people who want the benefits but aren't as hardline in their politics we might see a reduction in the NRA membership. Is there such an organization? Because I might join that.
There have been several. Usually they masquerade as a pro gun rights org but after some time are outed as more of a "gun control lite" sort of org. AHSA and ACRGO are two recent examples. From this link:

Quote:
"So orgs like the old AHSA and the new ACRGO are answers to a question that anti-gunners are asking (and anti-gunners are fantasizing that gun owners are asking, but no gun owners are actually asking): “Where can I find a less effective alternative to the NRA?” And this is the primary reason that they fail, every single time.

The other big reason that so-called “reasonable” gun owner groups and “reasonable” gun control efforts fail is that gun people know from past experience that “reasonable” is, by design, a moving target. Once “universal background checks” are the law then “reasonable gun regulation” will be redefined to include magazine capacity limits, and then assault weapons bans, and then semi-auto bans, and so on. This is not an example of the “slippery slope” fallacy, either. Gun control people have been quite open about their strategy of “if we can just get this or that restriction passed as a first step, then we can do more later. It doesn’t matter if it’s not very effective, we just need to make a start”.
__________________
It is abjectely terrifying to me that the future of firearms in this country is being decided by people who have no concept of how they are realistically or properly employed. -Solosam

Last edited by JXJohns; 11-17-2017 at 02:10 PM.
  #60  
Old 11-18-2017, 10:57 AM
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,542
I think the NRA will eventually spawn a real anti-NRA lobby. It might be a direct anti-gun group but my guess is that it will probably be something with a less threatening name like Move-on dot org Version 2.0 and tackle a range of issues. Or maybe a stop the violence coalition.

The NRA seems powerful but in reality its unwillingness to compromise is doing to its cause what the Tea Party and Alt-Right have done to Republicans. They've removed its genetic diversity and made it more susceptible to collapse. They're as ferocious in their fight for gun rights as ever, but by going to the extreme, they're pushing away moderates who would be willing to support most gun rights and they're making it more likely that, over time, an entire generation of people question whether we need guns as much as the NRA claims we do.
  #61  
Old 11-18-2017, 12:27 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,633
There's a fundamental asymmetry between the gun rights crowd and the gun control crowd.

Most of the people who own guns are rather concerned about the possibility that they might someday be forbidden to own some or most classes of firearms. They have skin in the game in other words. By contrast, although there are doubtless many people who are concerned about firearms and actively work for gun control, gun control is much more an "astroturf" movement, pushed by think tanks and funded by people like Bloomberg. Yet (doubtless as the result of deliberate propaganda) the gun control faction claims to be the voice of countless millions of Americans appalled by gun violence while the pro-gun side is dismissed as "The N.R.A.", hinted to be merely a shill for the gun manufacturers. Back in the early 20th century when the Prohibition movement was gaining steam, the same tactic was used: denouncing anyone opposed to Prohibition as in the pockets of the saloon owners and distilleries.
  #62  
Old 11-18-2017, 04:47 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
There's a fundamental asymmetry between the gun rights crowd and the gun control crowd.

Most of the people who own guns are rather concerned about the possibility that they might someday be forbidden to own some or most classes of firearms. They have skin in the game in other words. By contrast, although there are doubtless many people who are concerned about firearms and actively work for gun control, gun control is much more an "astroturf" movement ...
That's a strange way to describe this asymmetry. There are other ways it can be viewed. For instance, gun owners can be viewed as simply wanting their toys just because, and being concerned that there's no really persuasive argument to answer the question "because what?" but plenty of evidence of the tragic downsides. The pro-gun crowd even has the audacity to argue that gun control measures might pose an inconvenience to "law-abiding gun owners", as if "inconvenience" was an unacceptable tradeoff for reducing the highest rate of gun deaths and injuries in the civilized world.

And trying to argue that gun control advocates have no "skin in the game" is the epitome of absurdity. Seeking to reduce the risk of being shot is a legitimate personal concern. Reducing the extraordinary rate of gun violence in the most gun-happy gun-populous country in the world -- a state of affairs that scholars of gun violence have called a national epidemic -- is a legitimate personal concern. And those who have lost loved ones to preventable gun violence have a more than legitimate personal grievance.
  #63  
Old 11-18-2017, 06:23 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,681
Thing is your always going to have people who want a gun for;
1. Personal protection.
2. Hunting.
3. Sport.
  #64  
Old 11-18-2017, 08:01 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Thing is your always going to have people who want a gun for;
1. Personal protection.
2. Hunting.
3. Sport.
How could that possibly matter when people against personal gun ownership lump all ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...gun owners can be viewed as simply wanting their toys just because, and being concerned that there's no really persuasive argument to answer the question "because what?"
  #65  
Old 11-18-2017, 08:40 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Thing is your always going to have people who want a gun for;
1. Personal protection.
2. Hunting.
3. Sport.
And your point? There will always be people who want guns for those things, and they will always have them. This is, again, the typical take-away-all-guns boogeyman that no one has ever proposed.

The one caveat there is the "personal protection" one. In the other categories, there is no ambiguity about what a "hunter" or the activity of "hunting" is. There is no ambiguity about what a legitimate sport shooter is -- it's someone who belongs to a recognized sport shooting organization. These are the basic rules under which most people in other countries legitimately own guns.

But someone wanting a gun for "personal protection" must be ... what? A "person"? There's a lot of those around, and some of them are insane, mentally unstable, or get angry a lot. This seems rather a broad catch-all, which is why this is the excuse that covers most of the guns involved in abuses, accidents, and homicides. It's generally justified by an arms-race mentality that says you must have a gun because everyone else has one, and which the NRA keeps trying to hammer into people's brains with the "good guy with a gun" trope, as if the more guns there are floating around in society the safer everyone will be.
  #66  
Old 11-18-2017, 09:01 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
There will always be people who want guns for those things, and they will always have them.
Oh, so you now you're not saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...gun owners can be viewed as simply wanting their toys just because, and being concerned that there's no really persuasive argument to answer the question "because what?"
  #67  
Old 11-18-2017, 09:47 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning was discussing the history of the NRA and gun legislation, and said something that really struck a chord with me: that you have to give them credit -- they organize, they lobby, they vote.

And I had an epiphany: why can't their opponents do the same? Why can't there be an anti-NRA, that organizes all those who are appalled by gun violence and want to make a change?
Do you not realize that guns are not the problem? Never have been, never will be.

How about organizing an anti-Insanity league, dedicated to stopping people who want to murder other people? That would make more sense.
  #68  
Old 11-18-2017, 10:14 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Do you not realize that guns are not the problem? Never have been, never will be.

How about organizing an anti-Insanity league, dedicated to stopping people who want to murder other people? That would make more sense.
If guns are not the problem, the US must have a tremendously disproportionate number of insane people, then. Is it something in the water?
  #69  
Old 11-19-2017, 02:14 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...the US must have a tremendously disproportionate number of insane people, then. Is it something in the water?
Undoubtedly! But I'm leaning more towards the food supply. A good demographic study would probably show the crazies wanting to enact stricter gun controls far outnumber the ones who just want to kill people.
  #70  
Old 11-19-2017, 02:39 PM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
If guns are not the problem, the US must have a tremendously disproportionate number of insane people, then. Is it something in the water?
That, I don't know. I do believe that if the news media quit spotlighting those people, we would have fewer incidents.
  #71  
Old 11-19-2017, 11:51 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
If guns are not the problem, the US must have a tremendously disproportionate number of insane people, then. Is it something in the water?
Three points:
  1. How many of those homicides are committed by career criminals like gang members and drug dealers, who apparently have no trouble obtaining illegal items? Illegal != unavailable.
  2. Given the total number of armed people in the USA, isn't the danger rate per gun owner very low?
  3. How much positive utility of owning guns, of what didn't happen because they were there, is essentially immeasurable short of visiting a parallel universe where everything is the same except for the absence of guns?

If you're going to abandon the idea that people who've never done anything wrong shouldn't be punished for the misdeeds of others, and adopt a strict standard of utility based on what people statistically might do, then frankly, possessing testicles is a stronger risk factor of violence and murder than gun ownership.

P.S.: yes, I need a gun. Or at least you have no right to decide that for me.
  #72  
Old 11-20-2017, 01:22 AM
DUCKofDEATH DUCKofDEATH is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
If guns are not the problem, the US must have a tremendously disproportionate number of insane people, then. Is it something in the water?
Drug crime and crime caused by illegals accounts for much of what we're experiencing. The great majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding.

Last edited by DUCKofDEATH; 11-20-2017 at 01:22 AM.
  #73  
Old 11-20-2017, 03:03 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeenJammin View Post
A good demographic study would probably show the crazies wanting to enact stricter gun controls far outnumber the ones who just want to kill people.
Yep; there are vast numbers of such crazy people across the developed world, and even the majority of people in the US. These crazy people also think there should be driving licenses before a person is allowed to operate a car! Where will it end?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUCKofDEATH
Drug crime and crime caused by illegals accounts for much of what we're experiencing. The great majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding.
Firstly, other developed countries have drug crime, and legal and illegal immigration at the same or higher proportion than the US.

But secondly, a lot of the reason this conversation has come up is because of how common mass shootings are, and the number of particularly high-bodycount shootings recently. There's no evidence these had anything to do with drugs or illegals. And people are really searching hard for such connections, so they can deflect away from the obvious.

Last edited by Mijin; 11-20-2017 at 03:05 AM.
  #74  
Old 11-20-2017, 03:04 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Thing is your always going to have people who want a gun for;
1. Personal protection.
2. Hunting.
3. Sport.
And it's entirely possible to have controls that still allow them to.
  #75  
Old 11-20-2017, 04:20 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,509
Not really. Personal protection is the most important purpose of firearms and it's precisely the reason it's hardest to get one in places that have strict gun control. And most of those nations prohibit nonlethal personal protection devices as well. They really don't like self defense in some places I guess.
  #76  
Old 11-20-2017, 04:56 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,819
Erm, excluded middle?
  #77  
Old 11-20-2017, 05:19 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,509
Is there a middle? Countries that have reduced gun violence through gun control have only ever done it through confiscation. Our own gun control methods have never made a dent in gun crime. And we were a lot stricter in the 1970s and 1980s than we are today. Yet those methods aren't even on the table. And what little gun control legislation liberals want, they don't want to put anyone in jail for a long time for violating it. So I'm not sure what the point is.
  #78  
Old 11-20-2017, 06:35 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Not really. Personal protection is the most important purpose of firearms and it's precisely the reason it's hardest to get one in places that have strict gun control. And most of those nations prohibit nonlethal personal protection devices as well. They really don't like self defense in some places I guess.
Yes, that's exactly the reason the UK bans guns, knives, tasers, pepper sprays and so forth - because they "really don't like self-defense". That is definitely the rational conclusion a normal, unbiased person would come to, rather than that there is ample evidence that the more weapons that are available to the general public the easier it is for the bad guys to obtain them and thus the greater the need for "personal protection" in the first place. The more guns you have, the more guns you end up needing. It's a vicious cycle.

The "fight fire with fire" approach (or rather, "fight firepower with firepower") has its (limited) place but there's a reason that most fires are effectively fought by simply putting them out.
  #79  
Old 11-20-2017, 06:55 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,509
No, they actually hate self defense. There was never an epidemic of criminals running around with pepper spray and tasers that needed to be solved. Such weapons are useless for most crimes. No one's emptying the safe because you might pepper spray them if you don't. Pepper spray and tasers are primarily defensive weapons and there is no legitimate purpose to banning them other than hostility to civilians protecting themselves without permission.
  #80  
Old 11-20-2017, 07:34 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
No, they actually hate self defense. There was never an epidemic of criminals running around with pepper spray and tasers that needed to be solved. Such weapons are useless for most crimes. No one's emptying the safe because you might pepper spray them if you don't. Pepper spray and tasers are primarily defensive weapons and there is no legitimate purpose to banning them other than hostility to civilians protecting themselves without permission.
Yes, there is no possible reason to ban people carrying weapons other than hatred of self-defense.

With guns banned, the current focus is on reducing knife crime. Do you think it's sensible to wait until, as knife crime diminishes, criminals move onto other weapons before tackling those weapons one by one, or do you think that perhaps the police are smart enough to realize that being proactive now will reduce assaults with those weapons sooner and in the long run?
  #81  
Old 11-20-2017, 01:07 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUCKofDEATH View Post
Drug crime and crime caused by illegals accounts for much of what we're experiencing. The great majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding.
Unlikely. Got a real cite? You cite even says " Even with the internet it is very difficult to track down and report the participation level of illegal aliens in crime because NOBODY IS KEEPING TRACK! " and is a rabid & racist zenophobe hate site.

Here's a Cato study:

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...ion_brief-1.pd :

CONCLUSION
Legal and illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated
than natives. Our numbers do not represent the
total number of immigrants who can be deported under
current law or the complete number of convicted immigrant
criminals who are in the United States, but merely
those incarcerated. This report provides numbers and
demographic characteristics to better inform the public
policy debate over immigration and crime.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #82  
Old 11-20-2017, 02:18 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Not really. Personal protection is the most important purpose of firearms and it's precisely the reason it's hardest to get one in places that have strict gun control. And most of those nations prohibit nonlethal personal protection devices as well. They really don't like self defense in some places I guess.
Are the people in those nations cowering in fear in their homes, afraid to go outside due to all the criminals who are the only ones that are able to obtain guns?
  #83  
Old 11-20-2017, 03:41 PM
Corry El Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I'm not sure you read the OP very carefully. The question is not why the political debate has been won by the NRA. the question is why there isn't a lobby of any siignificance) that opposes the NRA. Go ahead, read the OP. What the voters vote for is not the question at hand. It doesn't matter if they're single-issue voters or multi-issue voters or if they vote based on alphabetical order. The question is; why is there a single, powerful pro-gun lobby, but no one powerful anti-gun lobby?
But that presupposes that the success of the NRA is due to it being a 'powerful lobby' somehow separate from the will of voters. I didn't fail to read the OP. I simply disagree with its premise. Resistance to national gun control in the US has been highly politically successful and more so in recent decades than earlier. The reason IMO is voters, not the NRA. If voters felt differently, specifically if key swing voters weren't so often highly motivated against gun control, it would be feasible and the NRA wouldn't seem as 'powerful'.

This is a general observation of US politics. It isn't going to proven with a 'cite' of a 'study'. One of the whole problems IMO is pro gun control people failing to realize the severe shortcomings of polls on questions like this. They don't measure intensity (accurately, even if they try). They don't measure cross coupling among issues, as in a divide in cultural identity running across different issues. A lot of the people who won't vote for gun control Democrats in swing districts won't say 'gun control is my only issue' (which sounds narrow minded). However they still identify pro control with a host of other culture views alien to them. The idea that's a result of the 'NRA drumming ideas into them' is just dumb, besides sounding condescending, and reinforcing the whole culture reason they won't vote for Democrats 'like that'.

If I really cared a lot about the gun issue, I might wrack my weak brain to come up with a way around this. I don't have one. It's just obvious to me how off track it is conceive of the issue as 'one side has a powerful lobby, why don't we?'

Last edited by Corry El; 11-20-2017 at 03:43 PM.
  #84  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:19 PM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Is there a middle? Countries that have reduced gun violence through gun control have only ever done it through confiscation.
Well the number of developed countries where either one of the statements "had high gun violence" and "had little to no gun control" is very small to begin with, so it's very hard to find a place where both of those statements are true and then they implemented modest gun controls.

It's much easier to find examples of countries with a high number of firearms, but with licensing and controls on what kinds of firearm can be purchased or carried, and with low gun crime.

Then the burden of proof is on you to say why the US could not transition even a little towards being such a country.

Quote:
And what little gun control legislation liberals want, they don't want to put anyone in jail for a long time for violating it.
I think it's more like they don't want ineffective punishment just to make conservatives happy. If long sentences really work as a great deterrent against gun violence then lets do it. However the data for almost every crime is usually the opposite; put people in jail for a long time for minor offenses and you end up with more criminals, not fewer.
  #85  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:02 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Yes, there is no possible reason to ban people carrying weapons other than hatred of self-defense.

With guns banned, the current focus is on reducing knife crime. Do you think it's sensible to wait until, as knife crime diminishes, criminals move onto other weapons before tackling those weapons one by one, or do you think that perhaps the police are smart enough to realize that being proactive now will reduce assaults with those weapons sooner and in the long run?
Knives are lethal weapons. Pepper spray and tasers CAN be lethal, but mostly are not. You can rob a place with a knife. You can't do it with pepper spray or a taser. No one's emptying the register for you if you're brandishing pepper spray. They are purely self defense weapons and there is no rational basis for banning them.
  #86  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:08 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Are the people in those nations cowering in fear in their homes, afraid to go outside due to all the criminals who are the only ones that are able to obtain guns?
Fear of crime is actually higher in some countries than in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...-robbed#amount

France and Italy top the US in this category.

And banning all those personal safety devices has done nothing to reduce crime in Britain.
  #87  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:13 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Then the burden of proof is on you to say why the US could not transition even a little towards being such a country.
Most countries with high levels of gun ownership and low crime are just safe places to live in general. That's why Vermont is NRA country even though it's very liberal otherwise. There's just no reason to take Vermonters guns away. They aren't using them for evil. Same goes for the Swiss and Israelis. I've never seen a country prone to violence successfully use "sensible" gun controls to reduce gun crime. Confiscation has been the only effective policy in those cases.



Quote:
I think it's more like they don't want ineffective punishment just to make conservatives happy. If long sentences really work as a great deterrent against gun violence then lets do it. However the data for almost every crime is usually the opposite; put people in jail for a long time for minor offenses and you end up with more criminals, not fewer.
I think even most conservatives are now in agreement that putting people in jail for a long time for minor crimes is overdoing it. But violent criminals who prey on the weak deserve to go away for a long time. And who "deserves" what aside, you can't have effective gun control if there is little cost to having an illegal gun. It's not about deterrent, it's about getting the illegal gun owners off the streets.

When conservatives say, "criminals don't care about laws", it's usually BS but on the gun issue it's completely legit. That's because if you pass laws but don't enforce them, all you've done is ensured that law abiding people continue to abide by laws. Enforcement is what makes the bad people abide by them, or gets them out of society.
  #88  
Old 11-21-2017, 01:04 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Most countries with high levels of gun ownership and low crime are just safe places to live in general. That's why Vermont is NRA country even though it's very liberal otherwise. There's just no reason to take Vermonters guns away. They aren't using them for evil. Same goes for the Swiss and Israelis.
The developed world is a safe place to live in general; even the impoverished parts have a rather low homicide rate compared to the United States. So I don't see any basis for drawing the inference that you have here.

Quote:
I've never seen a country prone to violence successfully use "sensible" gun controls to reduce gun crime. Confiscation has been the only effective policy in those cases.
How many developed countries have their been that a) had a significant gun violence problem and b) tried to implement licensing and rules on carrying firearms etc and c) found such laws ineffective?

If there were lots of examples I might agree with you, but instead the transition is more or less unknown territory, but we know that the destination -- a country with firearms licensing and low gun crime -- is possible.

Quote:
I think even most conservatives are now in agreement that putting people in jail for a long time for minor crimes is overdoing it. But violent criminals who prey on the weak deserve to go away for a long time. And who "deserves" what aside, you can't have effective gun control if there is little cost to having an illegal gun. It's not about deterrent, it's about getting the illegal gun owners off the streets.
This is bait and switch several times. I wasn't saying violent criminals shouldn't go to jail, just that breaking some firearms offenses could be a comparatively minor offence and while still may deserve a jail sentence I don't think locking someone up for years will have the desired effect of reducing such crime.

Quote:
When conservatives say, "criminals don't care about laws", it's usually BS but on the gun issue it's completely legit. That's because if you pass laws but don't enforce them, all you've done is ensured that law abiding people continue to abide by laws. Enforcement is what makes the bad people abide by them, or gets them out of society.
It's not that simple. For example, if you make a certain kind of firearm illegal, period, then it does become much harder for criminals to procure them. It doesn't matter whether they care about the law, stores do, manufacturers do, other people around them may do.

Also it's not a binary good / evil thing. I might be a law-abiding guy who happens to think AR-15s look cool so I buy one just for novelty. But then one day I flip out.
It just makes sense to make acquiring a gun something difficult, even for the law-abiding, and limit what guns people can buy IMO.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017