View Poll Results: Does restricting guns have at least some negative repercussions?
Other: no opinion, it's complicated, etc. 7 4.05%
Hell Yes! Banning or restricting guns would be a catastrophe and accomplish nothing 26 15.03%
Lots: maybe a few positives, but not worth the negatives 14 8.09%
So-so: some good things, some bad things 16 9.25%
A few, but overall restricting guns is for the better 46 26.59%
No repercussions worth considering; the fewer guns the better 64 36.99%
Voters: 173. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-16-2020, 03:46 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,865

Opinion Poll: what downsides do you think restricting guns have?


Not looking for another debate, I was simply curious how opinion here on the SDMB breaks down. Do you think that restricting guns, even if overall better for society, admittedly has some downside to it?
  #2  
Old 02-16-2020, 04:26 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,495
Defensive gun use can prevent crime, but I don't know how much of it that it prevents.

That's about it.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #3  
Old 02-16-2020, 04:27 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,986
Only downside is that some people in places like rural Alaska (perhaps 3 hours away from police) would have no means of self defense.

Also such a crackdown MUST involve taking guns away from criminals, not just law-abiding citizenry.
  #4  
Old 02-16-2020, 04:30 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,679
Doesn't it depend on what the restrictions are?
  #5  
Old 02-16-2020, 04:34 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Doesn't it depend on what the restrictions are?
Indeed. I don't hear too many people advocating for prohibiting Americans from keeping a handgun in their home for self defense or owning a rifle or shotgun for the hunting.
(actually, I don't hear anyone advocating for restrictions like that, but I'm sure someone somewhere has proposed it)
  #6  
Old 02-16-2020, 05:05 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,788
I chose other because all the other choices don't make sense without more details at best (the bottom couple of choices) or are just fucking idioticly insane at worst (the top few choices.)
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #7  
Old 02-16-2020, 07:53 PM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,539
The biggest one is just how many more poor people will get thrown in prison. You already see it happening with stop and frisk policies.
  #8  
Old 02-16-2020, 08:02 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Only downside is that some people in places like rural Alaska (perhaps 3 hours away from police) would have no means of self defense.

Also such a crackdown MUST involve taking guns away from criminals, not just law-abiding citizenry.
"No means of self defense"? So they couldn't even raise their arms to stop a punch?
  #9  
Old 02-16-2020, 08:10 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Doesn't it depend on what the restrictions are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Indeed. I don't hear too many people advocating for prohibiting Americans from keeping a handgun in their home for self defense or owning a rifle or shotgun for the hunting.
(actually, I don't hear anyone advocating for restrictions like that, but I'm sure someone somewhere has proposed it)
Yeah, it's "what restrictions" that makes the difference to me in considering cost/benefit. I see no objection to it being a PITA for some Joe Blow with $50K to spare to buy himself a .50-cal M2. OTOH there's that earlier mentioned homeowner in a sparsely policed location, or in a high risk neighborhood, who I would not mind being able to protect herself and her family with a Glock, having trained on how to use it. The range in between is broad.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 02-16-2020 at 08:15 PM.
  #10  
Old 02-16-2020, 08:11 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
"No means of self defense"? So they couldn't even raise their arms to stop a punch?
Or a board with a nail in it.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #11  
Old 02-16-2020, 09:05 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
"No means of self defense"? So they couldn't even raise their arms to stop a punch?
In Alaska we might be speaking of Polar Bears, which require a very, very big gun.

On the home front, if the guys who were walking through the city a couple of years ago with a sawn off 12 gauge, attacking people on their porch and forcing their way into homes come after me, I would like to be able to shoot them.

Last edited by carnivorousplant; 02-16-2020 at 09:06 PM.
  #12  
Old 02-16-2020, 09:14 PM
jtur88 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 15,270
Pretty obviously, "What restrictions?" means a set of restrictions you'd approve. Everybody is opposed to bad restrictions. So, instead of the cop-out, just imagine what you would consider fair restrictions, and answer the poll.
  #13  
Old 02-16-2020, 09:54 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
In Alaska we might be speaking of Polar Bears, which require a very, very big gun.
Or a door?
  #14  
Old 02-16-2020, 09:55 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Or a door?
Igloos don't have doors!
  #15  
Old 02-16-2020, 09:56 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Indeed. I don't hear too many people advocating for prohibiting Americans from keeping a handgun in their home for self defense or owning a rifle or shotgun for the hunting.
(actually, I don't hear anyone advocating for restrictions like that, but I'm sure someone somewhere has proposed it)
It seems to have worked in South Korea and Australia.

https://www.koreaexpose.com/how-sout...d-gun-problem/

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #16  
Old 02-17-2020, 01:19 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,589
The title says "restricting", but the poll includes options about banning.

I answered assuming the OP wasn't trying for a bait-and-switch, and went with my opinion on just restrictions, so voted "No repercussions worth considering".

Outright banning of all private ownership being the actual option under consideration would shift my vote to "A few, but overall restricting guns is for the better".
  #17  
Old 02-17-2020, 03:02 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Great Barrier Reef, wooo
Posts: 10,220
I'm Australian. Restricting gun ownership here has had no downside that I can see. Farmers, hunters and sport-shooters are still able to legally buy and own guns. The rest of the populace needs a damned good reason why they should be entitled.
  #18  
Old 02-17-2020, 03:42 AM
SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 5,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
I'm Australian. Restricting gun ownership here has had no downside that I can see. Farmers, hunters and sport-shooters are still able to legally buy and own guns. The rest of the populace needs a damned good reason why they should be entitled.
Same in UK. It was interesting for me reading Procustus's comment upthread:

Quote:
I don't hear too many people advocating for prohibiting Americans from keeping a handgun in their home for self defense
There's a sharp cultural difference for me here.We simply don't have the concept that owning a gun for self defence is remotely acceptable. Sport, hunting, farmers, great. General populace waving a hand gun around thinking they can fend off a burglar, not bloody likely.

I guess it's the concept that guns should only be in the hands of people who know what they are doing, and in controlled circumstances. Not taking pot shots out of their bedroom window.

Last edited by SanVito; 02-17-2020 at 03:42 AM.
  #19  
Old 02-17-2020, 03:51 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,882
The biggest downside is that millions of American men will no longer have a way to display their manhood.
  #20  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:15 AM
dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 7,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
The biggest downside is that millions of American men will no longer have a way to display their manhood.
They could always buy a bigger pickup truck.
  #21  
Old 02-17-2020, 06:32 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
The biggest downside is that millions of American men will no longer have a way to display their manhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
They could always buy a bigger pickup truck.
  #22  
Old 02-17-2020, 08:49 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
Not taking pot shots out of their bedroom window.
That is illegal over here.
  #23  
Old 02-17-2020, 09:26 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 600
I think there's a huge difference between banning and restricting, and it depends on what kind of restricting you're talking about. For example, I'm not at all for banning guns, but still feel people convicted of violent crimes shouldn't have access to them. I think the laws we have are probably fairly decent, but they aren't necessarily always followed.

I honestly have no idea what option to choose.
  #24  
Old 02-17-2020, 09:46 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
We simply don't have the concept that owning a gun for self defence is remotely acceptable. Sport, hunting, farmers, great. General populace waving a hand gun around thinking they can fend off a burglar, not bloody likely.
Lifelong American. I've been handling firearms since I was 4 years old. Safe handling practices were so thoroughly drilled into my head I think it'd be easier to intentionally piss my own pants than to discharge a firearm in the house. Everything I have been taught has been designed to prevent exactly that from happening. Would I ever rethink that and take to keeping my irons loaded, and maybe within reach of my pillow? Not without some extraordinarily dark changes in our society. I realize there are folks with different ideas, but I felt it was worth pointing out that "Home defense" is not an acceptable use for the things for everyone.

I like the things. I don't care for hunting but it's a skillset I like to have. Mostly the little kid in me likes things that go Bang, but the competitive part of me enjoys overcoming a dozen personal variables and placing a bullet where I want it on a target. That's what the things are to me. Part of who I am, like my love of cats and pizza. I struggle with giving up part of who I am, and who my family is, just because some people have murderous tendencies. So as far as the OP, I'm not keen on restrictions because often the ones I see proposed are geared more toward satisfying the voices screaming "Do something!" than actually keeping murderous people away from firearms. As if the firearms themselves were somehow dangerous.
  #25  
Old 02-17-2020, 09:59 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Also such a crackdown MUST involve taking guns away from criminals, not just law-abiding citizenry.
I suggest requiring criminals to register as such.
  #26  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:30 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
That is illegal over here.

Which shows another side of the cultural chasm. The outsider perception IS that the norm is “taking pot shots out the window”. Which is no thanks to the many irresponsible individuals who do anyway, and mass media that portray it that way.
  #27  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:31 AM
Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 9,808
The fewer guns, the better. If I could use magic I'd erase the 2nd amendment from the start.

But restrictions or bans galvanize the political Right, which is a bigger problem than just the gun deaths that go along with it. A gun ban could also destroy any hope of addressing climate change, destroy NATO, further corrupt our government, and on and on.

Last edited by Napier; 02-17-2020 at 10:32 AM.
  #28  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:34 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
I chose other because all the other choices don't make sense without more details at best (the bottom couple of choices) or are just fucking idioticly insane at worst (the top few choices.)
I said other because it differs greatly depending on what restrictions you are talking about. Many do nothing but criminalize law-abiding people without protecting anyone. Other restrictions may help.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
"No means of self defense"? So they couldn't even raise their arms to stop a punch?
Who says itís only going to be a punch that you need to protect yourself from?
  #29  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:35 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Pretty obviously, "What restrictions?" means a set of restrictions you'd approve. Everybody is opposed to bad restrictions. So, instead of the cop-out, just imagine what you would consider fair restrictions, and answer the poll.
okay. I support restricting ownership of assault weapons, broadly defined. I see no downside to that, expect less profit for the manufacturers (and more votes for Republicans).
  #30  
Old 02-17-2020, 11:22 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
okay. I support restricting ownership of assault weapons, broadly defined. I see no downside to that, expect less profit for the manufacturers (and more votes for Republicans).
Yes. Further empowering right-wing politics may be the biggest downside to gun restrictions.
  #31  
Old 02-17-2020, 12:25 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yes. Further empowering right-wing politics may be the biggest downside to gun restrictions.
But will we further empower it?

Aren't most people hostile to gun control already republicans? of the ones who aren't, do you think they'll switch over and become republicans?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #32  
Old 02-17-2020, 04:10 PM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,668
Unless you qualify under the conditions of a "Disqualified person", current laws are sufficient, other than that, Shall Not Be Infringed!

No, I don't want crazy/evil/bad/stupid people to have access to firearms, but infringing on the rights of Law Abiding citizens that just happen to own a piece of Politically Inconvenient hardware isn't the answer

My AR (that may or may not exist, or may or may not been lost in a "Tragic Boating Accident" is not harming anyone, it's in the gun safe, (or not) quietly gathering dust, and Hell No, you aren't taking it, as it's no risk to you (if it exists) )

there is no *functional* difference between a Ruger Ranch Rifle in .223/5.56, and an AR pattern rifle, both are magazine fed semiautos (one pull of the trigger per bullet), one has a wood stock like Grandpa's old hunting rifle, and the other has "Scary" black plastic furniture, they are functionally identical.
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #33  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:03 PM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,920
I live in the UK.
We're not allowed to have guns for home defence and our beat police are not armed.
I haven't noticed any downside.

On the one hand, I'm 66 and have never faced any form of home invasion.

On the other I have fired a .22 rifle at a shooting range (prone position) as well as used a shotgun for clay pigeon shooting.

So I live in a society that has strict gun control, but where you can still fire guns at targets in a properly supervised environment.
And no school shootings.
__________________
Arnold Winkelried:
'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
  #34  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:28 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
I live in the UK.
We're not allowed to have guns for home defence and our beat police are not armed.
I haven't noticed any downside.

On the one hand, I'm 66 and have never faced any form of home invasion.

On the other I have fired a .22 rifle at a shooting range (prone position) as well as used a shotgun for clay pigeon shooting.

So I live in a society that has strict gun control, but where you can still fire guns at targets in a properly supervised environment.
And no school shootings.
I live in a country where a violent felon with gang affiliations can send his girlfriend into a gun store, have her buy a gun and then she gives it to him in the parking lot.

Both our countries are winners.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #35  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:31 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I live in a country where a violent felon with gang affiliations can send his girlfriend into a gun store, have her buy a gun and then she gives it to him in the parking lot.

Both our countries are winners.
I'd rather live in glee's winner country, except all my stuff is here so here I'll stay.
  #36  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:33 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I'd rather live in glee's winner country, except all my stuff is here so here I'll stay.
Off topic, but leaving America does keep getting more and more appealing.

The insane politics, the hatred of science, the rise of fascism, the embrace of racism, the war on feminism, the brutal health care, lack of retirement security, the gun violence, etc.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-17-2020 at 05:33 PM.
  #37  
Old 02-17-2020, 07:10 PM
jtur88 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 15,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Off topic, but leaving America does keep getting more and more appealing.

The insane politics, the hatred of science, the rise of fascism, the embrace of racism, the war on feminism, the brutal health care, lack of retirement security, the gun violence, etc.
Most of those are happening everywhere, with America being swept along with a global current.
  #38  
Old 02-17-2020, 07:24 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Most of those are happening everywhere, with America being swept along with a global current.
As a believer in American Exceptionalism, I prefer to conclude we're leading the global current.
  #39  
Old 02-18-2020, 05:34 AM
Tempe Jeff is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 177
How about a waiting period and FBI background check for voting too? Amend the Constitution if you want to restrict rights guaranteed by said document.
  #40  
Old 02-18-2020, 05:48 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,445
Not only does it depend on what the restrictions are; it depends on how they come about. If, somehow, in America as it is today, a bare majority of anti-gun politicians got elected and immediately passed the most restrictive gun control laws they could, then the result would be that a lot of them would lose their next election and the laws they passed would be repealed. What would make a difference would be if education and research progressed to the point where the substantial majority of the people wanted those restrictions, and then elected representatives accordingly. We need to change the culture before we can change the laws.

Note also that there are more choices than "allowed everywhere" and "banned everywhere". If somehow the Second Amendment were repealed, that'd just mean that it was up to the states: Alaska would be very unlikely to ban gun ownership by the folks who live three hours away from the police, but Rhode Island just might.
  #41  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:01 AM
purplehorseshoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 10,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
How about a waiting period and FBI background check for voting too? Amend the Constitution if you want to restrict rights guaranteed by said document.
I believe there's currently an 18-year waiting period as it is.
__________________
I can haz sig line?
  #42  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:12 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
How about a waiting period and FBI background check for voting too? Amend the Constitution if you want to restrict rights guaranteed by said document.
I've just about had it with all these damn voters killing kids in our schools, churches, and synagogues.
  #43  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:38 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,280

Opinion Poll: what downsides do you think restricting guns have?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
How about a waiting period and FBI background check for voting too? Amend the Constitution if you want to restrict rights guaranteed by said document.
For over two centuries there has not been one right that has been absolutely, unconditionally, free of any limits whatsoever regardless of circumstance. At best, legislatures and courts have said, “oh, THAT is not included in what freedom of (whatever) means” (see: libel; polygamy; sawed off shotguns; etc) or have recognized exigent circumstance - sometimes unjustly, but they have.

Anyway for those two centuries it was never the general norm everywhere for everyone to be maximally armed 24/7 everywhere they set step. And that includes what many call the Good Old Days.

OTOH as Chronos mentions it is not an absolute all-or-nothing proposition. (Although at both ends of the spectrum some have given hints of that: at least in the matter of state by state legislation, there are pro-gunners for instance who have advocated total interstate reciprocity which would mean the laws of the least restrictive state would trump everyone else’s, and anti-s have OTOH sought to use federal preemptions whenever they can, and some of their leaders stated they do want total removal of some arms from civilian private hands; some Pro-s who have taken positions that their gun toting overrides a private owner’s entitlement to say what goes inside their property; and so on and so forth. )

Last edited by JRDelirious; 02-18-2020 at 06:42 AM.
  #44  
Old 02-18-2020, 07:16 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post

Who says itís only going to be a punch that you need to protect yourself from?
No. Velocity said that "people..would have no means of self defense."

I hear that same phrase said a lot in these kinds of threads, and it's just wrong. I would prefer the discussion to be free from hyperbole and free from factually incorrect slogans. That's all.
  #45  
Old 02-18-2020, 09:40 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Defensive gun use can prevent crime, but I don't know how much of it that it prevents.
I mean, it's literally true that defensive gun use may prevent some crime but it might also be true that gun use that users consider defensive are really just crimes. Research shows that policies intended to promote defensive gun use tend to increase crime. For instance, there is no evidence that stand your ground laws reduce violent crime but there is evidence that they increase homicides.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...ent-crime.html
https://www.nber.org/papers/w18187

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
OTOH as Chronos mentions it is not an absolute all-or-nothing proposition. (Although at both ends of the spectrum some have given hints of that: at least in the matter of state by state legislation, there are pro-gunners for instance who have advocated total interstate reciprocity which would mean the laws of the least restrictive state would trump everyone elseís, and anti-s have OTOH sought to use federal preemptions whenever they can, and some of their leaders stated they do want total removal of some arms from civilian private hands; some Pro-s who have taken positions that their gun toting overrides a private ownerís entitlement to say what goes inside their property; and so on and so forth. )
Second amendment absolutists should be appalled at the idea of interstate reciprocity for the carrying of firearms. The second amendment was intended to allow states to provide themselves an armed militia. Such a militia is useful for states to resist the power of the federal government or that of other states. The founders would roll over in their graves at the idea that a federal law could empower California to send three million armed troops to Wyoming and Wyoming law could do nothing to stop it.
  #46  
Old 02-18-2020, 09:44 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Not only does it depend on what the restrictions are; it depends on how they come about. If, somehow, in America as it is today, a bare majority of anti-gun politicians got elected and immediately passed the most restrictive gun control laws they could, then the result would be that a lot of them would lose their next election and the laws they passed would be repealed. What would make a difference would be if education and research progressed to the point where the substantial majority of the people wanted those restrictions, and then elected representatives accordingly. We need to change the culture before we can change the laws.
That's how it should work, but the progressive left seems to think more like a revolutionary elite. Making decisions based on what the proles people want is the opposite of their m.o.; in this case, weaning America off the "gun culture" according to some.

And there's an extreme asymmetry to passing vs. repealing laws, almost a one-way ratchet: once something's illegal, the law stays on the books by sheer inertia, since government has almost no institutional interest in controlling fewer things. Would marijuana have been made illegal at any time since 1970 if it hadn't been already?
  #47  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:06 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
The founders would roll over in their graves at the idea that a federal law could empower California to send three million armed troops to Wyoming and Wyoming law could do nothing to stop it.
I think I'm missing something here.
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #48  
Old 02-18-2020, 03:17 PM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,778
The second amendment is about preserving states' ability to maintain a militia, right? It's right in the text.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's for the prevention of tyranny and all that.

But a new federal law is passed. It says that if any state allows you to carry a weapon in its borders, you can carry that weapon in any other state, regardless of that second state's laws to the contrary. That's how reciprocity would work. The state can't pass a law that prohibits you from carrying that weapon there.

So California passes a law issuing carry permits to members of its militia. It grants two million such permits, buys them guns, and pays them to occupy Wyoming. Wyoming is stuck with two million armed Californians in its borders and it has no legal remedy unless they break some other law.
  #49  
Old 02-19-2020, 12:03 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
But will we further empower it?

Aren't most people hostile to gun control already republicans? of the ones who aren't, do you think they'll switch over and become republicans?
Do you know which "candidate" has won almost every single Presidential election? I'm speaking of the candidate who beat Reagan in the 1984 "landslide."

Did.Not.Vote. Did.Not.Vote even edged out LBJ (barely) in the 1964 landslide. American elections are not about changing people's minds. The people too stupid to pick a Party are going to vote based on hair style, or Facebook jokes.

The reason not to get gun nuts riled up, is NOT the fear that they may stop voting rationally ó that's not an option. It's the fear they may vote at all.
  #50  
Old 02-19-2020, 12:10 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTech View Post
... My AR (that may or may not exist, or may or may not been lost in a "Tragic Boating Accident" is not harming anyone ...
Many gun lovers have signaled they will commit a felony by lying to the authorities if government exercises its legal right to ban guns. In the Age of Fake Facts, Everybody's a Constitutional Lawyer. Tell me, do you stand under a gold-fringed flag when you lie to the police?

The gun lovers pretend to be about law and order. But then they brag about how they'll turn felon when Hillary comes for their Gunzzz! Bah!
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 08:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017