Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 12-18-2018, 05:05 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I mean, if we put a $1 million tax on every gay marriage performed, would you argue that it was not a ban on gay marriage?
The marriage fee for Minnesota is $115. The fee to apply for a FFL is $200. Please whine about the taxes some more.

You're main complaint for pricing is the free market. Is this an instance where you're against the working of supply and demand? Should the federal government intervene and find a solution for the incredible price of fully automatic firearms?
  #202  
Old 12-18-2018, 05:05 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Of course if still modifies it. For example: I like TV Show because of the acting. Is "because of the acting" a subordinate clause modifying "I like TV show."? Yep. Is it necessarily the only reason that I could enjoy TV show and precludes any other reason? Nope. I could also enjoy the writing, directing, setting etc. and just didn't add those for whatever reason.
In fairness, it does call it into question and raises a reasonable point for debate. If you say "I love this TV show because of the great acting" and the main character leaves the show, it would be reasonable to inquire if you still like the show, given that you pointed out that your primary reason for liking the show was the acting.

But as I have pointed out, in this debate it is irrelevant. The militia clause implies a militia. If me and my law abiding friends cannot own guns and drill and train, then there is no militia. Citizens keeping and bearing arms is a necessary prerequisite to having a militia.

Saying that an organized branch of the government is a militia does not make it so anymore than calling a tree a dog makes the tree a dog. You cannot say we have free speech because we have appointed a Free Speech Commissioner that you can write a letter to.

Any right requires that the necessary preconditions be allowed to exercise the right. You cannot say that we allow a free press, but outlaw paper and ink. Even if the Second Amendment is only for militia purposes (which I do not believe) you cannot deprive the people of a necessary instrument to create or maintain a militia.
  #203  
Old 12-18-2018, 05:11 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
The marriage fee for Minnesota is $115. The fee to apply for a FFL is $200. Please whine about the taxes some more.

You're main complaint for pricing is the free market. Is this an instance where you're against the working of supply and demand? Should the federal government intervene and find a solution for the incredible price of fully automatic firearms?
As to your first paragraph, I have no idea what you are complaining about. $115 seems too high for me for a marriage license, and I agree with the argument that because marriage is a fundamental right, the government cannot tax it. Imagine a $115 abortion tax, or a $115 book publication tax. Those would be struck down immediately. I would love to represent someone who argued that a fee for a marriage was an infringement on a fundamental right.

Second paragraph: The free market? You think that's what we have with machine guns? Supply and demand? You think you have me in some sort of conservative trap there where I want the feds to intervene?

Hint: A free market would exist if the feds did not already artificially restrict the supply.
  #204  
Old 12-18-2018, 06:40 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
*snip. I agree with your overall point, but I have to buzz you there. I disagree with that logic. Placing a explanation on a point does seem to put limits on the point. Example:

#1 Father to Child: Your curfew is 10 p.m.

#2 Father to Child: Your grades were good this term; your curfew is 10 p.m.

Contrary to your argument, #1 is much more broad exactly because there was no rationale given. It was not stated anything about grades and is therefore more expansive than #2.

The giving of the rationale seems to imply that the condition subsequent is properly understood by the explanation. In #2, the child gets a curfew seemingly only because her grades were good. If her grades slip next term, the implication is that her curfew could be earlier.

I agree that we have a personal RKBA, but this is the type of argument that gets us stuck in the mud.
I admit to not phrasing that as well as I meant to but I'm referring to the faulty logic that because a reason is given for the inclusion of a right that it necessarily represents the only reason for its inclusion and thus serves as a limitation on the scope of that right. I mean if we're discussing solely why the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment was added, and put aside for a moment the question of whether it also functions also as a limitation on that Right, then wouldn't a Right with the rationale included make a stronger case for its importance than a Right included with no rationale given? Doesn't some evidence almost always carry more weight than no evidence? And in considering the scope of a Right wouldn't its importance to our system of gov't and political philosophy be a factor?

Consider this: Do you believe anyone thinks that the 3rd Amendment is as important, let alone more important, to our democracy than the 1st? Since no reason is given in the Constitution for the inclusion of either Right then any reason(s) must logically exist outside the words of the document, because the Framers must have had some reason to include them in the BOR in the first place. Similarly, if we determine that one Right in the Constitution is more important to the concept of "ordered liberty" than another then we must also be using words and ideas outside the Constitution to reach that conclusion, because the document itself is silent on the matter.

Consequently, if we can justify the inclusion of Rights in the Constitution through reasons found outside the words of the document then it logically follows that any reason given within the text of the Constitution need not be the sole reason for its inclusion. It could be, but it doesn't logically follow that it must be.

And if those other reasons can or do exist outside the text then the sole reason given within the text does not necessarily logically function as a limitation as well because those other reasons would almost certainly, if anything, be evidence justifying broadening the scope of the right rather than limiting it to the reason given within the Constitution itself.

Therefore, since we know from other sources that the Framers contemplated other reasons for the people to possess a right to bear arms, such as self-defense, hunting, or what have you, then those reasons would indeed serve as evidence for a broader reading of the scope of the 2nd Amendment beyond a right to bear arms connected to milita service.

I get your example and the difference is a subtle one, but they're two different arguments.
  #205  
Old 12-18-2018, 07:55 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Too many? 300 Million guns. 10000 used ito murder. 1 in 30 thousand is too many?
By Canadian standards it's a bloodbath but if you're happy with it, good for you.
  #206  
Old 12-18-2018, 09:33 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
In fairness, it does call it into question and raises a reasonable point for debate. If you say "I love this TV show because of the great acting" and the main character leaves the show, it would be reasonable to inquire if you still like the show, given that you pointed out that your primary reason for liking the show was the acting.

But as I have pointed out, in this debate it is irrelevant. The militia clause implies a militia. If me and my law abiding friends cannot own guns and drill and train, then there is no militia. Citizens keeping and bearing arms is a necessary prerequisite to having a militia.

Saying that an organized branch of the government is a militia does not make it so anymore than calling a tree a dog makes the tree a dog. You cannot say we have free speech because we have appointed a Free Speech Commissioner that you can write a letter to.

Any right requires that the necessary preconditions be allowed to exercise the right. You cannot say that we allow a free press, but outlaw paper and ink. Even if the Second Amendment is only for militia purposes (which I do not believe) you cannot deprive the people of a necessary instrument to create or maintain a militia.
to

Sure, it provides a reason to inquire or otherwise seek more information. What it doesn't do, however, is provide enough information on its own from which to draw a logical conclusion beyond I like the show because of the acting. I could like the acting of the rest of the cast to a degree that I still enjoy the show. Or I could have never have cared for the lead, since I was never more specific in my statement about whose acting I enjoyed, and liked the show based on the rest of the cast. Or I could've even hated the lead and actually enjoy the show even more now based on the remaining cast.

And none of this precludes or even implies that the acting was the sole reason I like the show. If I ask you why you like your favorite show, movie or book should I assume that the reason or reasons you give is an exhaustive list? Or that you're giving me the reasons in order of importance? No, those logical inferences are beyond the scope of the question because they are based on a specificity or level of detail not found in the question.

And I strongly disagree that the argument is pointless. In fact, I believe an argument based on the intent of the Framers when writing the 2nd is much stronger than relying on the theoretical existence of a militia which hasn't been mustered in quite a long while. Not to mention the existence an actual standing military which undermines the argument for the necessity of said militia. The argument of Framers' intent doesn't suffer from those weaknesses and we have plenty of contemporaneous evidence of their intent that is anything but theoretical. And besides, any position can have multiple arguments in it's favor, and only be stronger for it. As an attorney I'm sure you know putting all your chips on a single argument or relying on conditions not to change and possibly weaken your position is a dicey strategy
  #207  
Old 12-18-2018, 10:01 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
By Canadian standards it's a bloodbath but if you're happy with it, good for you.
Canada has a tenth the population of the USA, and of course 10000 would be huge. Currently, they run under a thousand, which is a better rate than the USA, but not by a whole lot. But Canada is lucky in that it's population and income disparity is more homogenous than the CSA.
  #208  
Old 12-19-2018, 06:39 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, just like with heavy weapons- The good that such laws do- preventing the mass slaughter of thousands - is worth the small infringement on our 2nd Ad rights, since so few want howitzers anyway.
Now this is an actual answer. It's OK to ban certain weapons because doing so prevents the mass slaughter of thousands of people. It's sensible and logical, and is also the exact reason why I'm a gun grabber.

Despite the fact that gun grabbers like myself are portrayed as wanting to take away your rights, we ALL generally agree that taking rights away is perfectly acceptable, when the good that is done outweighs the negatives.

We're not trying to decide whether or not it's OK to ban guns, we're haggling over where the line is drawn.
  #209  
Old 12-19-2018, 06:53 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Canada has a tenth the population of the USA, and of course 10000 would be huge. Currently, they run under a thousand, which is a better rate than the USA, but not by a whole lot. But Canada is lucky in that it's population and income disparity is more homogenous than the CSA.
That "lack of homogeneity" thing comes up a lot, I notice. It seems a handy thing to blame your problems on as well as your inability to address your problems.

Maybe you could manage your guns more responsibly if you weren't so systemically racist.

And the Canadian per-capita rate of gun-related murders actually is "a whole lot" better than the U.S. A mass shooting in Canada (we get them occasionally) actually does affect the stats, while similar or worse shootings in the U.S. get lost in statistical noise.
  #210  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:36 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, just like with heavy weapons- The good that such laws do- preventing the mass slaughter of thousands - is worth the small infringement on our 2nd Ad rights, since so few want howitzers anyway.
Hold on. You are saying that banning heavy weapons prevents the mass slaughter of thousands? I thought you said gun bans do nothing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
That "lack of homogeneity" thing comes up a lot, I notice. It seems a handy thing to blame your problems on as well as your inability to address your problems.
It's always used as code for "Black people are in our country causing the problems"
  #211  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:36 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodalicious View Post
Free speech never killed a bunch of six year olds in a school, or party goers in a bar, or people enjoying music in a park.

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk
The vast majority of gun owners in the US never have killed anyone.

You don't seem to realize that one person is not responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own a gun
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #212  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:46 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Every other civilized country has practically resolved its gun violence problems without transforming itself into a terrifying Orwellian dystopia. The US is the only one that clings to asinine arguments like these.
Have you ever considered that Americans don't want to be like every other country?

I personally do not care what the laws are in any other country because quite frankly I don't want to live in any other country.

Americans have always been wary of their own government I know I am.

And no I don't think there will be some SHTF type of conflict between citizens and the government but I do believe that I have a right to own a firearm and that as long as I do not commit crimes have the right to own any firearm I want. (nuclear bombs are not firearms so let's not go there)

What people who don't live in the US fail to realize is that over 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides and personally I believe a person has the right to decide to live or die.

As far as murders are concerned 70% of all murders occur in very small, very well defined areas in just 2% of all the counties in the country and are for the most part young urban minorities killing other young urban minorities which is why the people here do nothing about it. Thinking that telling law abiding people they can't own a gun will stop this urban violence is naive
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix

Last edited by Blues Man; 12-19-2018 at 10:48 AM.
  #213  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:50 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues Man View Post
You don't seem to realize that one person is not responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own a gun
Excellent point.

Of course, you damn well are responsible if you fight to ensure that criminals have an ample supply of deadly weapons to kill people with.
  #214  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:53 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
That "lack of homogeneity" thing comes up a lot, I notice. It seems a handy thing to blame your problems on as well as your inability to address your problems.

Maybe you could manage your guns more responsibly if you weren't so systemically racist.

And the Canadian per-capita rate of gun-related murders actually is "a whole lot" better than the U.S. A mass shooting in Canada (we get them occasionally) actually does affect the stats, while similar or worse shootings in the U.S. get lost in statistical noise.
The gun violence in the US is almost entirely an urban, inner city phenomenon.

The violence is the worst in urban areas that are historically poor, minority, subjected to segregation, unemployment, under employment and poor schools where gangs and illegal drugs are prevalent.

You are right that it is a result of the history of racism in this country.

But it is not guns that cause this problem

Gun violence is a symptom of the real problem and holding law abiding gun owners who will never commit a crime with or without a gun responsible for this is ridiculous.
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #215  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:57 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Excellent point.

Of course, you damn well are responsible if you fight to ensure that criminals have an ample supply of deadly weapons to kill people with.
I'm all for having a bourbon or 4 but that in no way means I am responsible for the guy who drives drunk and mows down a dozen old ladies.

The fact is the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime. Criminals will not obey gun laws so I really don't see how you stop criminals from getting guns by prohibiting law abiding people from owning guns.
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #216  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:58 AM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
That "lack of homogeneity" thing comes up a lot, I notice. It seems a handy thing to blame your problems on as well as your inability to address your problems.

Maybe you could manage your guns more responsibly if you weren't so systemically racist.

And the Canadian per-capita rate of gun-related murders actually is "a whole lot" better than the U.S. A mass shooting in Canada (we get them occasionally) actually does affect the stats, while similar or worse shootings in the U.S. get lost in statistical noise.
If you're going to deny the correlation between a heterogeneous population as a cause of increased criminality or conflict in general then you're going to have a problem with quite a few criminologists and sociologists. Also, political scientists, anthropologists and historians. Because it's an accepted fact in all of those fields and social science in general. And if you view that position as ipso facto racist, well...

People tend to get along better with people that are more like themselves and come into more conflict with people who are different. Whether the difference is based on "race", culture/subculture, ethnicity, religion, social class or geography or other factors. And often those characteristics are inextricably linked. With regards to "race" it often bears some relationship with other factors so that they're not easily distinguishable. Race and culture/subculture, race and ethnicity, race and geography, social class, religion etc.

In the US one only need look at the history of ethnocentric neighborhoods (for lack of a better or more accurate term) and ethnically based criminal organizations (the Mafia, Tongs, Yardies, Yakuza, Latino gangs, skinheads, etc) and their history of conflict with each other. Really pretty obvious stuff if you think about. And the US, which is far more diverse than most countries in the world, bears that cost of people being people to a disproportionate degree. It's the downside of our diversity.
  #217  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:59 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues Man View Post
What people who don't live in the US fail to realize is that over 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides and personally I believe a person has the right to decide to live or die.
Back in the day, about 50% of UK suicides were accomplished via gas asphyxiation. This is because they used Coal Gas instead of Natural Gas, CG has a high proportion of carbon monoxide, making it a very convenient way to off oneself.

The UK transitioned to NG, which is no damn good for killing yourself. What do you think happened to the suicide rate in the UK? Surprising exactly nobody who put any thought into it, the suicide rate dropped significantly during the transition to natural gas, then stabilized at the lower level.

Turns out, when you take away an easy and convenient way to kill oneself, fewer people kill themselves. That desire to kill yourself, that span of time when you're actually willing to do the deed tends to be temporary. If a person survives that time in their life, they tend to not kill themselves quite as often.
  #218  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:04 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues Man View Post
I'm all for having a bourbon or 4 but that in no way means I am responsible for the guy who drives drunk and mows down a dozen old ladies.
If bourbon was designed to kill old ladies, I might be in favor of banning it.

Before you explain how guns aren't designed to kill people, rest assured that whatever you claim they are actually designed to do, there's a way to accomplish exactly that, with the device being far less dangerous to people than guns are.
  #219  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:06 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues Man View Post
Have you ever considered that Americans don't want to be like every other country?

I personally do not care what the laws are in any other country because quite frankly I don't want to live in any other country.

Americans have always been wary of their own government I know I am.

And no I don't think there will be some SHTF type of conflict between citizens and the government but I do believe that I have a right to own a firearm and that as long as I do not commit crimes have the right to own any firearm I want. (nuclear bombs are not firearms so let's not go there)

What people who don't live in the US fail to realize is that over 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides and personally I believe a person has the right to decide to live or die.

As far as murders are concerned 70% of all murders occur in very small, very well defined areas in just 2% of all the counties in the country and are for the most part young urban minorities killing other young urban minorities which is why the people here do nothing about it. Thinking that telling law abiding people they can't own a gun will stop this urban violence is naive
All of this needs repeated because like you, I keep hearing the same arguments. So the UK and Australia have banned guns? That's up to them. If they want to give up a basic freedom in pursuit of a left wing dream of a violence free society, then that is, again, up to them.

But I'm not agreeing to that here. I have owned guns my entire life and have never killed one single person. Taking away my guns will do nothing to help anyone. I'm sure not going to agree to it because Nancy Pelosi says I should.

And I agree that the left wants to inflate gun deaths by including suicides in the count. That's ridiculous. It is certainly tragic when a person makes a decision that his life is irredeemable and that his problems will not get any better such that he decides to end it all. But the the gun did not do that. The gun did not load itself, jump into his hand and point itself at his head.

The crime in the inner cities is something that nobody wants to talk about because as soon as you do, then you risk being called a racist, so that can always gets kicked down the road.

It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people think that banning guns will stop gun crime. If that is so, why do we still have illegal drugs in this country? Drugs are consumable whereas guns are not. If I use drugs this week, I need more next week. A gun can be used by my great grandchildren. I have a shotgun that was owned by my great grandfather's brother. It still functions just like it did when new.

How will we be able to successfully ban guns when we cannot stop drugs?
  #220  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:10 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues Man View Post
I'm all for having a bourbon or 4 but that in no way means I am responsible for the guy who drives drunk and mows down a dozen old ladies.

The fact is the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime. Criminals will not obey gun laws so I really don't see how you stop criminals from getting guns by prohibiting law abiding people from owning guns.
Because the guns will be much, much harder for them to get. Does that seriously not make sense to you?

Currently, a "criminal" who wants a gun can either buy it in the store (assuming he has no record), steal it from another private gun owner, or purchase a gun illegally from his fellow criminals. If guns are taken out of circulation, that means he can neither buy nor steal the gun because there are no guns to steal. This means the guns must be imported by other criminals, and the criminal who wants to buy a gun must cultivate contacts with black marketers.

This (A) allows more opportunity to intercept the criminals at any stage of the importation process and (B) it allows us to readily distinguish the so-called 'good guys' from the 'bad guys' because anyone with a gun can be presumed to be a 'bad guy.' But most importantly, (C) it just makes the guns fucking harder to get. This means impulsive criminals with no money and no black market contacts have no means to acquire an illegal gun. Most criminals are utter morons who do not plot their crimes well in advance and do not want to put effort into setting the conditions. By taking away guns from the so-called 'law abiding' we immediately eliminate every impulsive domestic violence shooting, most suicide, and practically all shootings committed by children. Other criminals will be dissuaded by the prohibitive costs and the risks required just to get started in their enterprise. When you make it harder to commit a crime, fewer criminals put forth the effort.

What part of this is confusing to you?

Last edited by JB99; 12-19-2018 at 11:14 AM.
  #221  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:28 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How will we be able to successfully ban guns when we cannot stop drugs?
Something tells me that drugs are somewhat higher value per unit of volume than guns, and might be easier to smuggle in, or create yourself from raw materials.




Psst, can I get a dime bag of Glock?
  #222  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:35 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Something tells me that drugs are somewhat higher value per unit of volume than guns, and might be easier to smuggle in, or create yourself from raw materials.

Psst, can I get a dime bag of Glock?
Seriously. Like any random Honduran can grow an AR-15 in his back yard.
  #223  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:39 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Something tells me that drugs are somewhat higher value per unit of volume than guns, and might be easier to smuggle in, or create yourself from raw materials.




Psst, can I get a dime bag of Glock?
I think the last stat I saw was that there were 300 million guns in the United States. If we passed a law tomorrow that said melt them all down, and we had a 90% compliance rate, we would still have 30 million guns, now with every single one of them in the hands of a criminal.

Is that a country you want to live in? Before, if a criminal tried to invade my house, I would have a chance because I would shoot back. Now, my family simply gets to die, but the sacrifice was for a left wing goal of a world without guns, so that must be a noble one.
  #224  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:39 AM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Because the guns will be much, much harder for them to get. Does that seriously not make sense to you?

Currently, a "criminal" who wants a gun can either buy it in the store (assuming he has no record), steal it from another private gun owner, or purchase a gun illegally from his fellow criminals. If guns are taken out of circulation, that means he can neither buy nor steal the gun because there are no guns to steal. This means the guns must be imported by other criminals, and the criminal who wants to buy a gun must cultivate contacts with black marketers.

This (A) allows more opportunity to intercept the criminals at any stage of the importation process and (B) it allows us to readily distinguish the so-called 'good guys' from the 'bad guys' because anyone with a gun can be presumed to be a 'bad guy.' But most importantly, (C) it just makes the guns fucking harder to get. This means impulsive criminals with no money and no black market contacts have no means to acquire an illegal gun. Most criminals are utter morons who do not plot their crimes well in advance and do not want to put effort into setting the conditions. By taking away guns from the so-called 'law abiding' we immediately eliminate every impulsive domestic violence shooting, most suicide, and practically all shootings committed by children. Other criminals will be dissuaded by the prohibitive costs and the risks required just to get started in their enterprise. When you make it harder to commit a crime, fewer criminals put forth the effort.

What part of this is confusing to you?
Unsurprisingly it's not that simple. If something which people desire to possess is made illegal then you're going to create or expand the black market for that contraband. Many drugs are illegal throughout the US and yet hundreds upon hundreds of tons of drugs of various types are smuggled into the US every year. And since making something contraband can greatly increase it's value you're probably going to increase the black market exponentially and the cartels and other criminal organizations will start smuggling in an increased number of guns along with the drugs.

Not to mention that some of the methods for detecting drug smuggling wouldn't work for detecting guns or gun parts to be assembled in country. It would also be much simpler to create a criminal enterprise for manufacturing guns within our borders and detecting and identifying their presence would suffer the same problems as doing so at the borders but to an even greater degree. Not saying it wouldn't have it's social benefits but it would also have its costs. And those costs could well outweigh the benefits.
  #225  
Old 12-19-2018, 11:41 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Because the guns will be much, much harder for them to get. Does that seriously not make sense to you?

Currently, a "criminal" who wants a gun can either buy it in the store (assuming he has no record), steal it from another private gun owner, or purchase a gun illegally from his fellow criminals. If guns are taken out of circulation, that means he can neither buy nor steal the gun because there are no guns to steal. This means the guns must be imported by other criminals, and the criminal who wants to buy a gun must cultivate contacts with black marketers.

This (A) allows more opportunity to intercept the criminals at any stage of the importation process and (B) it allows us to readily distinguish the so-called 'good guys' from the 'bad guys' because anyone with a gun can be presumed to be a 'bad guy.' But most importantly, (C) it just makes the guns fucking harder to get. This means impulsive criminals with no money and no black market contacts have no means to acquire an illegal gun. Most criminals are utter morons who do not plot their crimes well in advance and do not want to put effort into setting the conditions. By taking away guns from the so-called 'law abiding' we immediately eliminate every impulsive domestic violence shooting, most suicide, and practically all shootings committed by children. Other criminals will be dissuaded by the prohibitive costs and the risks required just to get started in their enterprise. When you make it harder to commit a crime, fewer criminals put forth the effort.

What part of this is confusing to you?
The part where you waive your magic wand and make guns disappear. With 300 million guns out there, now all illegal, if I am a criminal, I just need to get my hands on one. And that gun will still be in use by my great-grandchildren.
  #226  
Old 12-19-2018, 12:45 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Is that a country you want to live in? Before, if a criminal tried to invade my house, I would have a chance because I would shoot back. Now, my family simply gets to die, but the sacrifice was for a left wing goal of a world without guns, so that must be a noble one.
I'll inform your next of kin of your noble sacrifice, Hopalong. It's amazing how I've lived in this hellhole called the United States without having a veritable arsenal in my house, ready to drill potential thugs, terrorists and other nogoodnicks at a moment's notice, apparently carrying at least one weapon in hand at all times because Mr. Scumbag usually forgets to warn me adequately before he crashes through my front to violate my Cocker Spaniel. My gawwwd, what was I thinking? What of the children??

__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #227  
Old 12-19-2018, 01:00 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Is that a country you want to live in? Before, if a criminal tried to invade my house, I would have a chance because I would shoot back. Now, my family simply gets to die, but the sacrifice was for a left wing goal of a world without guns, so that must be a noble one.
This is how I already live, along with 200 million other gun-free Americans.

Except, of course, it's just so much easier for criminals to get guns today than under your "nightmare" scenario.
  #228  
Old 12-19-2018, 01:25 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I'll inform your next of kin of your noble sacrifice, Hopalong. It's amazing how I've lived in this hellhole called the United States without having a veritable arsenal in my house, ready to drill potential thugs, terrorists and other nogoodnicks at a moment's notice, apparently carrying at least one weapon in hand at all times because Mr. Scumbag usually forgets to warn me adequately before he crashes through my front to violate my Cocker Spaniel. My gawwwd, what was I thinking? What of the children??

I've never been in a situation where a seatbelt, a helmet, or a safety harness has saved my life. It does not follow that these things are not needed or are not valuable. It is good that you have been fortunate so far in your life, but others have not been. Likewise, I have thankfully never had the occasion to even point a gun at another human.

Your argument seems to be the equivalent of since I have never been in a serious car wreck, then there is just no purpose to wearing a seatbelt or having airbags in my car.

But, surely you have heard of people murdered during home invasions and you have heard of homeowners literally saving their families' lives by having a gun to protect themselves.
  #229  
Old 12-19-2018, 01:28 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This is how I already live, along with 200 million other gun-free Americans.

Except, of course, it's just so much easier for criminals to get guns today than under your "nightmare" scenario.
My point is that it is now easily and will forever be easy for criminals to get guns. That's one of the things that criminals do: get shit that they are not supposed to get.

Especially when you are talking about something that takes only a single acquisition that will last for four generations. You haven't addressed that.

If I have a heroin habit, I need to get my fix today, tomorrow, next week, etc. Yet we still cannot stop that. How are we going to stop a one time only necessary acquisition?
  #230  
Old 12-19-2018, 01:42 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,414
Gun control is your seatbelt when it comes to risk of being killed by a gun, be it at your own hand or someone else's.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

Last edited by Muffin; 12-19-2018 at 01:46 PM.
  #231  
Old 12-19-2018, 01:51 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This is how I already live, along with 200 million other gun-free Americans.

Except, of course, it's just so much easier for criminals to get guns today than under your "nightmare" scenario.
Not to mention entire countries where guns are heavily restricted.

I return to a point I made in an earlier thread: Other countries solved their gun problems, and America can’t. So I guess they must just be smarter than us. Because literally nothing else makes sense.
  #232  
Old 12-19-2018, 01:53 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Unsurprisingly it's not that simple. If something which people desire to possess is made illegal then you're going to create or expand the black market for that contraband. Many drugs are illegal throughout the US and yet hundreds upon hundreds of tons of drugs of various types are smuggled into the US every year. And since making something contraband can greatly increase it's value you're probably going to increase the black market exponentially and the cartels and other criminal organizations will start smuggling in an increased number of guns along with the drugs.

Not to mention that some of the methods for detecting drug smuggling wouldn't work for detecting guns or gun parts to be assembled in country. It would also be much simpler to create a criminal enterprise for manufacturing guns within our borders and detecting and identifying their presence would suffer the same problems as doing so at the borders but to an even greater degree. Not saying it wouldn't have it's social benefits but it would also have its costs. And those costs could well outweigh the benefits.
... And yet other countries seem to be doing just fine, with massive reductions in gun ownership and gun violence.

I wonder why that is.
  #233  
Old 12-19-2018, 01:53 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
My point is that it is now easily and will forever be easy for criminals to get guns. That's one of the things that criminals do: get shit that they are not supposed to get.
I'm not some idiot who thinks this will magically eliminate violence overnight. This is the long game.

You get 90+% of guns off the street with a program, now we are dealing with a much smaller population of weapons to deal with over the ensuing decades. Criminals who have guns need to keep them secret, otherwise one of their "friends" will use that info to cut a deal the next time they're in trouble. Want to buy a gun, you need to find a seller, but sellers have to be very wary of stings, since the punishment for selling a banned weapon is likely to be extreme. Straw sales are completely over.

It will "forever" be easy for criminals to get guns... Will Conservatives ever tire of believing that Americans are useless idiots? That we can accomplish NOTHING we put our minds to?
  #234  
Old 12-19-2018, 02:04 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I'm not some idiot who thinks this will magically eliminate violence overnight. This is the long game.

You get 90+% of guns off the street with a program, now we are dealing with a much smaller population of weapons to deal with over the ensuing decades. Criminals who have guns need to keep them secret, otherwise one of their "friends" will use that info to cut a deal the next time they're in trouble. Want to buy a gun, you need to find a seller, but sellers have to be very wary of stings, since the punishment for selling a banned weapon is likely to be extreme. Straw sales are completely over.

It will "forever" be easy for criminals to get guns... Will Conservatives ever tire of believing that Americans are useless idiots? That we can accomplish NOTHING we put our minds to?
Then tell me why we cannot get rid of heroin. Everything you said applies to that. Nobody should be buying heroin because their friends would rat them out. Nobody should be selling heroin because the penalties are steep.

And, respectfully, you are skipping over how you get 90+% of the guns off of the street. Outlaw them tomorrow and I will turn mine in. I'm a law abiding citizen and not a revolutionary radical. I turn my guns in and that doesn't make you any safer because I am not going to attack you with my guns.

But Jimmy the Crack Dealer will not be turning his in. He is also violating the law with stiff penalties, so what is one more? So, congrats, you have made every person who would not harm you with a gun, and indeed would likely protect you with their gun if you needed it, surrender theirs while you still have the criminals with guns that will last nearly forever.

You're a smart guy; you have to understand this. Prohibition would have worked if things worked like you are saying.
  #235  
Old 12-19-2018, 02:11 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Now this is an actual answer. It's OK to ban certain weapons because doing so prevents the mass slaughter of thousands of people. It's sensible and logical, and is also the exact reason why I'm a gun grabber.

Despite the fact that gun grabbers like myself are portrayed as wanting to take away your rights, we ALL generally agree that taking rights away is perfectly acceptable, when the good that is done outweighs the negatives.

We're not trying to decide whether or not it's OK to ban guns, we're haggling over where the line is drawn.
Sure. SCOTUS had even supplied you gun grabbers with a list of perfectly Constitutional gun controls.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

But you cant ban large classes of guns, like all handguns or all semi-automatics. "Assault weapons" are a maybe, depending on how defined.
  #236  
Old 12-19-2018, 02:14 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Every other civilized country has practically resolved its gun violence problems without transforming itself into a terrifying Orwellian dystopia. The US is the only one that clings to asinine arguments like these.
So Russia, Mexico, Peru, and about 90 other nations aren't "civilized" eh?
  #237  
Old 12-19-2018, 02:15 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Excellent point.

Of course, you damn well are responsible if you fight to ensure that criminals have an ample supply of deadly weapons to kill people with.

We dont want criminals to have any guns.
  #238  
Old 12-19-2018, 02:16 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But Jimmy the Crack Dealer will not be turning his in. He is also violating the law with stiff penalties, so what is one more? So, congrats, you have made every person who would not harm you with a gun, and indeed would likely protect you with their gun if you needed it, surrender theirs while you still have the criminals with guns that will last nearly forever.
I don't need to be any more worried about Jimmy tomorrow than I would be today, he has a gun today, and a gun tomorrow, what's the damn difference? The fact that Quick Draw McUltraVires doesn't have a gun to wave around if something happens? I'll take my chances with Jimmy, thanks.
Quote:
You're a smart guy; you have to understand this. Prohibition would have worked if things worked like you are saying.
Prohibition would have worked if I couldn't brew beer in my kitchen.
  #239  
Old 12-19-2018, 02:21 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So Russia, Mexico, Peru, and about 90 other nations aren't "civilized" eh?
Are you willing to move your family there?
  #240  
Old 12-19-2018, 02:26 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
... And yet other countries seem to be doing just fine, with massive reductions in gun ownership and gun violence.

I wonder why that is.
And yet other nations have lots of guns with little violent crimes, and others have very high violent crime rates with very restrictive gun laws.

I wonder why that is?
  #241  
Old 12-19-2018, 03:08 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I don't need to be any more worried about Jimmy tomorrow than I would be today, he has a gun today, and a gun tomorrow, what's the damn difference? The fact that Quick Draw McUltraVires doesn't have a gun to wave around if something happens? I'll take my chances with Jimmy, thanks.Prohibition would have worked if I couldn't brew beer in my kitchen.
So to be clear you are indeed arguing for banning guns.

We don't get such honesty in most threads or from politicians. We are told that you just want to ban bump stocks, or AR-15s, or 30 round magazines and that nobody has any intention of telling you that you cannot keep guns in your home or own hunting rifles and shotguns.

We are told that is the slippery slope logical fallacy and that your side only wants "reasonable restrictions" on guns.

Are you admitting that we were right all along?
  #242  
Old 12-19-2018, 03:14 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
...Prohibition would have worked if I couldn't brew beer in my kitchen.
Umm, no. It was Mob smuggling, not bathtub beer.
  #243  
Old 12-19-2018, 03:37 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I've never been in a situation where a seatbelt, a helmet, or a safety harness has saved my life. It does not follow that these things are not needed or are not valuable. It is good that you have been fortunate so far in your life, but others have not been. Likewise, I have thankfully never had the occasion to even point a gun at another human.

Your argument seems to be the equivalent of since I have never been in a serious car wreck, then there is just no purpose to wearing a seatbelt or having airbags in my car.
It's a pity that I cannot post one of the many "missing the point" gifs on this board...

Quote:
But, surely you have heard of people murdered during home invasions and you have heard of homeowners literally saving their families' lives by having a gun to protect themselves.
Yes. I've also heard of homeowners disarming armed home invaders. I've heard of home invaders that couldn't get in the house in the first place. I've heard of home invasions where the homeowner handed over a wad of cash and the gunmen thanked him profusely and left without firing a shot. I've heard lots of scenarios.

And stop calling me Shirley. If you're going to get personal, call me Laverne.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #244  
Old 12-19-2018, 03:40 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues Man View Post
The gun violence in the US is almost entirely an urban, inner city phenomenon.

The violence is the worst in urban areas that are historically poor, minority, subjected to segregation, unemployment, under employment and poor schools where gangs and illegal drugs are prevalent.

You are right that it is a result of the history of racism in this country.

But it is not guns that cause this problem

Gun violence is a symptom of the real problem and holding law abiding gun owners who will never commit a crime with or without a gun responsible for this is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
If you're going to deny the correlation between a heterogeneous population as a cause of increased criminality or conflict in general then you're going to have a problem with quite a few criminologists and sociologists. Also, political scientists, anthropologists and historians. Because it's an accepted fact in all of those fields and social science in general. And if you view that position as ipso facto racist, well...

People tend to get along better with people that are more like themselves and come into more conflict with people who are different. Whether the difference is based on "race", culture/subculture, ethnicity, religion, social class or geography or other factors. And often those characteristics are inextricably linked. With regards to "race" it often bears some relationship with other factors so that they're not easily distinguishable. Race and culture/subculture, race and ethnicity, race and geography, social class, religion etc.

In the US one only need look at the history of ethnocentric neighborhoods (for lack of a better or more accurate term) and ethnically based criminal organizations (the Mafia, Tongs, Yardies, Yakuza, Latino gangs, skinheads, etc) and their history of conflict with each other. Really pretty obvious stuff if you think about. And the US, which is far more diverse than most countries in the world, bears that cost of people being people to a disproportionate degree. It's the downside of our diversity.
Okay, let's explore this, shall we? I propose compiling a list of the largest 40 or 50 or any reasonable number of cities in Canada and the U.S. (for the purposes of this proposal, these two nations are considered to comprise "North America") and gathering data for each on:

1. How "homogeneous" each is (for which we will obviously have to define the term).
2. How much poverty each has (ditto).
3. How much violent crime each suffers.
4. How much violent crime specifically involving guns each suffers.
5. The per-capita gun ownership rate.
6. Any other relevant criteria, for which I am open to suggestion.

I propose one potential null hypothesis could be:

H0: The nationality of a city plays no significant role in the per-capita gun-crime rate.

I'm inclined to think this could readily be rejected, but I'm prepared to do the whole stats thing if anyone is interested. According to wikipedia, the 30 largest cities in "North America" (as defined above) are, with Canadian cities underlined:

1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Toronto
4. Chicago
5. Houston
6. Montreal
7. Philadelphia
8. Phoenix
9. San Antonio
10. San Diego
11. Dallas
12. Calgary
13. San Jose
14. Ottawa
15. Austin
16. Edmonton
17. Jacksonville
18. San Francisco
19. Indianapolis
20. Columbus
21. Fort Worth
22. Charlotte
23. Mississauga
24. Winnipeg
25. Seattle
26. Denver
27. El Paso
28. Detroit
29. Washington, D.C.
30. Boston

If there's already a flaw in the proposed methodology, best to hash it out now before data collection begins.
  #245  
Old 12-19-2018, 03:40 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Are you willing to move your family there?
There are hundreds of thousands of American expatriates living in Mexico. They say it's quite nice.
  #246  
Old 12-19-2018, 04:14 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
And stop calling me Shirley. If you're going to get personal, call me Laverne.
She died a couple of days ago, but not by a gun.
  #247  
Old 12-19-2018, 04:20 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So to be clear you are indeed arguing for banning guns.

We don't get such honesty in most threads or from politicians. We are told that you just want to ban bump stocks, or AR-15s, or 30 round magazines and that nobody has any intention of telling you that you cannot keep guns in your home or own hunting rifles and shotguns.

We are told that is the slippery slope logical fallacy and that your side only wants "reasonable restrictions" on guns.

Are you admitting that we were right all along?
I'm arguing for a policy that will save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Politicians argue for policies that will get them elected. The fact that those policies are the proximate cause of so much carnage is not my concern.
  #248  
Old 12-19-2018, 04:30 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I'm arguing for a policy that will save tens of thousands of lives a year.
.
But you have no evidence that is true. You want to do something that will cost tens or hundreds of billions, triple the prison population, and certainly cause additional deaths due to show downs- and you can't prove it will do much.

Tells you what- let's ban cigarettes. That would save 500000 lives a year. No Bill of Rights to get in the way. Wont cost much, other than cig taxes drying up.


And anyway only around 10000 gun murders a year.

Last edited by DrDeth; 12-19-2018 at 04:33 PM.
  #249  
Old 12-19-2018, 04:33 PM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Okay, let's explore this, shall we? I propose compiling a list of the largest 40 or 50 or any reasonable number of cities in Canada and the U.S. (for the purposes of this proposal, these two nations are considered to comprise "North America") and gathering data for each on:

1. How "homogeneous" each is (for which we will obviously have to define the term).
2. How much poverty each has (ditto).
3. How much violent crime each suffers.
4. How much violent crime specifically involving guns each suffers.
5. The per-capita gun ownership rate.
6. Any other relevant criteria, for which I am open to suggestion.

I propose one potential null hypothesis could be:

H0: The nationality of a city plays no significant role in the per-capita gun-crime rate.

I'm inclined to think this could readily be rejected, but I'm prepared to do the whole stats thing if anyone is interested. According to wikipedia, the 30 largest cities in "North America" (as defined above) are, with Canadian cities underlined:

1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Toronto
4. Chicago
5. Houston
6. Montreal
7. Philadelphia
8. Phoenix
9. San Antonio
10. San Diego
11. Dallas
12. Calgary
13. San Jose
14. Ottawa
15. Austin
16. Edmonton
17. Jacksonville
18. San Francisco
19. Indianapolis
20. Columbus
21. Fort Worth
22. Charlotte
23. Mississauga
24. Winnipeg
25. Seattle
26. Denver
27. El Paso
28. Detroit
29. Washington, D.C.
30. Boston

If there's already a flaw in the proposed methodology, best to hash it out now before data collection begins.
When considering the racism aspect that has led to high murder and incarceration rates for black people in the USA and high murder rates and incarceration rates for indigenous people in Canada, indigenous populations in large Canadian cities tend not to be analogous black populations in similar sized American cities. Why? Gun control.

(That being said, I live in what more often than not is the murder capital of Canada, where our police department's Board of Commissioners was just sacked for what comes down to institutional racism, but even then Baltimore's murder rate is almost ten times higher than our murder rate. Racism leads to more murders, but racism and guns lead to a hell of a lot more murders.)
  #250  
Old 12-19-2018, 04:44 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I'm arguing for a policy that will save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Politicians argue for policies that will get them elected. The fact that those policies are the proximate cause of so much carnage is not my concern.
It is misplacing the blame. Several years ago my cousin got drunk and crashed his brand new Nissan Altima with 8,000 miles on it and totaled it. Luckily he was unhurt and nobody was killed.

Was that Nissan's fault? Your side's argument implies that it is and that is silly.

You admit that your policy would keep guns in the hands of Jimmy the Crack Dealer but take mine away. How is that a net good for society?

I'm with DrDeth here. You have not at all shown that your policy would save even a single life, let alone have any societal impact except to keep guns in the hands of criminals and leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of those criminals.
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 12:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017