Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:31 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
We already tried bans on handguns...
"We" did? Must have missed that.

Some jurisdictions have.

Quote:
...Banning handguns would cost tens of billions, put millions in prison...
You keep saying that, and it's still risible. You seem to be suggesting that "millions of people" would rather go to jail than give up their handguns in some hypothetical blanket ban (for which, again, almost no one is arguing). That's just nonsense.
  #502  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:55 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Surely there would be some. But the rest are, as they themselves constantly reassure us, "law-abiding citizens".
  #503  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:19 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
"We" did? Must have missed that.

Some jurisdictions have.



You keep saying that, and it's still risible. You seem to be suggesting that "millions of people" would rather go to jail than give up their handguns in some hypothetical blanket ban (for which, again, almost no one is arguing). That's just nonsense.
Yep, and it didnt work there.

People would forget, some wouldn't get the word, some would try to fly under the radar. We are talking 100 Million gun owners.
  #504  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:41 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
We already tried bans on handguns- they didnt work.
I said this earlier: "And as I've said, strong gun control laws in just select states are of course not going to address the problem."

I assume you are talking about bans in only certain areas of the US. You however, refuse to address my above statement. Please do so now. That is, tell me if you think it makes sense to judge the effectiveness of handgun bans when they are only done piecemeal. Tell me if you do not understand the idea that if you only ban guns in one state, people can just go over the state line and buy them elsewhere.

Quote:
Except that there is no evidence that gun control laws would reduce violent crime. They never have- why should they then if we just make them stronger?
I agree. That time we banned water pistol handguns did absolutely no good. I am of course being facetious. I am just trying to illustrate the idea that if you only pass gun control laws that are doomed to failure from the beginning, like background checks and the like, which may stop a death here or there, but no more, it's very easy to say they don't work, so why bother with more. I say, do bother with more, but only with those that are actually going to have a major effect.
  #505  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:52 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Surely there would be some. But the rest are, as they themselves constantly reassure us, "law-abiding citizens".
And we should all be glad that the 100 million gun owners and their 3-400 millions guns are mostly law abiding.
  #506  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:07 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I said this earlier: "And as I've said, strong gun control laws in just select states are of course not going to address the problem."

I assume you are talking about bans in only certain areas of the US. You however, refuse to address my above statement. Please do so now. That is, tell me if you think it makes sense to judge the effectiveness of handgun bans when they are only done piecemeal. Tell me if you do not understand the idea that if you only ban guns in one state, people can just go over the state line and buy them elsewhere.


...
And I agree. Of course strong gun control laws in most states wont work. Strong gun control laws across the nation- wont work.

Well, yes, but since any stronger bans (and in fact those bans) are Unconstitutional, it will be very hard to judge anything strong. However, we all admit that those bans didn't work, so why your assumption that more and stronger bans will?

You do know that "people can just go over the state line and buy them elsewhere.\ is a Federal crime, right? So, why hasn't that stopped them?
  #507  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:55 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And I agree. Of course strong gun control laws in most states wont work. Strong gun control laws across the nation- wont work.

Well, yes, but since any stronger bans (and in fact those bans) are Unconstitutional, it will be very hard to judge anything strong. However, we all admit that those bans didn't work, so why your assumption that more and stronger bans will?

You do know that "people can just go over the state line and buy them elsewhere.\ is a Federal crime, right? So, why hasn't that stopped them?
You're just not getting what I'm saying. I have no other way to say it.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-10-2019 at 08:56 PM.
  #508  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:58 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You're just not getting what I'm saying. I have no other way to say it.
You have to get the difference between:

You dont understand

you dont agree.

I dont agree with you. I understand your points. But I see no reason to try a crazy experiment that will cost billions and put millions in prison- and might not work. The initial trials show that it wont work.

Doubling down and going for broke is not the prudent way.
  #509  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:32 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,232
You already have millions in prison and they're overcrowded. You seriously millions more will join them? Forget building Trump's wall, you'd have to import millions of immigrants just to keep the country operating.

Basically, I mock your objections as silly because you've pegged them to a ridiculous idea.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 01-11-2019 at 12:33 AM.
  #510  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:58 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You have to get the difference between:

You dont understand

you dont agree.

I dont agree with you. I understand your points. But I see no reason to try a crazy experiment that will cost billions and put millions in prison- and might not work. The initial trials show that it wont work.

Doubling down and going for broke is not the prudent way.
If what you said: "And I agree. Of course strong gun control laws in most states wont work."

Means: Having strong gun controls in one state won't solve the issue. We need strong gun control laws in every state in order for them all to be effective.

Then: I have in fact got my point across. Does what you say mean that?

As far as trying experiments that might not work, god help us all if scientists from the past thought like that, or still do today. Not that gun control should be one big science project, but surely that is not a general reason not to explore possibilities.
  #511  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:06 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
And just to follow up, you also said, "However, we all admit that those bans didn't work..." But I did not admit that, in so many words. IOW, I admit that one isolated ban didn't work, but not the idea that across the board bans won't work. That is why I think I did not get my point across.
  #512  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:37 AM
Muffin Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As far as trying experiments that might not work, god help us all if scientists from the past thought like that, or still do today. Not that gun control should be one big science project, but surely that is not a general reason not to explore possibilities.
The gun lovers have been diligent at blocking a science based approach to the USA's gun death problem: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gun...-health-issue/
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 01-11-2019 at 10:37 AM.
  #513  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:31 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
The gun lovers have been diligent at blocking a science based approach to the USA's gun death problem: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gun...-health-issue/
Yeah, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about those particular gun nuts.
  #514  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:49 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
The article you linked to mentioned bump stocks, the banning of which is just one of the many worthless "gun control" measures that I was alluding to up thread. I won't bother linking, but you can easily find the materials to make your own bump stock at home for $10 or so. Hell, some of the rifles for sale today don't even need that. With a little practice, you can simulate bump stock action with no tools at all. Same idea for background checks. Oh, I suppose they might prevent a death here and there, but these too are no solution to the problem. In the same way that 0 + 0 + 0 ad infinitum always adds up to 0, a whole slew of ineffective "gun control" laws will always add up to virtually nothing.

So, gun control advocates, stop advocating for "gun control", and start advocating for real gun control if you really want to see deaths decrease.
  #515  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:06 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
If what you said: "And I agree. Of course strong gun control laws in most states wont work."

Means: Having strong gun controls in one state won't solve the issue. We need strong gun control laws in every state in order for them all to be effective.

Then: I have in fact got my point across. Does what you say mean that?

As far as trying experiments that might not work, god help us all if scientists from the past thought like that, or still do today. Not that gun control should be one big science project, but surely that is not a general reason not to explore possibilities.

Yes, I understand that you think that We need strong gun control laws in every state in order for them all to be effective. However, i disagree. I dont think there will be any significant reduction in violent crime even if so.

The cost for such a social experiment is far too high. Violent crime is already decreasing, even while the number of guns is increasing.
  #516  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:10 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
And just to follow up, you also said, "However, we all admit that those bans didn't work..." But I did not admit that, in so many words. IOW, I admit that one isolated ban didn't work, but not the idea that across the board bans won't work. That is why I think I did not get my point across.
Yes, you admitted that those bans didn't work. "those' being the several citywide bans that have been tried.
  #517  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:18 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
The gun lovers have been diligent at blocking a science based approach to the USA's gun death problem: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gun...-health-issue/
Actually that is totally false. The Dickey Amendment only bans :ďnone of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] may be used to advocate or promote gun control.Ē

That was because several studies put out by the CDC were put out by a admittedly biased team, who designed a odd non-standard stratagem, one never used before for that sort of study, with the already decided upon end result that guns were bad. That is exactly how science is not supposed to work.

Meanwhile, scientific studies by criminologists, using standard sociological methods, showed the opposite- or showed results that were ambivalent.

Doctors who already want to ban guns are not the ones to put out a study on gun violence. And all the Dickey Amendment did was ban the funding of studies at the CDC with the intent to advocate or promote gun control. It didnt stop private orgs, like the RAND corp or similar think tanks from doing their own study- which they have- and again, with results different than the biased studies done by the CDC.

Criminologists are the right ones to do such studies. And they have done so.
  #518  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:59 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, I understand that you think that We need strong gun control laws in every state in order for them all to be effective. However, i disagree. I dont think there will be any significant reduction in violent crime even if so.
Okay, then I'm glad I made my point at least. And yes, we disagree.
  #519  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:21 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, you admitted that those bans didn't work. "those' being the several citywide bans that have been tried.
You keep using the word "admit". Does it have a different meaning to you than to me? Because to me, it means to acknowledge the error of your ways, or to say that you have made a mistake of some kind. I did not admit to anything, and I think you are using that word because you want to imply that you've corrected me in some way. I have maintained from the beginning that a local ban won't work, cannot work, in no way should be expected to work. That is not an admission of anything.

As for why you don't think a country-wide ban would work, are you talking about gun control so that the number of guns is this country is drastically reduced? Or laws like bump-stock banning, or background checks, or preventing a father from handing down a gun to his kid?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-11-2019 at 08:24 PM. Reason: typo
  #520  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:35 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Under this analysis, could the government say that your right to free speech is satisfied by being permitted to whisper in your own home only? Please show how that conclusion is any different than your argument regarding the 2nd Amendment.

Hint: when your analysis leads to to believe that a right recognized by the Bill of Rights is "mostly meaningless" you have made a mistake somewhere.
You are assuming that the 2nd was meant to ensure the government could not restrict any arms (it says nothing about guns). That means any weapon whatsoever.

That is ridiculous on the face of it and even justice Scalia didn't think it should go that far (and said so in Heller). Indeed they restrict you from far more things than they allow.

So where is the line drawn?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 01-11-2019 at 11:35 PM.
  #521  
Old 01-12-2019, 03:21 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You are assuming that the 2nd was meant to ensure the government could not restrict any arms (it says nothing about guns). That means any weapon whatsoever.

That is ridiculous on the face of it and even justice Scalia didn't think it should go that far (and said so in Heller). Indeed they restrict you from far more things than they allow.

So where is the line drawn?
All our rights under the Bill of Rights have limitations, none are absolute.

Even under the 1st, you can't commit slander, libel or possess child porn. You can't copy other people's works, either.

No right is absolute.
  #522  
Old 01-12-2019, 03:12 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Under this analysis, could the government say that your right to free speech is satisfied by being permitted to whisper in your own home only? Please show how that conclusion is any different than your argument regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Your implication is utterly ridiculous. And from a lawyer no less.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-12-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #523  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:38 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, I understand that you think that We need strong gun control laws in every state in order for them all to be effective. However, i disagree. I dont think there will be any significant reduction in violent crime even if so.

The cost for such a social experiment is far too high. Violent crime is already decreasing, even while the number of guns is increasing.
Itís not an experiment. Many other countries have done exactly what we are proposing and have achieved the desired results. America is still literally the only civilized country that just refuses to impose the obvious and effective solutions.

And people like you who keep making the same failed argument while ignoring the evidence are the root of the problem. But none of this is news to you. How many times does someone have to repeat the same facts before you actually listen?
  #524  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:13 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Itís not an experiment. Many other countries have done exactly what we are proposing and have achieved the desired results. America is still literally the only civilized country that just refuses to impose the obvious and effective solutions.

And people like you who keep making the same failed argument while ignoring the evidence are the root of the problem. But none of this is news to you. How many times does someone have to repeat the same facts before you actually listen?
I wouldn't expect a reply from DrDeth. He hasn't answered my question as to why he thinks a country-wide ban on many guns would't work, even if he is in principle against this type of effective gun control that you alluded to. I suspect it's because he doesn't have a good answer. I don't want to just assume this, so I wish he would answer.
  #525  
Old 01-13-2019, 04:57 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Itís not an experiment. Many other countries have done exactly what we are proposing and have achieved the desired results. America is still literally the only civilized country that just refuses to impose the obvious and effective solutions....
All of those nations didnt have America's level of gun ownership and violent crime, nor any sort of "gun culture". They didnt have literally around one gun per citizen. And in many cases, such as Mexico, they increased their gun controls and got more violence. Despite the fact that the USA has more guns per capita but falls almost exactly in the middle of all nations murder rate.

In other nations they have plenty of guns and only moderate gun controls- Switzerland, Finland* for example, and possibly the only other nation with a gun culture like the USA is Yemen, which has lots of guns, loosely enforced laws and a murder rate only slightly higher than average.


https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-style/273058/

* until 1998, when they were forced to tighten their guns laws due to joining the EU. This had no significant effect on their violent crime rate.
  #526  
Old 01-13-2019, 05:08 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In other nations they have plenty of guns and only moderate gun controls- Switzerland, Finland* for example, and possibly the only other nation with a gun culture like the USA is Yemen, which has lots of guns, loosely enforced laws and a murder rate only slightly higher than average.
You bring up Finland. Who cares about Finland right now? I wonder why you didn't bring up Japan. Compare their gun laws/ownership/gun death stats with ours and tell me why we couldn't have the same results here.
  #527  
Old 01-13-2019, 05:13 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I wouldn't expect a reply from DrDeth. He hasn't answered my question as to why he thinks a country-wide ban on many guns would't work, even if he is in principle against this type of effective gun control that you alluded to.
Certainly it is possible it could work. It's also possible it wont work. All indications, all gun bans and thigh gun laws in the USA- all have failed.

Like I said, it would be a experiment on the level of Prohibition, but worse. At least with prohibition, most voters were initially in favor (however, they thought beer wouldn't be banned). However, in the USA only a small number are in favor of wide reaching bans.

Perhaps violent crime would decrease. But it certainly would cost tens of billions and certainly would put millions of otherwise law abiding citizens in jail. Just like with Prohibition scofflaws would be common.


Proponents of the amendment hailed the new law as a cure for myriad social ills. Eliminating alcohol consumption would, they argued, reduce crime and corruption and lower the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses. Moreover, they contended, Prohibition would improve the health of the American public and prevent the disintegration of families.

Despite these noble intentions, alcohol prohibition was a failure on all fronts. Although alcohol consumption sharply decreased at the beginning of Prohibition, it quickly rebounded. Within a few years, alcohol consumption was between 60 and 70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level.2 The alcohol produced under Prohibition varied greatly in potency and quality, leading to disastrous health outcomes including deaths related to alcohol poisoning and overdoses. Barred from buying legal alcohol, many former alcohol users switched to substances such as opium, cocaine, and other dangerous drugs.3 Criminal syndicates formed to manufacture and distribute illegal liquors, crime increased, and corruption flourished. In light of these failures, the Eighteenth Amendment was eventually repealed in 1933.4

Few today would argue that alcohol prohibition was a wise policy. Even those who largely oppose alcohol consumption recognize the failure of the Eighteenth Amendment.


https://www.cato.org/publications/po...BoCuhwQAvD_BwE

And for another example- the war on drugs- over 2 Million arrested (mostly for marijuana! ) . Currently half of the USA prison population is there due to the failed war.

and the cost?
The monetary cost of U.S. domestic drug policy is equally remarkable. Since the War on Drugs began more than 40 years ago, the U.S. government has spent more than $1 trillion on interdiction policies. Spending on the war continues to cost U.S. taxpayers more than $51 billion annually.8

Now, that was for something the voting population quite heavily was in support of.

Still, it cost us millions in prison, and over a Trillion dollars- and we are no better off.

So, what you are proposing is another Prohibition- on guns this time.

Prohibition on booze failed disastrously. Costing billions, many incarcerated and increasing crime.

Prohibition on drugs continues to fail disastrously. Costing trillions, many incarcerated and increasing crime.

Prohibition on guns? There is no doubt in my mind: Costing trillions,many incarcerated and increasing crime.
  #528  
Old 01-13-2019, 05:19 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You bring up Finland. Who cares about Finland right now? I wonder why you didn't bring up Japan. Compare their gun laws/ownership/gun death stats with ours and tell me why we couldn't have the same results here.
Japan never had a high violent crime rate. Japan never had many guns. And Japan lost WW2, which removed all guns from the populace- altho true, there really werent many anyway.

The USA has historically had a violent crime rate higher than Japan. The USA has always had many guns and a gun culture. And- we won WW2.

Do note that the main cause of "gun deaths" in the USA is suicide. And Japan has a much higher suicide rate than America. And they dont need guns to do it.
  #529  
Old 01-13-2019, 05:46 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Japan never had a high violent crime rate. Japan never had many guns. And Japan lost WW2, which removed all guns from the populace- altho true, there really werent many anyway.

The USA has historically had a violent crime rate higher than Japan. The USA has always had many guns and a gun culture. And- we won WW2.
With the gun culture we currently have, what war would you say we are winning?
  #530  
Old 01-13-2019, 05:49 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
With the gun culture we currently have, what war would you say we are winning?
Violent crime has been on the decrease for quite some time.
  #531  
Old 01-13-2019, 06:38 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Certainly it is possible it could work.
Yes, and anyone who doesn't seriously consider this as a possibility should just admit they don't really care about the number of senseless deaths because of guns.

Quote:
It's also possible it wont work. All indications, all gun bans and thigh gun laws in the USA- all have failed.
Please stop bringing up this argument to me specifically. I have already explained why I think this won't do any good.

Quote:
Perhaps violent crime would decrease. But it certainly would cost tens of billions and certainly would put millions of otherwise law abiding citizens in jail. Just like with Prohibition scofflaws would be common.
Another thing you keep bringing it up. The next time, could you show some evidence?

Quote:
...alcohol...drugs
This is not about either of those things, so don't try to distract from the issue or draw fallacious/unsupported conclusions.

As for my Japan comment

Quote:
"... Japan was not always a low-crime, gun-intolerant nation. Guns quickly became the weapon of choice for feuding warlords after Portuguese traders introduced them to the countryís south-west in the early 1500s. Over time, Japan improved the design and performance of firearms and began mass producing them.

The beginning of the end of widespread gun ownership came when the feudal warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537-1598) unified Japan, then disarmed the peasant population by banning civilians from owning swords and firearms in 1588." -- from here.
You can continue from above, and see that over the centuries, the gun culture in Japan changed dramatically, so that now gun deaths are almost non-existent. There is no reason we cannot do the same in the US. Yes, as I have said, it won't happend over night and might take years, decades, or even a century. But it can be done!
  #532  
Old 01-13-2019, 06:50 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
...



Please stop bringing up this argument to me specifically. I have already explained why I think this won't do any good.



Another thing you keep bringing it up. The next time, could you show some evidence?



This is not about either of those things, so don't try to distract from the issue or draw fallacious/unsupported conclusions.

As for my Japan comment



You can continue from above, and see that over the centuries, the gun culture in Japan changed dramatically, so that now gun deaths are almost non-existent. There is no reason we cannot do the same in the US. Yes, as I have said, it won't happend over night and might take years, decades, or even a century. But it can be done!
Well, that's nice, can I ask that you stop bring up a argument?

300 Million guns. Let us say we ban half. 150 Million guns @ $500 each. Do the math. How much would just that cost be? And then the cost of the extra police and prisons.

It is, it is about Prohibition. Which hasnt worked in the USA.

Yes, a few Japanese warlords had guns Four Hundred fucking years ago. Matchlock muskets. That hardly equates to the USA having 300 million guns.

And, you think it can be done. I dont.

In fact I think it will increase violent crime.
  #533  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:02 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
You're concerned about that amount of money? What else do you think the government is spending too much on?

It's certainly interesting to learn that matchlock muskets of 400 years ago are irrelevant, while choosing to make a stand about something written 230 years ago when flintlock muskets had taken over. But that's your hill, and you can die on it if you like.

The logic and data that can be extrapolated to show an increase in violent crime from reducing the means to perform it are even more interesting, though.
  #534  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:06 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You're concerned about that amount of money? What else do you think the government is spending too much on?

It's certainly interesting to learn that matchlock muskets of 400 years ago are irrelevant, while choosing to make a stand about something written 230 years ago when flintlock muskets had taken over. But that's your hill, and you can die on it if you like.

The logic and data that can be extrapolated to show an increase in violent crime from reducing the means to perform it are even more interesting, though.
The War on Drugs.

Because matchlocks werent the weapon of the common man, like flintlocks were in America. More or less you were expected to own a flintlock and be part of the militia in America. Peasants were;t allowed to own any weapons at all. Japan never had many guns, they never had a gun culture.

Gun sales and ownership is increasing every year, which the trend is for a reduction in the violent crime rate. We have more guns, and less violence now.
  #535  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:55 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, that's nice, can I ask that you stop bring up a argument?

300 Million guns. Let us say we ban half. 150 Million guns @ $500 each. Do the math. How much would just that cost be? And then the cost of the extra police and prisons.

It is, it is about Prohibition. Which hasnt worked in the USA.

Yes, a few Japanese warlords had guns Four Hundred fucking years ago. Matchlock muskets. That hardly equates to the USA having 300 million guns.

And, you think it can be done. I dont.

In fact I think it will increase violent crime.
You seem to be under the impression that the only way to ban a shitload of guns is to say the government has to do a buyback when it happens. They don't. And you have no evidence about the extra cost of police and prisons. You simply saying something is not proof of anything. Do you have any?

As for Japan, you are misstating what the link I gave says. And you also demonstrate that when given evidence that it's possible to reduce guns greatly in a society that used to have them, you simply ignore it because it refutes your points and proves you wrong. That in a nutshell is what's wrong with gun owners that I've argued with before. Why not just come out and say it: you have NO interest in reducing deaths if it means giving in on anything to gun control advocates. And that's fine, it's a free country. Just say it.
  #536  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:16 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You seem to be under the impression that the only way to ban a shitload of guns is to say the government has to do a buyback when it happens. They don't. And you have no evidence about the extra cost of police and prisons. You simply saying something is not proof of anything. Do you have any?


Ah so seizure without recompense? Wow, let's go total nazi, why not?

Ok, so you're gonna take 150 Million guns away from armed citizens, without any buyback. You dont think you're gonna need a few extra cops?

And of 100 million gun owners, you dont think any are gonna resist or refuse?
  #537  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:56 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
...Why not just come out and say it: you have NO interest in reducing deaths if it means giving in on anything to gun control advocates. And that's fine, it's a free country. Just say it.
NO interest here at all for you to take away my property without compensation based on the pipe dream, without any evidence, that it might reduce some rate or another.

You can understand my trepidation when you offer the solution of taking the guns away from the folks NOT causing the problems. Maybe that's just me, but I doubt it.
  #538  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:00 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
NO interest here at all for you to take away my property without compensation based on the pipe dream, without any evidence, that it might reduce some rate or another.

You can understand my trepidation when you offer the solution of taking the guns away from the folks NOT causing the problems. Maybe that's just me, but I doubt it.
You tell me: Which category was Stephen Paddock?

Was he a 'law abiding gun owner?' Was he an American who proudly protected his Second Amendment Rights? Was he a 'good guy?' Because all available evidence shows that he had no criminal record until he just arbitrarily decided to shoot 900 people. So please, explain it to me. Because I hear so much about 'law-abiding gun owners,' and the 'good guy with a gun,' and yet over and over we see the 'law-abiding good guys' just wake up one day and decide they feel like mass murder.

But it's wrong to take away Stephen Paddock's guns because he was NOT causing the problem, until he did.

Until you can acknowledge reality, I no longer care what you think.
  #539  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:02 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And of 100 million gun owners, you dont think any are gonna resist or refuse?
Those are called 'criminals.' And I don't care what they want or what happens to them.
  #540  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:21 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Those are called 'criminals.' And I don't care what they want or what happens to them.
Ah yes, you can make anything illegal, and then they are 'criminals". Let's make being a atheist a crime. Viola- Those are called 'criminals.' And I don't care what they want or what happens to them.

Publishing stuff that insults the President:Those are called 'criminals.' And I don't care what they want or what happens to them.

Owning cars or trucks that get less than 12 MPG:Those are called 'criminals.' And I don't care what they want or what happens to them.

Or what had happened not so very long ago: Being Gay: Those are called 'criminals.' And I don't care what they want or what happens to them.

See how easy that is?
  #541  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:24 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
You tell me: Which category was Stephen Paddock?

Was he a 'law abiding gun owner?' ...

But it's wrong to take away Stephen Paddock's guns because he was NOT causing the problem, until he did.

Until you can acknowledge reality, I no longer care what you think.
So, lets make people criminal because of what they might do!

Hey, Smoking kills 500000 Americans a year. Booze kills 50000 or more. Are you a drinker? But you're a responsible drinker, right? It doesn't matter. You might drive drunk, so let's ban booze.
  #542  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:07 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Ah so seizure without recompense? Wow, let's go total nazi, why not?

Ok, so you're gonna take 150 Million guns away from armed citizens, without any buyback. You dont think you're gonna need a few extra cops?

And of 100 million gun owners, you dont think any are gonna resist or refuse?
Wait, so you make an assumption for which you have no proof or evidence to support, and then assume that your assumption proves something? Talk about . They're aren't enough.
  #543  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:10 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
NO interest here at all for you to take away my property without compensation based on the pipe dream, without any evidence, that it might reduce some rate or another.

You can understand my trepidation when you offer the solution of taking the guns away from the folks NOT causing the problems. Maybe that's just me, but I doubt it.
Fine, then if the government does give you compensation, will you be for it then? Especially given that if most guns are banned, the homicide and suicide rates by guns will absolutely, 100% surely drop dramatically.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-14-2019 at 11:10 AM.
  #544  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:15 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
DrDeth

Some more thoughts: If and when the 2nd amendment does get repealed, or if it remains but gun control laws that ban huge amounts of guns are passed, it will happen only because there is widespread support for it across the nation. If that's the case, sure, there might be a few who try to resist and for which more cops may be needed, but it seems to me the number would be negligible. It's not gonna cost the exorbitant amounts you keep throwing out.
  #545  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:19 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Fine, then if the government does give you compensation, will you be for it then? Especially given that if most guns are banned, the homicide and suicide rates by guns will absolutely, 100% surely drop dramatically.


You have absolutely no way to prove that. There's the rub. The homicide rate in the US has plummeted since highs in the early '90's without consfcating a single gun via Federal law, even more so than the rates in Australia.

Last edited by JXJohns; 01-14-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #546  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:20 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
You tell me: Which category was Stephen Paddock?

Was he a 'law abiding gun owner?' Was he an American who proudly protected his Second Amendment Rights? Was he a 'good guy?' Because all available evidence shows that he had no criminal record until he just arbitrarily decided to shoot 900 people. So please, explain it to me. Because I hear so much about 'law-abiding gun owners,' and the 'good guy with a gun,' and yet over and over we see the 'law-abiding good guys' just wake up one day and decide they feel like mass murder.

But it's wrong to take away Stephen Paddock's guns because he was NOT causing the problem, until he did.

Until you can acknowledge reality, I no longer care what you think.
My reality is called due process, presumption of innocence, etc. Come join us, we have snacks.
  #547  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:39 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
You have absolutely no way to prove that. There's the rub. The homicide rate in the US has plummeted since highs in the early '90's without consfcating a single gun via Federal law, even more so than the rates in Australia.
No, I cannot absolutely prove it. But do you seriously think that if major gun banning took place to the tune of millions and millions of guns being removed, that the homicide and suicide rates wouldn't plummet?

ETA: Gun ownership is going up. Well, what do you know, so is the homicide rate involving guns. Does it not make sense that the opposite would happen if guns are banned?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-14-2019 at 11:43 AM.
  #548  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:45 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Since 2014, the number of non-gun homicides rose by less than two percent, from 4,864 in 2014 to 4,947 in 2016. But during those same two years the number of gun homicides rose by more than 30 percent, from 11,000 to well over 14,000.

Put another way, guns alone accounted for nearly 98 percent of the observed murder rate increase between 2014 and 2016.
From my link in last post.
  #549  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:49 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
No, I cannot absolutely prove it. But do you seriously think that if major gun banning took place to the tune of millions and millions of guns being removed, that the homicide and suicide rates wouldn't plummet?
Considering the rates plummeted without a ban, I think another plummet is dubious. A reduction, maybe, but you are making a HUGE assumption that the folk who are causing the gun violence today, will somehow see the light and turn in their tools in the face of a ban.

Sure our law abiding folks will do so, probably in droves. Your problem however is that they aren't the ones causing the problems. You are somehow expecting criminals to give up the one thing that elevates their ability to project power because the Feds say so? It's already illegal for them to own firearms today. Are you convinced that making it extra illegal will change their hearts and set then on a crime free life?

Someone earlier questioned my reality, how is yours?
  #550  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:17 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Wait, so you make an assumption for which you have no proof or evidence to support, and then assume that your assumption proves something? Talk about . They're aren't enough.
You make a assumption that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce the violent crime rate.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42 AM.

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