Another cite regarding the difference in homicide rates between culturally similar cities, with the difference being hand gun control.
BTW:
Aside from the fact that an awful lot of bombers manage to blow themselves up and that a significant number more build duds, bombing remains a rather rare phenomenon in our society. It has no bearing on day-to-day life in this society.
Removing guns, (which will not happen and I do not advocate), would reduce the number of homicides in this country. There are a number of reasons why I think that we are just going to live with the current situation and why, given our culture, attempts to remove guns will fail. None of those, however, rely on the totally silly notion that guns play no role in the number of homicides we experience as a society.
Oh, what the hell…saw the pit thread related to this, so might as well weigh in as well. Obviously this one is different enough from the other question the OP asked that the Mods are cool with it, so…
Well, as a society I guess we have an obligation to curb ALL (or at least as much as possible) violence. That’s why we have those ‘police’ dudes and dudettes after all. Otherwise we wouldn’t bother paying them money if we just wanted folks to run wild.
Have you yet been accused of being ‘anti-liberty’? If not, then I’d say the answer is ‘yes’. If so, then I suppose it’s ‘no’.
Sure, it’s possible. However, let’s not pretend here that these tactics haven’t been used exactly that way in the past by folks who DID want to outlaw all guns…and who still do in most cases. So, there is a lot of rancor attached to your, er, seemingly innocent questions…as you found out in your other thread on what the meaning of ‘well regulated’ is.
Certainly. What was it that you suggest, or are these all rhetorical questions in your OP? Are you simply asking if we can have such a discussion, or did you actually want to have one? Because if the former then this should be in IMHO or MPSIMS.
Depends…is there an actual debatable question in any of this, because it doesn’t appear that there are any, just a bunch of rhetorical questions about whether or not you can ask questions. Or something.
And you speak for…who? Yourself? Well, while that’s really assuring that you don’t want to grab all the guns and instead just want to ask a bunch of rhetorical questions, it’s hardly meaningful.
So, what do you suggest wrt less gun violence in this country, particularly in urban areas? How much gun violence do you, personally experience?
Ok, so, the answer to your OP is ‘yes’. Are we done now or do you actually have an something you want to debate?
Legalizing drugs would do a lot to reduce gun violence, IMO.
Right. NYC likely has even tougher gun control laws that Canada has.
And, sorry, as my Canadian relatives will tell you- us Yanks are not culturally all that similar to Canucks. eh?
I would say it depends on whether you are asking these questions in good faith.
If you honestly and in good faith are looking to reduce crime rates (and are not just a gun grabber), then you should support any relaxation of gun laws which is unlikely to have a significant impact on crime rates. For example you should support “shall issue” concealed carry laws.
If you honestly and in good faith are looking to reduce crime rates (and are not just a gun grabber), then you should admit that some gun laws haven’t had much impact and support the repeal of those laws.
If you honestly and in good faith are looking to reduce crime rates (and are not just a gun grabber), then you should not support laws which are clearly just “feel good” measures. For example, there is clearly not a problem in the US with people bayonetting each other. And yet many gun control advocates support bans on bayonette mounts.
My impression is that most (if not all) of the prominent people and organizations which propose new gun laws are clearly acting in bad faith. They may pretend that they want an “honest conversation,” but it’s just a lie. So they deserve to be shouted at and demonized as the gun grabbers they really are.
Please provide a cite for this.
I think you’d have a hard time proving that major Canadian cities are all that different from major American cities. We share the same media, sports, restaurants, big box stores, etc.
Apparently you fail to understand statistics.
Of course it is. Problem is that the noble endeavor of fighting crime and protecting society has been co-opted by those who desire to control citizens and serve a political agenda.
Is the NRA or any other notable gun rights organization fighting for a complete dismantling of gun laws / regulations and handing out guns to everyone? Would an initiative to achieve that get the NRA’s endorsement? As an active Endowment Member for 14 years and an active Life Member for 15 years before that, I think I have a grasp on their positions and I would argue NO, they don’t want that.
OTOH, would the organizations who would be leading and framing the “discussion” from the anti-gun side like the Brady Campaign and VPC, Million Mom March, StopHandgunViolence, Gun Control Network, etc, etc, etc, accept and support an initiative to ban guns? Of course they would, they already have done so for local handgun bans and local, state and national “Assault Weapon” bans.
Do you really think that they have any concern for the traditions and heritage of hunting or target shooting in this nation or the destructive to society “rights” claimed by gun owners LOL? Is it really unreasonable to believe they wouldn’t jump on the chance to push lawmakers to write laws completely disarming the general population of the USA?
Can we have an honest conversation about trying to curb gun violence in America or are gun-haters too focused on demonizing “law-abiding” gun owners as criminals who just haven’t been convicted yet and portraying the NRA as a terrorist organization that only wants to sell six year old’s full auto revolver bullet hoses and putting nuclear bombs on the playground instead of dangerous Jungle Gyms?
Your side must prove first that preserving / protecting the Constitution is actually a priority. Up to now the question of constitutionality is never a concern during the crafting of crime / gun policy, it only becomes important when the law is challenged. Then we have the goofy situation of government defending gun control laws written under the commerce clause as legitimate under Congress’ authority to regulate the militia. That’s why the power of appointment of judges and Justices is so important and why installing ones that will dismiss / ignore / violate the Constitution is such a priority for the left.
Well, I don’t believe you. You can claim to not want our sporting guns but if you wish to argue that the groups noted above wouldn’t take them given the chance to throw them in the bag with “Assault Weapons” and handguns, then I must respectfully disagree with you. I would like to hear your argument though, just for argument’s sake . . .
I have been debating gun control / gun rights for over 20 years with thousands of anti-gun people and the popular term now of “gun violence” is a dog whistle term that is nothing but a head fake and this thread is evidence of that . . . All this concern for how gun-owners will react and your reassurance above as to your motives in wanting to begin a discussion on gun violence tells us that while willing to dismiss the havoc caused by the murderers, rapists and robbers walking in your midst you are willing to use that behavior as the benchmark for setting public policy. Because someone might use a gun you focus your attention on the gun and those who have the audacity to defend owning such a destructive device.
We gun rights supporters are demonized as standing in the way, being an unreasonable impediment to installing the societal structures you embrace, including but not limited to “common sense” gun control (which is why it is important to paint the NRA as not just a gun rights org. but a radical right wing org supporting all manner of right wing causes). Anti’s consider legal gun owners to be the savages of society primarily for claiming the dangerous and unnecessary right of self-defense (not recognizing the incongruity LOL).
Another reason I don’t trust you is that the people most vocal claiming to want to design gun policy are usually completely ignorant of firearms and their nomenclature; they demonstrate complete ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects (full-auto / semi=auto), let alone technical aspects like ballistics (medium caliber “Assault Weapons” being “high powered”).
What it comes down to and what poisons the discussion now is that anti’s ‘just know’ that guns are ‘bad’ and no amount of reason based discussion will dissuade that emotional based position. In fact, such ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because anti’s don’t want to seen sharing anything, even knowledge, with Neanderthal gun-nuts.
I live and raised my kids in Killadelphia. What are you gonna tell me about violent urban areas? More to the point, what are you really willing to discuss about violent urban areas?
Oh yeah, another reason I don’t trust you. Because you constantly portray us so uncaring about violence that we relax at the end of a long day shooting puppies with recordings of the “cries of mothers grieving their dead children from gun violence”. well, at least when we aren’t kinking it to Es zittern die morschen Knochen.
**More laws we do not need, become more laws they will not enforce, which becomes further evidence that more laws are needed.
**
That’s the siren song of gun control; the ineffectiveness of each new enactment proves the need for further restrictions . . . Jamaica is a perfect example of the failure of laws, now they have turned to the only thing remaining, draconian enforcement.
That is the scenario that fuels the frustration that gun owners feel and fuels our resistance to your “common sense” gun laws. The present confrontational level of discourse is a natural outcome of the constant blame for criminal or psychopathic behavior placed on gun owners and their “evil instrumentality” the NRA. This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates me and other honest gun owners.
The failure (that’s really being kind, failure means at least an attempt was made) to prosecute and incarcerate those who do break the law and your (the anti-liberty side’s) willingness to single out and demonize the law-abiding is illegitimate, unconscionable and in the end, unforgivable.
One might, if one wasn’t concerned with being PC, claim that your side and the government are the*** real ***co-conspirators and accomplices of murderers, rapists, and thugs. Government’s inaction enforcing laws and your constant blame of law-abiding gun owners (which equates a tacit absolution of criminal’s aberrant behavior) states loudly that you believe the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals are far less a threat to your concept of “society” than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
Guess what, we might finally agree on something!
[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear]
I assure you: I don’t want to take away your legally owned and used for hunting and protection guns.
[/QUOTE]
That’s good, as long as we bear a couple of things in mind
[ol][li]There are a number of anti-gun advocates who are on record as saying that they do want to ban guns, and, at least in their case, talk about gun control as a smoke screen, and [*]I need you to understand that you are also not going to take away my guns that are used for protection, hunting, target shooting, or for any other purpose no matter what it is, and that I have no legal or moral obligation to justify my gun possession to anyone - especially not to the state. [/ol]Do you see what I am saying? The burden of proof lies with you to justify why I should not possess any gun or any number of guns (and ammunition and so forth) - not in any sense that I have to justify it to you (or the government). [/li]
In other words, the proper response to questions from the government like “why do you want that gun?” is “shut the fuck up”. The government would have to show that I am a convicted felon or mentally ill or something like that to expect any other response.
Regards,
Shodan
No, I don’t, hence the reference to the vast number of firearms already in the US. And if you think many are “off the grid” now, wait until a ban comes down. Very few firearms in this country are registered, and many of the rest would just get stashed. How to get rid of them all? It’s impossible. And that’s not taking into account the gross violation of the Second Amendment that such a ban would represent, but purely on practical grounds.
It might interest you to know that Great Britain, which is culturally much closer to Canada than the U.S. is, had one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world before their 1920 Firearms Act. The laws did not lower their level of crime, they had low crime and passed the law due to fears of future crime by the working classes returning from World War One. So, can you prove that in Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, or anywhere, an instance in which gun regulation lowered gun crime?
Because I have evidence that they don’t.
I don’t think you’re ever going to get gun-confiscators to understand the concept of a control group. It’s the true lost cause here.
By the way, we should “look at ways to curb gun violence” such as: legalizing drugs, taking a harsher line on child abuse, and making birth control available and highly encouraged for people who are not financially or emotionally prepared to have children.
To all those who think the well was poisoned from the getgo in this thread, please come over to post #87 in this BBQ Pit thread and lend a hand.
[QUOTE=Leaffan]
Please provide a cite for this.
[/QUOTE]
Well, here’s a quick and dirty view of what New York Cities laws are:
Canada is a big place, and at least when I was living there I seem to recall that there isn’t one monolithic gun control law for every province, so I’ll leave it up to you to show how the laws are stricter. I know that many Canadians have guns, especially in the more rural provinces and areas.
I would have used DC as my example…I’m confident that the laws in DC are stricter than Canada as a whole (which is an apples to alligators comparison of course), or equal to or stricter than much of Europe, yet gun violence (or violence in general) is sky high there.
There is a huge difference between the demographics and racial mix of a large US city and those in Canada. We share a lot of surface similarities (how could we not being so close, not just proximity wise but in many other ways), but Canadians aren’t and never will be Americans…or vice versa. That’s a good thing, and I love Canada, but if you are trying to say that Canadian cities are like American cities then you’ve not traveled nearly enough in both countries. I’ve lived in Ottawa, Calgary and Montreal and they are nothing like when I lived in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago or LA.
In essence you’re trying to say that the difference in homicide rates between Canada and the US is due to demographics, and not gun control. I disagree.
I have provided evidence that Toronto is awash with immigrants, has problems with gangs, and yet has 1/8 the homicide rate of Chicago, a very similar city with the same population.
I really don’t know why anyone would dispute or disregard handgun control as being the prime reason for this. You’re trying desperately to look for other reasons when Occam’s razor is staring you squarely in the face.
No need to run to Canada for comparisons. The US has many large cities and homicide rates are all over the map.
NOLA: 49/100,000
San Jose: 2.1/100,000
St. Louis: 40.5
Honolulu: 2.0
Detroit: 34
Plano (TX): 1.4
Buffalo (NY): 21
NYC: 6.4
If anyone can tease some sort of cause and effect out of that, it would probably shed much light on the problem.
One thing that stands out in those statistics is that most of the cities with high homicide rates also have large populations of blacks. That is not to say that I think blacks are more violent, but blacks tend to be at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder in the US. IOW, more poverty = more gun violence.
San Jose, which is the city closest to where I live has a very large minority population (white are a net minority), but it’s still a pretty affluent area.
But that’s just a guess. Surely someone has studied this, no?
American Homicide Exceptionalism is an excellent read and largely debunks what the authors call “the instrumentality theory” of American murder rates. To address the African-American question:
So, it’s not hand guns that are to blame; it’s the poor and the black.
This graph shows the amount of homicides in the US and the weapon of choice. Honestly, I don’t understand the rationale here to blame this on anything but the availability of hand guns. How is it possible to be in such denial, and why?
Denial about what? How inanimate objects jump up and kill people at random?
But it’s the guns. That’s what is to blame. Simply having a handgun in your hand practically compels you to shoot something, apparently. There’s no need to discuss what causes people to kill, just the means of killing. That’ll solve everything.
Holy fuck. “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”
Especially if a fucking hand gun is fucking available at the fucking moment.
You’re all in denial. Complete and utter denial.