What if everything you believe is wrong? What if I am actually from Krypton? What if magic! We could do this all day. A hypothetical question was asked, and I answered.
Perhaps. But that is not how laws in our system of government work. Certainly at a state level there are some that are more restrictive than others. In addition, the vast majority of states have decided through their system of laws to allow shall issue carry, and many states also have preemption restricting cities from enacting their own laws. So if city dwellers want to enact their preferred system, then they could live in a city that tends to align with their desires in a state that is more amiable, or they could change the laws in their state. So it’s not the gun advocates only, but the people of most of the states.
But if the idea is that state laws are not effective then the laws need to be changed at the federal level. Good luck.
I responded by answering the question given the parameters as stated. That is how I answer hypotheticals. The commentary afterwards was an assessment of the likelihood of the hypothetical.
If that was the point, then the hypothetical was ill formed. There was nothing in it about an overall assessment of safety in general, rather it talked about raw numbers. The example suffers from a common pitfall - that of only considering limited aspects of the cost/benefit calculus. You’ve continued that by extrapolating levels of safety.
I can illustrate this point easily. Let’s say I had a way to reduce the number of suicides next year to zero. Would you think that would make society more safe? What if my method was to kill every single person on earth in year 1, that way, suicide in year 2 would be zero. As you can see, reducing the rate of suicide alone is not sufficient to determine overall levels of safety.
What state is Washington D.C. in? I seem to remember they passed laws that were aligned with the majority of the voters. What happened to those laws, again? Something about Heller?
And states do have restrictions on what they can restrict. Isn’t there some law in Oregon about age requirements that is being challenged in the courts?
And as far as cities go, I do not think that states should be able to preemptively restrict a city from implementing its own laws. Why do people who do not live in the city get to dictate the way that people in the city live. Aren’t rural people all worried about city dwellers dictating how they live, even though that never happens? How do they justify doing the exact thing that they are afraid of happening to them?
Thanks for the good luck. I appreciate all the luck I can get as I am trying to save the lives of our fellow citizens and residents, while your side just wants greater and easier access to your guns. Strange that even with luck, it’s a rather uphill battle to put human life over toys.
But state laws can be effective, but effective ones are challenged in the courts, and not having a regulated border between states like we have between countries means that the laws of acquisition are going to be that of the lowest common denominator. States and municipalities can control the way that a gun is carried in public, but have very little control over what actually comes in from other areas with lax laws.
So, completely unnecessary, as many hypotheticals are floated on this board all the time that are not always all that likely.
We all know that magic is impossible, so I am not sure what adding in your own point that you too, don’t believe in magic, adds to the thread.
Yeah, raw numbers of those killed by firearms. I am not sure if I understand that you seem to be having difficulty equating safety with number of people killed. That’s pretty much the definition (along with injured).
Yeah, but that would be a different scenario with different starting conditions, different variables, different goals, and a different outcome. The specific way of preventing suicide is not left nebulous or up to the poster to figure out on their own, it is specifically that easy access to guns have been removed. So, that is nothing like your completely different hypothetical, which is a non-sequitur that does not illustrate any of your points, as yours starts with a nebulous goal, then comes up with a disingenuous way of achieving that goal, and the one from the thread states an action, and goes on to ask what you think the consequences of that action would be.
Instead, lets say that you create a suicide prevention line. Do you think that that would have a positive or negative effect on suicide? That would be a much closer fit of a hypothetical analogy than yours would.
Of course. Federal law supersedes state law where they conflict. I didn’t state that since I assumed you were aware.
States have plenary power within the state. Cities only operate where the state has either allowed, or has not fully occupied the space (wrt laws). If you think that should change, then again good luck. But I would say that if we take your stance and continue to apply it, what’s to keep a smaller unit from enacting their own laws? Why not neighborhoods, or streets, or sub divisions?
You’ll just have to deal with it I suppose. Or not, your choice.
I don’t equate overall safety with the number of people killed. The number of people killed is a factor in that evaluation, but not the only one. Do you think it’s the only one? My example was given to illustrate this point. As I said, evaluating only one component of the cost benefit calculus is a common mistake that people make. You have also made that mistake. Until you are able to evaluate other relevant factors, any appeal to safety is worthless.
So here is my hypothetical - if firearms are more restricted, or even essentially banned as some have pined for in this thread, do you think there would be any single individual who would suffer injury or death where they otherwise wouldn’t have had they been able to acquire a firearm?
Yes, you are correct about the “morality” issue. I did in fact include banning guns as part of it as opposed to finding any way to reduce deaths. I retract my earlier statement.
In any case, as I’ve said before about banning most guns, I do not think this is a reasonable possibility right now. I am well aware that it would indeed take a “wish granting genie” to do this in today’s America. I’m not sure why you think it would only decrease suicides and not murders. Why do you think that? Anyway, the whole point of this is to at least get people thinking that if they really want to reduce gun deaths, they should think about banning some guns in order to do so.
I didn’t “admit” anything. I’m saying that you can have gun control in ONE state, but that won’t do any good, because one could just buy guns in the next state. Surely this is self-evident?
See above. Please don’t put words in my mouth again. Or read more carefully. One or the other. Thanks.
ETA: I’d really like an answer to this one though:
Where did the idea come from that the 2nd amendment and others was handed down on a tablet to Moses? So what if an amendment is gutted? We can add 'em, and we can take 'em away. I know, I know, in theory.
Maybe I’ve just never been clear enough about this. Let me try again, with the caveat that as I have said, doing most of this today would take a wish-granting genie.
If banning all guns reduces deaths, then it is obvious that one way to reduce deaths is to ban all guns. If banning 99.999% of guns is one way to reduce deaths, then it is obvious that one way to reduce deaths is to ban 99.999% of guns. If banning X% of guns is one way to reduce deaths, then it is obvious that one way to reduce deaths is to ban X% of guns. Therefore, if you want to reduce deaths by guns, one way is to ban some guns. Does it not follow then, that if one is truly desirous of reducing deaths by guns, banning some amount of guns should at least be on the table?
How you live? You are not required to carry a gun. What you propose is an attempt to dictate how I live by saying that I may not carry a gun.
Washington D.C. completely banned the private ownership of handguns kept in the home. Again, that is telling a citizen and resident of Washington D.C. how he must live, not how you must live.
Certain things are outside the democratic process. Free speech, religion, trial by jury, etc. If you accept that certain things like abortion and gay marriage can be forced upon people which are not mentioned in the Constitution, then you surely have to accept those things forced upon you that actually are mentioned.
Because there is a possibility that guns in public hands prevent some number of murders. Try this, address my hypothetical that I posed:
Here, and in the previous post, you switched from suicides and murders, to simply deaths. Those aren’t the same. Some gun deaths shouldn’t be reduced - at least, that shouldn’t be the aim of public policy. They shouldn’t be celebrated, and should be avoided if possible, but certainly in some cases it is necessary.
But go ahead and address the hypothetical and it may illustrate some of our differences.
Oc course I was aware, as those are the specific things that I advocate against here, but as you said this:
I thought that you had some sort of point about voters changing the laws in their state. As it is, I have no idea what the relevance of you stating that is, especially as now, you are just restating the way things are, as if that is a robust argument against changing things.
I understand the legal fiction that is used so that rural dwellers can override the voters desires that live in cities. That is exactly the sort of thing that I am advocating against. Smaller divisions, like HOA’s and such, I have no problem with that. Why would you have a problem with how someone else lives their life?
You posted the words, I thought you did so in order to advance an argument, or make a point, or in any way contribute to the discussion. I was wrong about that, I can deal with that just fine, I’ll just keep in mind that you make the decision to post things that are irrelevant and only serve to mock other posters, rather than add to the conversation. That’s your choice, and I suppose we will just have to deal with it.
You are correct, for every death by gun, there are dozens of injuries by gun. Those need to be factored in as well to evaluate safety.
Well sure, there would be plenty of criminals who would try to rob a store, and instead of having a gun, would have a knife, and would be beaten up by the store owner, rather than shoot the store owner and get away.
If firearms were more restricted, and so it took you maybe a few minutes more to get a gun, to show that you are a sane and balanced individual who can take the responsibility of having a lethal weapon, that you have taken due diligence to prevent it from being lost or stolen, that you, if you choose to carry in public, can do so responsibly, do you think that there would be an individual who can demonstrate that responsibility who would suffer death and injury?
As is, I can demonstrate many, many, many, many individuals who have suffered death and injury due to irresponsible gun ownership, and that’s not even touching criminal use.
I am not required to carry a gun, but I m required to share space with irresponsible people who think that carrying a gun will keep them safe while they are shopping at wal-mart.
No, the laws that were passed by the legal means of the democratic process, it just banned buying a gun in Washington if you did not have an adequate gun safe. this seems a reasonable way to prevent your gun from being lost or stolen or picked up by a toddler.
But, as Bone said, “they could live in a city that tends to align with their desires in a state that is more amiable, or they could change the laws in their state.”
Why does that only apply to one side of the argument, but not the other?
As far as telling people how to live, that’s what law are all about. I want to* go out and murder people, take their stuff, and rape their women, but as a citizen and resident of the country and my state, they tell me how I must live.
Wow, gay marriage was forced upon people? Please tell me who got gay married without their consent. Did anyone ever get injured or killed when a gay wedding went off accidentally?
Abortion too? I’ve heard that was an issue in China, but please tell me who the US govt forced to have an abortion?
Assuming that the pro-gun people are just as concerned about all the firearms deaths that take place in this country as anyone else here, may I ask how many threads on that subject have been started by posters on that side of the aisle? Are there threads out there where the pro-gun people tried to find ways to lower the amount of violence caused by firearms in this country?
Nope, it does not follow. You could ban say 10% of the guns and see *no *reduction.
Because it still leaves the guns in the hands of the criminals, those who arent going to turn their guns in despite your bans. In fact, even banning 100% all of guns wouldn’t make that much of a dent in violent crime as again- *criminals wouldn’t turn their guns in, *leaving law abiding citizens defenseless.
Sure, your silly hypothetical of waving a magic wand and POOF all guns are gone, would work (at least for a time) because the *magic wand *takes the guns from the criminals, while gun bans do not do that.
So this is totally spurious logic. And it is why we derided your hypothetical.
Guns are easy to get for a criminal. If you are criminal looking to hold up a store, or mug a person, or get in a gang war, then you want a gun to do so. Right now, you can get a gun for dirt cheap, even free, from the black market. (Though the free ones may have a body on them.)
If there were restrictions to that, if it was a bit harder to own a gun if you are not capable of being responsible for it, then there will be much fewer guns flowing into the black market. Then, guns are not so cheap anymore. They will not be used for your idle petty robber or mugger, as they will not be able to afford it.
And it is a ridiculous strawman that you repeatedly trot out about how law abiding citizens would be defenseless, as what I advocate for is that people simply need to demonstrate responsibility before taking possession of a gun.
Maybe irresponsible but law abiding citizens would be effected, but they probably have more problems to worry about, given their responsibilities.
Well, the problem cannot be solved immediately with one action, so there is no need to address it whatsoever. Is that what you are saying here?
No, the hypothetical was mocked because if you were to honestly answer it, the you would actually have to acknowledge that the presence of guns in the US does more harm than good, and that would be hard for you to reconcile with your advocacy for MOAR GUNS!
Okay, part of that was me misremembering, there was a stipulation that you had to have a gun safe in one of the municipal gun laws that got struck down relatively recently, I thought it was D.C.
But still, I don’t really have a problem with that. If a city wants to pass laws about what guns are in their borders, I see that as the city and its voter’s rights. Of course, people who do not live in that city may take exception to that, and force their views on others.
Was that true when the governing ruling was Miller?
Supporting it is not the same as agreeing with it or the reasoning behind it or rulings based on it. Don’t dodge. Show us what you think and how you concluded it.
Say hello to the gang down at the post office for us, willya?
Tyranny! Just the excuse they’ve been looking for to drop their “law-abiding citizen” bullshit, form their gangs - er, “militias”, and go out shooting cops!
Except no, they aren’t, are they? It’s all just talk on the Internet.
Not a strawman. YOU may have been talking about “people simply need to demonstrate responsibility before taking possession of a gun.” whatever the hell that means, but **HE **was talking about gun bans. Ban all guns, and yes, as that canard says- only criminals will have guns.
No, i am Ok reasonable gun controls within the limits suggested by the Supreme Court.
But that has not been shown to be true, nor am I advocating for MOAR GUNS!
I do have a problem with one city decides that is in violation of the Constitution. If a city voted to make criticizing the mayor a Felony, would you be OK with that? Or the decided that Black people and women can’t vote. Or- as has been done quite recently- that gays cant marry? Are you Ok with all those? I mean, the citizens voted for them, right?