“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.
Surely there would be some. But the rest are, as they themselves constantly reassure us, “law-abiding citizens”.
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.
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.
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.
And we should all be glad that the 100 million gun owners and their 3-400 millions guns are mostly law abiding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The gun lovers have been diligent at blocking a science based approach to the USA’s gun death problem: Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue | Science-Based Medicine
Yeah, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about those particular gun* nuts*.
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.
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.
Yes, you admitted that those bans didn’t work. "those’ being the several citywide bans that have been tried.
Actually that is totally false. The Dickey Amendment only bans :“none 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.”
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.
Okay, then I’m glad I made my point at least. And yes, we disagree.
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?
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?