And the Supreme Court once ruled in favor of segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson). The SCOTUS is not infallible and while they tend to respect prior rulings they can and do overturn them (Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy).
We had a discussion on this a few months ago around here and while there was disagreement I think there is a very plausible and acceptable way to read the 2nd Amendment that can allow for gun control. Someday a different SCOTUS may agree.
You’ve apparently never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or the Controlled Substances Act, or…well…dozens of laws really. The government frequently prohibits or closely regulates tools based on potential misuse. Anyone for a game of lawn darts?
Yes, I understand your argument but you’re referring to a child’s toy. I have a house full of tools that are far more dangerous than lawn darts. Their existance is not regulated.
Then your argument becomes far less persuasive. Instead of arguing that “[t]he government does not ban tools based on potential misuse,” you’re now arguing that the government does not ban all tools based on potential misuse. The new argument is hardly persuasive.
And note that I’m not referring to toys at all except for my throwaway last line. Neither Oxycontin (Controlled Substances Act) nor Belgian waffle makers (Consumer Product Safety Commission) are toys, for example.
Then again my question:
When you say “generally,” are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?
Then again my question:
Is it your position that gun control at the level of states or municipalities is completely ineffective and futile?
I doubt that would have much of an effect either. For example, the recent handgun ban in the UK doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect one way or another. And when your handgun ban doesn’t work, I’m sure I can count on people to say “Of course it didn’t work. People can easily use long guns in crimes. Or drive into Mexico and buy guns. We need even tighter restrictions.”
I should point out that Lawn Darts and the lot are regulated because they are hazardous, not dangerous. I have no doubt that were someone to start building Nambu 94 replicas, they would be put out of business quickly.
Lawn darts were considered hazardous because they were not used safely. A lawn dart doesn’t inherently explode or anything. They just get tossed into people’s eyes if you’re stupid. They are exactly analogous to guns in that respect.
But even if you don’t like the lawn dart example, what about, say, codeine? Safe use of codeine is no problem. But because some people abuse it, it is highly restricted.
A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it’s intended use. You’re comparing a safety regulatory agency to legislation directed at infringing individual rights. it’s an apples to oranges argument.
Difference: We register cars for taxation. There is no reason to register guns. It offers no benefit.
Maryland has caught exactly zero criminals based on their registration of pistols and “Assault Weapons.”
No, it’s an argument against all law that doesn’t serve a direct and vital purpose.
Including that of Drugs.
If you’ve ever shot a firearm and it’s dummy counterpart, they’re nothing alike.
What are the potential benefits of registration?
Licensing, I don’t have a problem with – in theory, it makes sense – and so long as it was conducted at a local level, without any possibility of later gun seizure, I’d be perfectly okay with it. The problem is, throughout the world, Registration has led to banning and confiscation, and licensing has the real potential for the same. In light of that, I can’t see a reasonable way I could support it.
They’re not. In fact, I don’t believe that case has made it in front of the supreme court, although I hope it does and gets oveturned.
Civilian Legal Fully automatic weapons have been involved in 2 crimes since 1934, one of which was a Police Officer shooting his CI, and that wouldn’t have been stopped by the complete ban. In light of that, from your perspective, how can a ban be justified?
Neither is a fully automatic assault rifle, yet we already restrict those, pretty much without complaint. Conceptually, there’s no difference between saying:
fully automatic assault rifles are too dangerous to be in the hands of regular folk
handguns are too dangerous to be in the hands of regular folk
The concept is the same, the difference is where you draw the line. The 2nd amendment doesn’t actually guarantee your right to own “guns”. It guarantees your right to own the subset of guns that the government deems safe enough for you to own.
Todderbob, I don’t know if the ban is “justified” or not, but I do know that I’m glad that fully automatic weapons are comparatively hard to get.
Illegal to get new. However, that had zero effect on crime rates.
So, my question to you is, are you okay with the banning of things which have zero criminal impact being banned?
If so, why? How do you justify the restriction of liberties with zero gain to society?
ETA: Actually: Fully Automatic weapons are relatively easy to get (see: LA Shootout), legal ones are difficult and expensive.
That didn’t stop some gun control advocates from advocating banning handguns under consumer safety laws, or from trying to hold gun manufacturers responsible for any unlawful deaths committed with their guns,
I was rebutting your argument, which was that tools are not banned because of user misuse. The fact that your argument is wrong doesn’t mean guns should be regulated. It just means this one argument against regulation is bogus. If you disagree, explain why a medical drug which is safe if not abused is different from a gun which is safe if not abused. Obviously one is metal, one is heavier, etc., but I trust you understand how those distinctions are irrelevant to whether each is a tool that is highly regulated because of user misuse.
“Generally” means (to me at least) “commonly but not always”. That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole. If you do and can show the laws were generally not compromised feel free to debunk my ignorance.
I do think gun control at the state and especially municipality level are indeed ineffective. The whole point of gun control is to reduce crime and someone who wants to use a gun in a crime will not be deterred. The gun gives them a huge advantage in the commission of the crime over no gun. If obtaining a gun legally can be done 10 miles away of what use is a local ban? It is trivial to get around the regulations.
Well…
Versus in the United States…
Rather large difference in my view.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole;10922511
In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population.
Versus in the United States…
Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.
Weighted average: 11.5
Rather large difference in my view.[/QUOTE]
You are comparing apples and oranges. Note in the first place we have “illegal gun homicides”. In the next category we have “Number of Deaths Due to Firearms” which include “illegal gun homicides”, suicides, accidental deaths and legal shootings (such as by police vs a deadly assailant). Those numbers= triple the straight “homicide with gun” rate.
Switzerland has a homicide rate comparable to England’s, yet in Switzerland each able-dodied citizen is required by law to keep a fully auto assualt rifle in their home or place of business.
Mexico has stringent gun control laws, but yet has much high homicide rates.
If you take a look at this chart on wiki:
You’ll see that the USA has a homicide rate without guns nearly 4X that of England.
If you are speaking about the DC ban, once a resident leaves DC, they cannot legally buy a handgun in another state, without transferring it to an FFL into the district. If you are speaking of the ban in Chicago, it is illegal there to own a handgun that has not been registered. Registration ended in the 1980’s. It doesn’t matter where it was purchased.
Does that mean “yes” or “no”? Anyway, if you are ignorant, then you should probably refrain from generalizing.
Ok, fine.
It seems to me that you are being completely silly here. The reasonable thing to do would be to compare the UK both before and after its gun ban.
The fact is that the US and the UK are very different demographically.
Don’t you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after?
Yeah…the US has a higher homicide rate. And guess what? Far and away the weapon most used in homicides are guns in the US. Indeed for 2005 ALL other weapons (besides guns) used in a homicide combined together were less than guns. (cite)
Certainly absent the ability to use a gun some of those gun homicides would move to some other weapon. But then a gun is far and away a better tool for killing someone than those other weapons. I think it is more than reasonable to assume if there were no guns those homicide rates would drop dramatically.
And Mexico? Seriously…that country is a disaster and teetering on collapse. Corruption is rampant, drug lords are running the show and last I heard the Mexican military sees over 14,000 (IIRC…I can look it up) desertions a year and those guys often walk off with military weapons to sell to drug lords.
Mexico is really more akin to a third world country and all that entails. For comparison I think the UK is far more similar to the US. But if you want to use Mexico then I want to use Japan. 
I do not know why you insist on pushing for a black & white answer here. Not all questions can be answered that way. From what I have seen of various US laws aimed at gun control they are almost always lacking and I would not expect them to be useful in reducing crime in any notable way. Is it possible there was a good gun law made sometime, somewhere? Sure but since I do not keep the legal codes of all 50 states for the last 200 years locked in my head I cannot say definitively.
So I use common sense and the experience I do have from what I have seen and read about. If you want to keep dancing around with unreasonable demands for authoritative listings on ALL the world’s gun laws and their consequences have fun but you’re not getting it as it doesn’t exist.
Try your smoke and mirrors game somewhere else. I’m done with responding to your posts here till you have something of substance to say.