So you want to pass bills that don’t really do anything, to get everyone used to passing bills that will really do something. But asking if it will really do something you characterized above as an avoidance tactic.
How do we know which are the bills that will really do something, and which don’t?
Regards,
Shodan
I *told *you what the reason (hint: *not *nothing, as you say), and helpfully told you up front that it was only a part of it too.
When you have something to contribute, you’ll start to be off the hook for avoidance tactics. Mischaracterization of what you’re being told is one of them, so you know.
The ATF cannot pass laws. I don’t know why you think that they can, but that is something that is up to congress, not a branch of the executive.
You can sell guns to criminals. Legislation was created to stop you from being able to sell guns from criminals, and was defeated by republicans. Either they did so because they wanted to leave it legal to sell guns to criminals, or it was an unintentional side effect, making it a loophole.
Any inconvenience is considered an infringement on your liberties, except of course, the inconvenience of being shot, that’s just the price to pay for American Exceptionalism.
Considering that you have claimed that the ATF can write and pass legislation, I don’t really see how your standard of what is nonsense is relevant to… well, anything at all.
But, one of the cool things about there being many different nations around, is that we can look at the ones where it did work, and see what they did right. We don’t have to copy it directly, but getting some pointers and guidelines could be useful.
Or, we could do the american exceptionalism thing, like we do with healthcare, and claim that works elsewhere just couldn’t work here, because…
Oh, I didn’t know that. The states that have open carry have no violent crime? Huh, I think I’d like to see a cite on that.
No, they can’t. Nor did I claim they could. You just love to put words in other peoples mouths, dont you?
However, the definition of “gun dealer” is pretty much open to ATF interpretation*. So, they could, at any time, decide if you are selling more that say , six? guns a year you are a deal. Or a dozen.
No such legislation was proposed. Cite?
They dont have violent crime that is any higher (and in many cases it is lower) that non-open carry states.
*Section 923(a), Title 18, U.S.C., provides that no person shall engage in the business of dealing
in firearms until he has filed an application and received a license to do so. Section 922(a)(1),
Title 18, U.S.C., provides that it is unlawful for any person, other than a licensee, to engage in
the business of dealing in firearms. Licensees generally may not conduct business away from
their licensed premises.
The term “dealer” is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11)(A) to include any person engaged in the
business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail. The term “engaged in the business” as applied
to a dealer in firearms means a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in
firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and
profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."
No, you said that the ATF could close the loophole. This is something that has been attempted by congress, and thwarted by republicans. A department of the executive branch does not have that power.
It is open to interpretation, but if they made is 6 per year, then you have the problem of “What if the police officer dies and leaves 7 guns to his widow?”
That it is open to interpretation is a problem, that means that under a liberal administration, it could be as few as 2 guns, and under a conservative, it could be hundreds. It needs a definition legislatively, and any attempts to do so are thwarted by republicans.
No such claim was made.
So they do have a problem with gun violence.
I’ve been occupied for a while with real-life issues so I haven’t had a chance until now to respond to this.
Your wrongness continues. On the first point, a detail is obviously irrelevant if the argument can still be coherently made when the detail is removed. On the second point, the US indeed lacks gun controls comparable to those in any other industrialized country, specifically, meaningful nation-wide gun laws at the federal level, which ultimately are the only kind that are truly effective. The whole premise of the gun control debate is that, despite various state and local regulations and some token federal measures, the US system is so lax that it’s fundamentally different than the gun control measures everywhere else.
We’ve settled this, notwithstanding your failure to acknowledge the fact. The question of meaning centers around how an ordinary person would interpret the phrase “gun ban” when used to describe gun control. It’s intentional hyperbole in the service of deception, exactly the same as the other favorite phrase describing those who advocate gun control as “gun grabbers”. It’s correct to say that Bermuda had a car ban until 1946, because no private individual could own a car. It’s not correct to say that the US has a car ban just because it regulates them and some makes and models are, in fact, banned from import and sale.
As you imply yourself later in that post, the use of the phrase is literally the composition fallacy.
More absolute wrongness, all the more amazing coming from someone who accuses me of bad analogies!
The concept of “sides” in a controversial issue is one that is universally acknowledged by all because it has a useful meaning in describing a group with a common set of beliefs, whereas the “gun ban” phraseology to describe gun control is used exclusively by gun advocates as a politically charged scare tactic. “Sides” is a valid construct because, although each side may have a heterogeneous makeup, many of the underlying fundamental factors are binary: you’re in favor of a gun law, or you’re against it; you plan to vote either “yes” or “no” on a referendum, etc.
So only a total gun ban is a gun ban?
Or is it only a gun ban when the gun ban is arbitrary and capricious? i.e. its not a gun ban if they can come up with a rationale for banning the gun.
Lets see if this works with other constitutional rights.
As long as we allow some form of abortion to exist, there is not a ban on abortion.
As long as we permit some political speech, there is not a ban on political speech.
Same can be said of Roe v. Wade. In fact the word abortion doesn’t even appear in the constitution. I want to keep both, others want to get rid of both. You seem to want to pick and choose.
Why are gun deaths more tragic than knife deaths and jumping off of building deaths?
Please explain. How does anything you are proposing prevent thousands of deaths?
Too many gun control folks don’t really know anything about guns. The fact that for decades tried to ban guns rather than go after licensing and registration is testament to how ignorant they are.
If you want effective gun control, you have to sell Americans on the notion of licensing and registration. But they can’t sell that because even the ACLU thinks that’s a problem so they try to ban cosmetically threatening guns and declare victory.
The question concerns what the notion of a “gun ban” means to a reasonable person. If I were to say “country X” or “state Y” has banned guns, what does that imply to a reasonable person?
Nothing I said comports with that convoluted question.
On the first one, if access to abortion resembles access to guns in the first-world countries that I point to as models of gun control, then abortions would be generally available to those who want them, under appropriate but not unreasonable conditions. This is not a ban on abortion. If the conditions were so restrictive that almost no one could get an abortion, then it’s effectively a ban. It would suit the pro-choice side to call any kind of restriction a “ban” because it falsely but conveniently implies the latter situation.
The second one is misleading because there is a reasonable expectation that all forms of political speech must be permissible, so any restriction on political speech is censorship. Nevertheless, if, say, political speech favorable to the government is allowed but criticism is not, it’s still not correct to say that “there is a ban on political speech”. The correct statement is that “there is a ban on political dissent”.
Wait, in order to be logically consistent I have to agree with all Supreme Court rulings? I agree with some and disagree with others. I see nothing strange in that.
I didn’t say they were “more tragic”. The tragedy is in the sheer staggering number of gun deaths in the USA compared to any other economically similar country.
I’m only proposing in a general way that US look for guidance on national gun control policy to those countries which have similar societies, economies, and culture as the US and much, much lower gun death rates.
But why gun deaths? Considering that most gun deaths in this country are suicide and our suicide rate is dead average for industrialized countries, why does it matter what method of death is used?
I’m still not sure why gun death rates are important rather than overall death rates.
I know we’ve been over this, but let’s say you lived in Australia in 1996. You owed two semi-automatic rifles, two pump action shotguns, and three handguns. The new law passes.
The government requires you to turn in the two semi-automatic rifles. I think any speaker of the english language would say that the government banned those guns.
Nobody said that a gun ban meant that every single thing that fired a projectile including a spit straw is banned. I think that is an overly restrictive reading of the term “ban.”
People commonly refer to machine guns as being banned in the United States when in reality you can pay tens of thousands of dollars for a pre-1986 weapon after a thorough background check. However, the regulations are so onerous it is considered colloquially as a ban.
Speakers use this term that way all of the time.
Here is what I said, They could do so RIGHT NOW, to a large extent if they so choose. and yes, the ATF- to a large extent- could define “gun dealer” to include those strawman buyer/sellers who are the main source for this sort of purchase. It it well known among the law enforcement community. So, right now, the ATF could, within their authority, shut down most of the hinky gun sales.
That wouldnt be a sale, not would it? And yes, that is one reason why the ATF doesnt want to pin this down.
That’s true, but it doesnt have one, and it hasnt had one since 1968, and the Dems have not proposed to do anything about it.
Here’s your claim: "Legislation was created to stop you from being able to sell guns from criminals, and was defeated by republicans. " got a cite?
The have no special issue or problem.
And they commonly say Australia has a Gun ban.
No, if “On the first one, if access to abortion resembles access to guns in the first-world countries that I point to as models of gun control,” then certain types of abortions would be banned. You would have to register to get a abortion, pay a fee (not for the abortion, but for the license to get one), and submit your reason, and that reason could be denied. You would have a waiting period, and every year you’d have to continue registration and pay a fee. The poor and indigent would be unable to get abortions.
There are no economically similar countries to the USA.
“those countries which have similar societies, economies, and culture as the US” Which are? England? Not economy. Australia? Not economy. Japan? Not Society or culture.
And again, you harp on “gun deaths” rather than murders or violent crime.
“Gun deaths” are critical to the gun grabbers, as by using that bogus term, rather than murders, they can include suicides and ignore the issue with knifes and bombs in nations with fewer guns, but still extremely high murder rates. It is not debating honestly.
Just like to compare “gun deaths” or even murder rates" they cherry pick a few nations, using undefined terms like “first world*” or “developed” nations.
Forget about suicide, that’s a different discussion in which a strong case can be made for guns as a deadly enabler, but it’s not pertinent to this discussion. Data such as I previously cited breaks down the numbers between gun homicides, non-gun homicides, and gun and non-gun suicides. For example, here are the firearm, non-firearm, and total homicide rates for Australia, Canada, and the United States, per 100,000 population:
AUS 0.2 / 0.9 / 1.1
CAN 0.5 / 1.0 / 1.5
USA 3.6 / 1.7 / 5.3
The non-gun homicide rate in the US is higher than either of the other two countries, but not overwhelmingly so, much as most general crime rates tend to be higher, but not all that much higher. What is absolutely dramatic is the gun homicide rate in the US, 7.2 times (720%) higher than Canada, 18 times (1800%) higher than Australia post-gun-control. Similar dramatic numbers prevail for accidental gun deaths, including deaths of children, as I said earlier. That’s why those numbers are important.
And I would conjecture that the reason gun violence is much higher in Canada than Australia is at least in part because Canada gets a constant flow of smuggled guns over the border, from what is essentially the gun capital of the universe. Gun control obviously works, but it’s not as effective as it would be without the US gun supply.
For the reasons above.
I agree. I’d say it, too. The word “ban” applies to the context of whatever item is being discussed, in your example, to those guns, the semi-automatic rifles. When gun control is characterized as a “gun ban”, the context there is the gun, in the broadest possible unqualified meaning of the word. That’s why it’s deceptive.
Why not include Mexico instead of Australia?
Mexico is much, much higher than the uSA, and has restrictive gun control.
But again, there is really no reason to talk about "gun violence’ rates instead of just violent crime rate. When you are lying dead in a alley, the fact you were knifed rather than shot is no comfort. Dead is dead.
No, actually Canada has always had a lot of guns. It is 5th overall. But it never had many handguns.
Thank you ,good point and we are in agreement.
Then why include this superfluous detail? You were going down the path of car comparisons, and simultaneously asserting that there were no regulations on guns whatsoever. That’s nonsense. If it’s not germane to your argument, why continue to defend it? If you’re going to include flowery bullshit that has no relevance, I’m going to call it out.
This is a giant, who cares about other countries. Totally irrelevant. When the One World Government comes to power, let me know. Until then, other countries can do whatever they want with their own laws. I couldn’t care less.
I declare myself the victor! You may have settled the issue for yourself, and yay for that. The “we” part is a stretch. You do seem to understand grouping and the composition fallacy when it suits you though. The problem with your argument is that it relies on redefining common words because you know when gun control folks push a ban of any kind, it’s a losing issue. I, and other gun rights supporters know that if a ban of any kind was possible, you’d go for it. The history of the gun control movement, from its racist origins all the way to the banning that have happened in my lifetime, it’s clear what the goal of gun control is. Ordinary people understand that when guns are banned, that’s a gun ban. Well, except you. You don’t believe that. You seem to think that when any gun is banned it is not a gun ban.
Are you thinking that the murder rate would drop to 1.7 if we could make all the guns magically disappear?
We’re a pretty murderous bunch. We win a lot of wars that way but still.
How much did gun control change the gun homicide rate in Australia? My understanding is it changed it very little.
And how would you deal with the 300 million guns that are already in private hands?
BTW, the countries on that list of comparable countries are all white except Korea and Japan.
It is highly debated both ways.
I’m thinking that the gun homicide rate would drop very significantly if access to guns were more restricted and storage and transport laws were much stricter.
If you look at the cited Wikipedia article, most studies conclude that homicide and/or suicide rates were reduced quite a lot, though there are a few that dispute that. Furthermore, you need to recognize that, like all civilized countries, Australia’s gun laws were far more restrictive that in the US even before the Port Arrthur massacre in 1996 which prompted the first round of buy-backs and tighter gun regulation.
If you’re asking my opinion, it would be along the lines of laws requiring registration and regulations about secure storage and restrictions on transport for a start; maybe something like Australia’s buy-back program that was optional or mandatory depending on the type of weapon. And of course careful screening of gun purchasers. If you reduce the likelihood of a dangerous nut acquiring a gun legitimately and also make them harder to steal, it goes a long way. The long-term goal would be to fundamentally change the gun culture.
No, they are not. One of the countries with the absolutely lowest rates of gun violence is the UK, which is racially diverse. Though I have no idea what gun violence has to do with race. There’s a very close correlation with poverty, which is a completely different issue.