Ok, smart guy, how do we fix it?
How do we have a society where any free person can walk into a store and buy a pistol, or a rifle to keep at home for their personal use, that has a minimum of 300 million firearms in private ownership, and NOT have 10,000+ firearm homicides and 20,000+ firearm suicides every year?
Give me something that has a chance in hell of working.
I HAVE given you several suggestions. You’ve apparently ignored them, as you haven’t commented on them at all. YOU (and the others on your side in this thread) are the ones who think it’s a real urgent issue. Me, I see it as a similar risk to other things we allow, so it’s not a huge priority. That said, I’m all about mitigation. Mitigation strategies we’ve used on other things that are actual risks in our society (without, you know, trying to ban them) would work similarly, as I’VE MENTIONED. Disagree? Well, that’s fine. But don’t come back and say I haven’t suggested things. Come back and say you don’t agree with my suggestions.
Move to Nerf World. Seriously, you seem to be risk adverse to a ridiculous extreme, so not sure how you even drive a car or function. Almost everything you has a higher probability of killing you than a gun does. Many things society does carry very real risks. Guns are but one of them…and a fairly minor one, if you bother to put them in context. You basically won’t, ever, remove all those 11K firearms homicides. It’s impossible. I’ve told you this several times, but you don’t believe it so I’m merely going to tell you, again. You can’t do it. Not without magic. Consider two things.
First, in the US we have over 6K murders a year WITHOUT guns. Second, even in countries that have much harsher gun restrictions (or hell, outright bans) and far, far fewer guns they STILL get some homicide deaths. In the US, there is no way to prevent this, ever. We have MILLIONS of gun owners and 100’s of MILLIONS OF FREAKING GUNS. We have more guns than most of the countries generally trotted out to compare to us have people…combined. So, you need to look at mitigation strategies. First off, you need to do a clear eyed assessment of the actual risk, which none of you ever do. In fact, you all seem completely incapable of even considering it.
As to suicides, again, you aren’t going to change that. All you’ll do is shift the suicides from guns to something else. Again, the US is already at the low end of suicides per capita of most industrialized nations. It’s not realistic to think that by (magically) taking away the guns you’d prevent all or even most of those suicides. Japan has VERY strict gun control, yet their suicide per capita is double ours. Do you really think that Americans can’t figure out how to kill themselves as well as the Japanese, guns or no guns? :dubious:
I’m sorry, what claim did I make that requires a cite to support it?
Oh my, you’ve suggested something that will “fix” this issue? Is it this one?
I can’t believe I didn’t thank you for fixing the issue so succinctly, and I was so stupid that I didn’t even notice it. :smack:
To be fair, earlier in the thread you did propose to “regulate” firearms. Since “regulate” was as specific as you got, technically a ban on all handguns would fall under “regulate” so maybe that’s what you meant.
I think that you don’t believe it’s actually possible to “fix” what I think needs fixing, namely the number of people gunned down every year. What you want to fix is the whining about it. If all of us who wanted people to stop being murdered would just shut the fuck up everything would be fine.
Your overall point may have some merit, but your stats disagree with Wikipedia’s.
Japan’s rate is only slightly higher than U.S.'s. Belgium (with laws very favorable to assisted suicide) and Finland are the only prosperous European countries with higher rates than the U.S. The U.S. rate is more than double Spain’s; almost double U.K.'s; and so on.
The following list includes all 36 OECD countries, along with 19 other countries.
The gun laws I prefer are the one that are constitutional.
The restraint on free press laws I prefer are the one that are constitutional.
The laws protecting freedom of religion I prefer are the one that are constitutional.
Hmm, maybe I can shorten this: **The laws I prefer are the one that are constitutional.
**
That is a silly argument. People are proposing we ban assault weapons. A rare few tried and would like to ban handguns. No one is proposing laws that break it down by gun company.
So since “lets ban assault weapons” is a thing now, with several proposing it, that is a thing we can debate.
Exactly. You dont have arguments, all you do is attack other posters arguments.
Ok, then, what is your “fix?”
The Constitution was not handed down from God, we have the ability to change it if we choose to do so.
I would prefer to change the Constitution to allow more restrictions on gun ownership. Would you?
If not, then you prefer laws (including those laws that comprise the Constitution) that enable criminals to commit tens of thousands of homicides a year and enable sick bastards to commit mass murder. Those laws are yours, you have chosen them as the laws you prefer to have.
It seems like you really mean “The laws I prefer are the ones that 9 people SAY are constitutional”
Is that what you mean?
It’s not “tens of thousands” it is one single ten thousand.
Would be Ok with you if we changed the Constitution to allow more restrictions on free speech?
See, you dont own guns, so you are fine with wiping our asses with the 2nd Ad. But you use free speech, so “hands off”, even tho of course Free Speech is dangerous too. Pretty selfish it seems.
So, no, I dont want to get rid of* any* part of the Bill of Rights.
But in answer to my question (Ok, then, what is your “fix?”) apparently your answer is to repeal part of the Bill of Rights.
Then what?
There are already 300 million guns out there. House to house warrantless searches?
Hey, we got rid of the 2nd, why not the 4th? Needing a warrant just protects criminal gun owners, amirite?
Let’s dump the 5th too, that "due process’ and nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation parts will just get in the way of confiscating all that Eviiiiil guns.
Would you prefer “The laws I prefer are the ones that **manson1972 **SAY are constitutional”.?
Gee, you gun grabbers *really *dont like the Constitution, do you?
:smack: Surely guns should be debated on their merits, not on what we think some 200-year old wise men thought. (Though as for that, I think those men were wise enough that they would despise America’s present-day gun culture.) “Preferring laws that are constitutional” is an arrogant and nothing answer that reminds us of “Because I can” in response to “Why do you carry a gun?”
And, anyway …
I think you meant that he meant “The laws I prefer are the ones that 5 people say are constitutionsl.”
Not sure if you are talking to me, since I’m fully in favor of gun possession for home protection. Especially since I can mock those who are afraid of home invasions.
But no, I’d prefer if you answered my question, if you would. Do you mean “The laws I prefer are the ones that the 9 people on the Supreme Court say are Constitutional”?
Edited to add: Yeah, 5 people.
That’s like saying I wont obey laws because only 51 Senators and 22o Reps voted for it.
It’s a pretty silly argument.
I mean, apply that to the right to a free press- we only have that due to five old people. The right to not be forced into self-incrimination- five old people. The right for black people to vote- five old people. The rights of gays to marry- five old people.
ALL our rights come down to five old people wearing funny black robes- what’s your point?
So, in answer to your original question a few posts ago… THIS is why it’s YOUR law. You want it this way.
Don’t hide behind the labels “It’s in the Constitution” or “It’s in the Bill of Rights”, this is the law YOU want. You want people to have broad access to powerful weapons. Thousands of people die every year because we (including all the murderous assholes who live here) have broad access to powerful weapons. Despite that you still think its better to have that law than the opposite.
Not sure about the Wiki, but I googled it and they are saying it’s between 18.4 and 21.3 suicides per 100k. They used to be the highest in the world, so I do acknowledge that apparently they aren’t anymore. It’s also dropped from when I last looked this up. It used to be higher, at least that’s how I remember it. Assuming it is 18.4 and Wiki is wrong, then that’s substantially higher than the US, though not the double I claimed. If Wiki is right, then, yes, it’s only slightly higher. If I have time I’ll dig into it more later.
Well, why be fair when you start off with such a ridiculous straw man? Not like that whole scroll up thingy really works. It’s an urban legend!
I don’t think you really understand what my position on this is, to be honest. And the reason is your emotion. I’ll try, again (for, I don’t know, maybe the 5th time in this thread) to clarify. I don’t think that it’s a major problem. It’s on par with other things that our society accepts as, basically, the price of doing business. The examples I’ve used are tobacco and alcohol. We accept, as a society, that 10’s of thousands of citizens (100’s of thousands if we are talking about tobacco) WILL die if we allow our citizens to choose to use those things. In alcohol’s case, we accept that 10’s of thousands of innocent folks who DIDN’T make the choice will also die. And we accept that by allowing alcohol that some folks will use a gun to murder others, or because of alcohol will choose to commit suicide. We accept that when we allow it. What we try and do is mitigate the issue to the extent we can’t feasible do so.
That said, even if there IS a problem, as you state, you STILL can’t ‘fix’ it the way you are suggesting. Not without magic or a draconian state that makes the CCP or WPK look like a progressive democracy. There are simply too many guns and too many gun owners, and the majority of your fellow citizens will not go along. You can talk all you like about gun bans and all sorts of other things, but they bear as little resemblance to reality as the NGD does, and for the same reason…unless you are god king of the US you can’t, politically, do it. Even if you WERE god king, you still couldn’t do it without a level of oppression that would be unacceptable and probably would lead to all sorts of other issues. Until and unless you can change the attitude of your fellow citizens such that a large majority doesn’t WANT a gun, doesn’t ever think they MIGHT want one, and so doesn’t think that we really need a personal right to keep and bear one you can’t do what you want. Even if THAT happens, sometime down the road, you still have to deal with 100’s of millions of guns and 100’s of billions of rounds out there. Which is why I talk about mitigation strategies while you talk about banning and ‘fixing’ the problem. And why I say it can’t be ‘fixed’…it can only be mitigated. Just like all our other problems in the real world. You want things black and white, but reality is shades of gray and incremental change over time to make things just a tad bit better today than it was yesterday, and hopefully a tad bit better tomorrow than it is today. And, guess what? Things ARE a bit better today wrt guns and gun deaths than they were in the past. Look back sometime on the stats from the 90’s, or the 80’s, or the 70’s and you’ll see we have actually gotten better. It perhaps doesn’t seem so because, today, you have a 24 hour news cycle that basically lives the if it bleeds it leads byline. You hear about every murder and there is an emphasis on certain types of murder that are highlighted…like, oh, say gun murders. But even if you are a Fox viewer you STILL hear about lots of murders (just a different emphasis) and how society is going to hell in a hand cart or some other loopy shit. But the reality is a lot different than the narrative.
So…do you understand my point now, at least? Or was this another waste of time?
I dont want anyone messing with ANY part of the Bill of Rights, because once they start…