Would murder and/or death rates rise, or lower, if the 2nd Amendment was abolished?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@HurricaneDitka

The RKBA is already subject to restrictions. I don’t see why so frequently debaters on your side make the false claim that there aren’t regulations in place today.

I am guessing because no one can remember a gun regulation that the NRA supported.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Whack-a-Mole

I am guessing because no one can remember a gun regulation that the NRA supported.

What does the NRA’s support have to do with anything? He said:

@Bryan_Ekers

… Other constitutional rights are subject to restriction, even when the harms caused by abuses of those rights are far less severe. I don’t see why the 2nd should be special.

That’s not a statement that hinges on whether the NRA has supported or opposed past restrictions.

ETA: and you’re wrong, there was regulation after Virginia Tech that had the support of the NRA.

[Shodan]

@ElvisL1ves

Living in a gated community gives only an illusory sense of security. Crime rates there really aren’t any lower than outside.

Your cite doesn’t say that.

The major question that is asked of gated communities is “Do they really keep crime rates down?” The answer seems to be yes, but only by very little. The city of Miami reports that “some forms of crime such as car theft are reduced, at least immediately after the streets are closed. However, data indicates that the long-term crime rate is at best only marginally altered” (Blakely, 1995, p. 1).

And there’s this as well -

…gated communities do lower the odds of experiencing a residential burglary even when controlling for housing unit factors such as tenure, income, and geographical location as well as individual characteristics such as age [and] race.

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan_Ekers]

@HurricaneDitka

The RKBA is already subject to restrictions. I don’t see why so frequently debaters on your side make the false claim that there aren’t regulations in place today.

I don’t know why you feel the need to falsely claim that I’m falsely claiming that.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@HurricaneDitka

ETA: and you’re wrong, there was regulation after Virginia Tech that had the support of the NRA.

IIRC the NRA supported gun regulation post Virginia Tech but then backed off that support before it was voted on. I may be mis-remembering though. Maybe it was Sandy Hook.

ETA: I have seen some indication that the NRA might support regulating bump stocks after the attack in Las Vegas. Question is will they twist arms in congress with the same zeal to ban bump stocks as they do to oppose other gun regulation.

[DrDeth]

@Sanity_Challenged

Suicide attempts go down very slightly among the least committed. Successful suicide rate goes down somewhat more - probably the biggest change caused by the hypothetical with the most chance to be statistically measurable.
The majority of murder doesn’t change much. Criminals in gun-controlled areas still get plenty of guns to shoot each other with.
Attempted murders of impulse & passion probably go down very slightly, and also have a lower success rate.
High profile school shootings by teenagers probably significantly drop or disappear in heavy gun-control areas, no change elsewhere. A tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of all murders, so not noticeable in the stats. Adult whackos still get their hands on guns and commit enough mass murders to keep the news networks busy.
Various forms of assault go up. Some assaults not intended to be murders end up being murders, so the increased assaults result in more murders. Enough to fill in the gaps left by the very small decreases in other successful murders, or even exceed them? I actually think this will be close…

I accept this as very reasonable.

[DrDeth]

@Whack-a-Mole

I am guessing because no one can remember a gun regulation that the NRA supported.

They had in the past:

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

and recently they supported Instant background checks.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DrDeth

They had in the past:
National Rifle Association's Change on Gun Control in 1970s | TIME

The NRA when we were growing up is not the same NRA as today (or at least when I was growing up in the 70’s). It is akin to saying republicans abolished slavery so they are still a supporter of minority rights today. Things change.

and recently they supported Instant background checks.

M’kay…

The NRA has successfully lobbied over the years to limit the background checks to licensed firearm dealers — excluding private sales, such as some purchases made at gun shows or over the internet, for example.

A month after the Brady bill was signed into law in 1993, the Associated Press wrote about an effort to close the so-called gun show loophole, which the news organization described as “a loophole large enough to sneak a crate of 9-millimeter pistols through.” NRA lobbyist Joseph Phillips told the Associated Press at the time that such legislation would be unnecessary.

The NRA says it still opposes expanding background checks to include gun shows, “because expanding the background check requirement would be a step toward transforming the background check system into a national gun registry.”

“To this day, they continue to oppose the idea of universal background checks,” Aborn told us, “so to argue that they created a national instant check system is quite misleading given all of their efforts to limit background checks for gun purchases.”

SOURCE: NRA Chief's Bogus Background Check Claims - FactCheck.org

[HurricaneDitka]

@Bryan_Ekers

I don’t know why you feel the need to falsely claim that I’m falsely claiming that.

That’s what I understood from “Other constitutional rights are subject to restriction, even when the harms caused by abuses of those rights are far less severe. I don’t see why the 2nd should be special.”

Maybe it would clear things up if you elaborated on what you meant by those two sentences.

[Starving_Artist]

@Czarcasm

Our main argument has nothing to do with your preparedness when in comes to rare/extreme circumstances you may have seen on crime reality shows.
The next time you grasp at straws, might I suggest you go for the ones that haven’t already traveled through a cow’s stomachs?

Originally posted by Starving Artist
So let me get this straight. You guys have now landed on “Haha, Starvey’s scared of bad guys” as your argument in favor of outlawing guns?

@DrDeth

Yeah, that was weak, shows they got nuthin better.

QFT

[Czarcasm]

@Starving_Artist

QFT

Quoting yourself for truth. :rolleyes:

[Airbeck]

@Czarcasm

Quoting yourself for truth. :rolleyes:

A positively Trumpian thing to do.

[Czarcasm]

@Airbeck

A positively Trumpian thing to do.

Since he did post those quotes out of order, maybe he was quoting me for truth?

[Starving_Artist]

Another attempt at misdirection, Czarcasm?

Or is it really not clear I was QTF-ing DrDeth’s spot-on response to me?

Either way, your posts in this thread aren’t doing you any favors.

[Czarcasm]

@Starving_Artist

Another attempt at misdirection, Czarcasm?

Or is it really not clear I was QTF-ing DrDeth’s spot-on response to me?

Either way, your posts in this thread aren’t doing you any favors.

Three different quotes…and you missed the one that was actually true.
This thread doesn’t revolve around you or what you say and the arguments, both pro and con, probably wouldn’t have changed if you hadn’t bothered posting.
So sorry.

[Czarcasm]

@Whack-a-Mole

ETA: I have seen some indication that the NRA might support regulating bump stocks after the attack in Las Vegas. Question is will they twist arms in congress with the same zeal to ban bump stocks as they do to oppose other gun regulation.

If they actually support regulating bump stocks, it will be because

1. There is no great demand for them, and
2. They were only used in one mass shooting-not a real effort to lower the chances of another mass shooting at all.
   BTW, until the get past the lip service I would be weary of any future “regulations” the NRA support concerning bump stocks.

[Starving_Artist]

@Czarcasm

Three different quotes…and you missed the one that was actually true.
This thread doesn’t revolve around you or what you say and the arguments, both pro and con, probably wouldn’t have changed if you hadn’t bothered posting.
So sorry.

Hahaha, well, guess what? Nothing’s gonna change because of this thread either. Liberals will continue to institute policies and practices which result in greater and more widespread crime while at the same time trying to take away everyone’s ability to defend themselves from it, and conservatives will continue to fight for the right to protect themselves from the consequences of those policies and practices.

As far as the thread supposedly revolving around me is concerned, you might want to note that the majority of my posts have been in response to things you’ve said to or about me. Had you said nothing to or about me to begin with, my first post would likely have been the last I made in this thread. If you don’t want me here, then I’d suggest you stop with the baseless mockery and mischaracterization of my posts.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@HurricaneDitka

That’s what I understood from “Other constitutional rights are subject to restriction, even when the harms caused by abuses of those rights are far less severe. I don’t see why the 2nd should be special.”

Maybe it would clear things up if you elaborated on what you meant by those two sentences.

And I will be happy to do so a little later today, cheerfully expanding on my admittedly curt and incomplete comment, and perhaps you might be a little more hesitant before accusing others of lying in future.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Starving_Artist

Liberals will continue to institute policies and practices which result in greater and more widespread crime while at the same time trying to take away everyone’s ability to defend themselves from it, and conservatives will continue to fight for the right to protect themselves from the consequences of those policies and practices.

Do you have ANY empirical reason for this position?

Reading that you seem to believe the high crime rate in the US is the fault of liberals and their efforts to regulate guns.

[Starving_Artist]

No, I think the high crime rate since the late sixties is the fault of liberals. Their efforts to regulate guns (or, let’s be honest, to eventually do away with them) serve to exacerbate the problem by making crime less risky for those disposed to commit it and by depriving law-abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves from it should the need arise. I don’t think their anti-gun efforts are responsible for the high crime rate itself.

Here’s an article trumpeting the country’s recent reduction in crime which nevertheless shows the violent crime and murder rate in this country since 1960. Note that in the wake of the counterculture revolution in the late sixties both types of crime spiked and have only recently begun to return to pre-hippie (:D) levels. I attribute this lowering primarily to stiffer prison sentences, no federal parole, the fact that people who previously lived in ghettoized areas have spread out among the general populace where both the opportunity for and ability to get away with crime is less, and to the widespread adoption of gun ownership.

Almost no one felt the need to carry a gun on their person in the 50s and 60s. Things have gotten so bad and been bad for so long now that we’ve now had various states enact laws allowing both concealed and open carry to allow people to protect themselves. Thus the country’s bad guys are thinking twice before they decide to try to hijack a car or break into.someone’s home, and the current crime rate in part reflects this reluctance to engage in crime that would otherwise occur were it not for the fact that so many people are arming themselves nowadays.