Gun Control

[carlfense]

Ahh I see, well I'll let you kids get back to your circle jerk then.

Eh?

[Enhance]

Yea, I brought this up several times and was rebuked because "America! F- Yeah!"

It's far too easy for people to get weapons - undeniable fact. We have 300 million weapons in this country (comparatively, Australia has 3 million. Very different populations and cultures, but still interesting for comparison).

 

The people who want to protect their ridiculously out-dated second amendment rights can do so. It's not the rational gun owners that will pass background checks that I'm worried about - it's gangbangers, thugs, psychopaths and maniacs who get their hands on weapons and kill handfuls of people.

 

For all the people who don't want stricter gun laws, then they can't be upset if one of their loved ones is gunned down in a mass shooting.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Here's a great question which comes from you post, Enhance.

 

Why are we so opposed to amending the Constitution? Especially the Bill of Rights? It is outdated, and some of the laws passed then were passed with a specific event in the memories of the makers. Why can't we understand that times are most certainly different and amend the Constitution?

[Enhance]

It is an excellent question. I won't pretend to be a policy analyst or political scientist, but I think it's a couple of things. First, a significant portion of American culture is wrapped up in guns. The Old West, gangs, the mafia, the NRA, 'Murica, etc. The people here just love their guns for multiple reasons. Furthermore, we're all very caught up in our First Amendment rights and heavily opposed to the government ever trying to take anything from us at any time.

 

Second, and more broadly, we have a lot of deep-seeded connections to the Bill of Rights, what it stands for, how it defines our country and how it has defined the lives of our citizens for more than 200 years. We're resistent to change on a grand scale, and government suffers because of it.

 

More specifically, and back to the Second Amendment, the law was created in a time of war, as an act of war, to protect citizens from opposing forces during a time where we had no well-organized army. The need for the Second Amendment is significantly less dire today than it was in the late 18th century.

 

That said, I'm opposed to getting rid of weapons entirely. I have never owned a gun nor will own a gun, but I understand people's interest in them - they're exhilarating. I just think we need more strict gun laws, less guns and harsher punishments for those who violate the law.

[sd'sker]

i brought up differing *state* laws and their effect on gun violence and that still was not good enough for those on this board. short of creating a vacuum with two identical societies, nothing will be good enough.

[knapplc]

i brought up differing *state* laws and their effect on gun violence and that still was not good enough for those on this board. short of creating a vacuum with two identical societies, nothing will be good enough.

 

It's a disingenuous argument, too. I've asked twice for a list of palatable comparators and the answer is empty hands and a shrug.

[tschu]

i brought up differing *state* laws and their effect on gun violence and that still was not good enough for those on this board. short of creating a vacuum with two identical societies, nothing will be good enough.

Correlation does not equal causation, my friend. As Bye Bye was saying earlier.

 

Short of creating two identical vacuum societies and running an infinite number of simulations on them using a universe-simulating supercomputer, no, we're not going to find 100% conclusive evidence anywhere.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'm not disagreeing sd, just wanting us to be cautious and giving my opinion that we can get at the roots of this problem.

[Junior]

Yea, I brought this up several times and was rebuked because "America! F- Yeah!"

It's far too easy for people to get weapons - undeniable fact. We have 300 million weapons in this country (comparatively, Australia has 3 million. Very different populations and cultures, but still interesting for comparison).

 

The people who want to protect their ridiculously out-dated second amendment rights can do so. It's not the rational gun owners that will pass background checks that I'm worried about - it's gangbangers, thugs, psychopaths and maniacs who get their hands on weapons and kill handfuls of people.

 

For all the people who don't want stricter gun laws, then they can't be upset if one of their loved ones is gunned down in a mass shooting.

 

Preaching to the choir, my friend.

[BigRedBuster]

Here's a great question which comes from you post, Enhance.

 

Why are we so opposed to amending the Constitution? Especially the Bill of Rights? It is outdated, and some of the laws passed then were passed with a specific event in the memories of the makers. Why can't we understand that times are most certainly different and amend the Constitution?

 

Who is opposed to doing that when

appropriate? There is a process to do that and it has been done many times.

 

If you think this is that important, start the movement.

 

But, as long as that hasn't happened, the constitution us the law of the land as is.

 

[zoogs]

More specifically, and back to the Second Amendment, the law was created in a time of war, as an act of war, to protect citizens from opposing forces during a time where we had no well-organized army. The need for the Second Amendment is significantly less dire today than it was in the late 18th century.

 

I disagree with this very strongly. The second amendment, nor any part of the constitution, were not created so that the federal government could bequeath to its citizens privileges on a per-need basis.

 

It's there to protect naturally existing rights from being denied by an authoritarian regime, which governments, unchecked, are in position to be. It's not a 'wartime law.'

 

Of course, it goes without saying that M240s and Abrams tanks didn't exist back in those days.

 

I do think we need less guns of certain types out there though. I think government buyback programs have been tried some places to good effect.

[JJ Husker]

I guess I'm sort of on the fence on this issue. On one hand I do not see a real need for anyone to have high capacity magazines or assault type weapons that are better suited for killing people than any sporting use. But, I also know that properly motivated people with bad or criminal intentions will still acquire these items with or without laws banning them. And that means , with new gun laws, the people who we don't want to have them will, and the only people it will discourage will be those with law abiding tendencies. I suppose it might help to prevent some heat of the moment actions but I don't think it significantly would help with the majority of the people that we probably all agree should be the most limited. Booze was illegal during prohibition. Drugs have been illegal for quite some time. Explain how words written on paper (laws) really have any effect on a person such as the Aurora CO theatre shooter. The best thing in a situation like that would be to have a well trained gun toting citizen at the ready not some law that the criminal is just going to ignore. I guess I'm still in favor of limiting access to items that are primarily geared toward killing many, fast and also more thorough and effective background checks but it just concerns me that we, in effect, will be placing law abiding citizens at more of a disadvantage rather than limiting those with criminal intentions.

[sd'sker]

i brought up differing *state* laws and their effect on gun violence and that still was not good enough for those on this board. short of creating a vacuum with two identical societies, nothing will be good enough.

Correlation does not equal causation, my friend. As Bye Bye was saying earlier.

 

Short of creating two identical vacuum societies and running an infinite number of simulations on them using a universe-simulating supercomputer, no, we're not going to find 100% conclusive evidence anywhere.

i know that correlation does not equal causation. i have said as much. but all we can do is use the information we have. are you being sarcastic? you are making my point. we compare state laws and differing societies all the time for data to help make decisions and effectuate change. why not with gun laws?

 

it just seems like you and bye bye are using this statistical imperfection to stonewall any discussion about gun laws. but then we should just try anything and everything until we find out what works best instead of using those statistical imperfections as an excuse to do nothing.

[tschu]

That's just my research background causing me to be a nit about using data as evidence. No, I agree with your main point about the need stricter laws, again I was just being really picky (Those damn science classes, they make you annoying and picky like this). Bye Bye is correct about the things he was saying though.

[sd'sker]

That's just my research background causing me to be a nit about using data as evidence. No, I agree with your main point about the need stricter laws, again I was just being really picky (Those damn science classes, they make you annoying and picky like this). Bye Bye is correct about the things he was saying though.

i understand that and i like statistics because they inform us of the world we live in, i just do not understand how it helps the conversation. those anomalies are important to consider, but at the same time we are not trying to make a 1 to 1 comparison. we are just looking around for new ideas. i was never disagreeing with either of you.