|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 09 2016 02:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:29 Wegandi wrote:On July 09 2016 02:22 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2016 02:20 Wegandi wrote:On July 09 2016 01:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Pretty much the 2nd Amendment is a useless and antiquated law that dates back to when the Appalachian Mountains were the frontier. It's 2016 the frontier has been tamed and the West fully explored. ...and the 1st Amendment is also useless and antiquated because that law dates back to a time when printing presses were shit, there was no internet, flow of information was snail slow and assemblies consisted of a few hundred at most rather than tens of thousands. It's 2016 and the entire world is connected, the internet exists, social media exists, hacking exists, etc. Do you realize this is how your argument sounds, right? It's the Bill of RIGHTS, not Bill of Contempaririness. It is the Bill of Can be totally fucking amended because that is literally how it was created. And our concepts of those rights have changed over time as well. Of course it can be amended, but you know that it's literally impossible to get a new amendment ratified that annuls the 2nd, which is why you get stupid posts like StealthBlue's. Besides, if we took his argument at face, it also applies to almost all of the Bill of Rights. Hell, the Magna Carta and Common Law is over 900 years old, but are we going to scrap it because it's 900 years old? Let's get rid of jury trials because the "times have changed". I don't take arguments based on the age of a thing with the connotation of that thing being antiquated simply for being old as serious at all. The amusing part about all of this is that you claim we are going to scrap them, but its only you saying that. It is the classic response to any discussion about updating or changes the way we deal with and view fire arms: that any attempt will instantly result in them being taken away and the rights to own them removed.
Because in almost every single case of expanded background checks and increased regulation, it has eventually led to the removal of firearms from the hands of every citizen. See the UK and Australia as prominent examples.
On July 09 2016 02:45 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:29 Wegandi wrote:On July 09 2016 02:22 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2016 02:20 Wegandi wrote:On July 09 2016 01:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Pretty much the 2nd Amendment is a useless and antiquated law that dates back to when the Appalachian Mountains were the frontier. It's 2016 the frontier has been tamed and the West fully explored. ...and the 1st Amendment is also useless and antiquated because that law dates back to a time when printing presses were shit, there was no internet, flow of information was snail slow and assemblies consisted of a few hundred at most rather than tens of thousands. It's 2016 and the entire world is connected, the internet exists, social media exists, hacking exists, etc. Do you realize this is how your argument sounds, right? It's the Bill of RIGHTS, not Bill of Contempaririness. It is the Bill of Can be totally fucking amended because that is literally how it was created. And our concepts of those rights have changed over time as well. Of course it can be amended, but you know that it's literally impossible to get a new amendment ratified that annuls the 2nd, which is why you get stupid posts like StealthBlue's. Besides, if we took his argument at face, it also applies to almost all of the Bill of Rights. Hell, the Magna Carta and Common Law is over 900 years old, but are we going to scrap it because it's 900 years old? Let's get rid of jury trials because the "times have changed". I don't take arguments based on the age of a thing with the connotation of that thing being antiquated simply for being old as serious at all. It's antiquated because it's antiquated, not because it's straight up old... Are you kidding me?
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims.
|
And? The people seemed to be ok with it, whats your point?
|
On July 09 2016 02:29 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:22 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2016 02:20 Wegandi wrote:On July 09 2016 01:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Pretty much the 2nd Amendment is a useless and antiquated law that dates back to when the Appalachian Mountains were the frontier. It's 2016 the frontier has been tamed and the West fully explored. ...and the 1st Amendment is also useless and antiquated because that law dates back to a time when printing presses were shit, there was no internet, flow of information was snail slow and assemblies consisted of a few hundred at most rather than tens of thousands. It's 2016 and the entire world is connected, the internet exists, social media exists, hacking exists, etc. Do you realize this is how your argument sounds, right? It's the Bill of RIGHTS, not Bill of Contempaririness. It is the Bill of Can be totally fucking amended because that is literally how it was created. And our concepts of those rights have changed over time as well. Of course it can be amended, but you know that it's literally impossible to get a new amendment ratified that annuls the 2nd, which is why you get stupid posts like StealthBlue's. Besides, if we took his argument at face, it also applies to almost all of the Bill of Rights. Hell, the Magna Carta and Common Law is over 900 years old, but are we going to scrap it because it's 900 years old? Let's get rid of jury trials because the "times have changed". I don't take arguments based on the age of a thing with the connotation of that thing being antiquated simply for being old as serious at all.
Sorry but what exactly is your point supposed to be? Times are always changing and it is among the primary duties of lawmakers to adapt our laws to changing circumstances. Sometimes that change can be done without changing the wording simply through judicature and analogies sometimes a bit more invasive measures are required.
You could certainly try to make an argument to change any specific part of the Magna Carta because times have changed, heck some parts have actually changed (or rather they have been superceded in the European Convention of Human Rights in Europe or other equivalent documents) and most parts of the document are absolutely irrelevant by now. Have you ever actually read it? Remember that the original (or rather one of the 4 still existing copies) is in Latin.
Your founding fathers did their best to write a fitting and just constitution and included the amendments commonly called the bill of rights with it, but it seems ludicrous to imply that they intended anything they did to be the be all and end all of legislation (in point of fact Jefferson actually stated that he believed such bills should only be valid for a single generation but that is another discussion). Never mind the fact that they included a specific article for changing and amending it.
You don't take arguments that something is outdated simply because it is old serious at all is probably one of the most ironic statements I have ever read, but i somewhat doubt that you actually thought that one through...
|
On July 09 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
And? The people seemed to be ok with it, whats your point?
And it hasn't actually affected anything. In fact, more violent crimes are being committed today in the U.K. then there were pre-firearm bans. I wouldn't say the cause is because less civilians are able to protect themselves against an assailant, but I can assure you this, the firearm ban has done little to nothing to stop violent crimes from being committed.
Same thing happened in various other cities and states within the United States. They started to begin to enact stricter regulations on firearms, in particular handguns, and then suddenly within a few years violence spikes through the roof. Bans do absolutely nothing.
|
On July 09 2016 02:50 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
And? The people seemed to be ok with it, whats your point? And it hasn't actually affected anything. In fact, more violent crimes are being committed today in the U.K. then there were pre-firearm bans. I wouldn't say the cause is because less civilians are able to protect themselves against an assailant, but I can assure you this, the firearm ban has done little to nothing to stop violent crimes from being committed. Same thing happened in various other cities and states within the United States. They started to begin to enact stricter regulations on firearms, in particular handguns, and then suddenly within a few years violence spikes through the roof. Bans do absolutely nothing.
You do realize that gun crime and violent crime are two discrete phenomena, right?
I feel like you are twisting language here to make a point.
Punching someone in the stomach is a violent crime. Shooting 40 people is a gun crime.
Of course a weapons ban doesn't change human nature, it just makes it harder to commit a crime with the banned weapon.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
you guys should listen to the Chicago police scanner late nights. Good times, quite comfy
|
Correct as the firearms, and ammunition are being bought across state lines for example in California they are being bought in Texas, and Oklahoma etc.
|
On July 09 2016 02:50 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
And? The people seemed to be ok with it, whats your point? And it hasn't actually affected anything. In fact, more violent crimes are being committed today in the U.K. then there were pre-firearm bans. I wouldn't say the cause is because less civilians are able to protect themselves against an assailant, but I can assure you this, the firearm ban has done little to nothing to stop violent crimes from being committed. Same thing happened in various other cities and states within the United States. They started to begin to enact stricter regulations on firearms, in particular handguns, and then suddenly within a few years violence spikes through the roof. Bans do absolutely nothing.
And how many people have died from these "violent crimes" post-firearm ban.
|
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them.
|
On July 09 2016 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:50 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
And? The people seemed to be ok with it, whats your point? And it hasn't actually affected anything. In fact, more violent crimes are being committed today in the U.K. then there were pre-firearm bans. I wouldn't say the cause is because less civilians are able to protect themselves against an assailant, but I can assure you this, the firearm ban has done little to nothing to stop violent crimes from being committed. Same thing happened in various other cities and states within the United States. They started to begin to enact stricter regulations on firearms, in particular handguns, and then suddenly within a few years violence spikes through the roof. Bans do absolutely nothing. You do realize that gun crime and violent crime are two discrete phenomena, right? I feel like you are twisting language here to make a point. Punching someone in the stomach is a violent crime. Shooting 40 people is a gun crime. Of course a weapons ban doesn't change human nature, it just makes it harder to commit a crime with the banned weapon.
We also have many examples where firearm related crimes shot through the roof in the U.S. despite the fact that more harsh and stricter regulation was put into place in certain states and cities. It's been proven that it does nothing.
Also, post ban 1996 U.K. firearm homicide rates nearly doubled between 1996 and 2002. See here on pg. 11
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
Firearm homicide rates/firearm related violent crimes only went down when the U.K. stepped up their police force by hiring by the truckloads.
|
Why are doing nothing or complete ban the only two options gun folk can conceive?
|
It's almost as though gun control measures are of limited effect when one can travel less than an hour and be out of their grasp. Whodathunkit?
On July 09 2016 03:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are doing nothing or complete ban the only two options gun folk can conceive?
Because slopes can be slippery 
|
On July 09 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them.
Because the liberal left on multiple occasions (including current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton) have put forth the suggestion that the United States should move towards a firearm ban like Australia or the U.K.
When it's been proven that it does absolutely nothing.
|
On July 09 2016 03:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are doing nothing or complete ban the only two options gun folk can conceive?
Because if your reduce the debate down to two undesirable options, the status quo remains in place.
|
On July 09 2016 02:45 superstartran wrote:
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims.
Because I said so? No, it's a statement of belief, there's no objective judgment call on whether the 2nd amendment is antiquated or not.
As for the 2nd part of what you say, that's you committing the shifting the goalposts fallacy. In order to argue that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, you can go a number of different ways. One of them is, like you said, to make an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms, which is patently hard to do because there's a massive amount of obstruction by the NRA to prevent studies from being made, and other studies that are made are clearly not neutral.
There are other ways to suggest that the 2nd amendment is antiquated though, one of them being that no other country has such a thing being interpreted by their supreme court, and the rest of the world is doing fine without that. The 2nd amendment in the US has no tangible benefits whatsoever, in fact it may have been part of the cause of the massive proliferation of untraceable, eventually black market firearms. If you have a lot of legal firearms that are not registered, a bunch of them will get into the wrong hands. They cease being "legal" firearms but they still originated in the rest of the world.
So you have the 2nd amendment that brings just about nothing positive to the table, and you're asking me to give hard evidence for it being a bad thing? From my perspective it seems to me like YOU need to prove to me that the amendment either: 1) has tangible benefits that I don't see or 2) provably has no downsides.
Put it this way, Canada doesn't have a 2nd amendment and I'm a gun owner, soon I'll be able to purchase a CZ-75 SP01 Shadow, already have a case of reloaded 9mm ready to shoot. What arguments would my government have for putting something similar to the 2nd amendment in the constitution, not knowing the consequences? Would it benefit Canadian society? Not really. Would it have downsides? Maybe. We don't know, the ONE country that has such provisions in their constitution happens to have a massive black market of firearms and absurdly high gun crime rates and they intentionally prevent proper unbiased research for being done.
Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play.
So I feel like the evidence that's needed to argue that the 2nd amendment is very thin. Something that has no benefits like the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be proven to be very harmful for people to kind of assume it's a piece of shit. Keeping the 2nd amendment because of the dogmatic belief maybe it's not that harmful is absurd.
Like what analogy can I use to explain that something as fucking useless as the 2nd amendment is pointless and so you can get rid of it and it's fine. You find an old rotten toy in your garage and your kids really like to play with it, you don't know if the mold on it is dangerous, maybe it's harmless mold... the kids have plenty of other, mold-less toys that probably won't kill them. You say kids, let's throw the moldy toy away and play with your other, clean toys instead. They throw a tantrum: prove to me, daddy, that the mold is potentially harmful and toxic. Prove it beyond reasonable doubt, daddy. No it's a moldy toy, throw it away.
|
On July 09 2016 03:04 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them. Because the liberal left on multiple occasions (including current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton) have put forth the suggestion that the United States should move towards a firearm ban like Australia or the U.K. When it's been proven that it does absolutely nothing.
What do you mean it has done absolutely nothing? You think we have problems with gun crime here in the UK?
Regardless of stepping up the police force as you stated, there is simply very little ways of getting guns over here, if people want to commit attacks, they have to settle for other means which very often means less deaths.
|
On July 09 2016 03:04 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them. Because the liberal left on multiple occasions (including current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton) have put forth the suggestion that the United States should move towards a firearm ban like Australia or the U.K. When it's been proven that it does absolutely nothing.
So because someone suggested something a couple of times, all discussion should be halted and the status quo remain?
|
On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:45 superstartran wrote:
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims. Because I said so? No, it's a statement of belief, there's no objective judgment call on whether the 2nd amendment is antiquated or not. As for the 2nd part of what you say, that's you committing the shifting the goalposts fallacy. In order to argue that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, you can go a number of different ways. One of them is, like you said, to make an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms, which is patently hard to do because there's a massive amount of obstruction by the NRA to prevent studies from being made, and other studies that are made are clearly not neutral. There are other ways to suggest that the 2nd amendment is antiquated though, one of them being that no other country has such a thing being interpreted by their supreme court, and the rest of the world is doing fine without that. The 2nd amendment in the US has no tangible benefits whatsoever, in fact it may have been part of the cause of the massive proliferation of untraceable, eventually black market firearms. If you have a lot of legal firearms that are not registered, a bunch of them will get into the wrong hands. They cease being "legal" firearms but they still originated in the rest of the world. So you have the 2nd amendment that brings just about nothing positive to the table, and you're asking me to give hard evidence for it being a bad thing? From my perspective it seems to me like YOU need to prove to me that the amendment either: 1) has tangible benefits that I don't see or 2) provably has no downsides. Put it this way, Canada doesn't have a 2nd amendment and I'm a gun owner, soon I'll be able to purchase a CZ-75 SP01 Shadow, already have a case of reloaded 9mm ready to shoot. What arguments would my government have for putting something similar to the 2nd amendment in the constitution, not knowing the consequences? Would it benefit Canadian society? Not really. Would it have downsides? Maybe. We don't know, the ONE country that has such provisions in their constitution happens to have a massive black market of firearms and absurdly high gun crime rates and they intentionally prevent proper unbiased research for being done. Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play. So I feel like the evidence that's needed to argue that the 2nd amendment is very thin. Something that has no benefits like the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be proven to be very harmful for people to kind of assume it's a piece of shit. Keeping the 2nd amendment because of the dogmatic belief maybe it's not that harmful is absurd.
1) By removing the 2nd Amendment you leave firearm legislation completely up to the state unless you pass another amendment through to rectify the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Bad idea.
2) Proper unbiased research. Right. Didn't we already go over why the CDC are a bunch of assholes, probably bigger ones than the NRA? The rider states only the CDC themselves cannot advocate or promote firearm legislation. The NRA has never done anything to well respected criminologists (people who actually study crime unlike the CDC) from studying firearm related violence and what can be done to reduce it.
3) The rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and overall violence because the rest of the world has a far more homogenized society where you don't have a strong mix of different cultures and ethnic heritages mixed together. You can't compare a country like Japan to the United States, not even feasible.
4) The fact that you can't even refute any of the studies that have been put up here as evidence as to why increased gun regulation and bans doesn't work says a whole lot about your position in general.
On July 09 2016 03:13 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:04 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them. Because the liberal left on multiple occasions (including current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton) have put forth the suggestion that the United States should move towards a firearm ban like Australia or the U.K. When it's been proven that it does absolutely nothing. What do you mean it has done absolutely nothing? You think we have problems with gun crime here in the UK? Regardless of stepping up the police force as you stated, there is simply very little ways of getting guns over here, if people want to commit attacks, they have to settle for other means which very often means less deaths.
I just posted some statistics regarding firearm homicide rates earlier in the U.K. post handgun ban. You may want to look it up as it's quite surprising.
On July 09 2016 03:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:04 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them. Because the liberal left on multiple occasions (including current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton) have put forth the suggestion that the United States should move towards a firearm ban like Australia or the U.K. When it's been proven that it does absolutely nothing. So because someone suggested something a couple of times, all discussion should be halted and the status quo remain?
I'd rather not take the chance when people in positions of power are contemplating to take something away from me that I didn't do anything wrong with.
|
I read the link Super, and yea the 1996-2002 years were surprising and i would be interested to hear why we had that surge during that time, however what you didn't mention was the fact that the gun crimes has been reduced more and more every year since then.
|
On July 09 2016 03:15 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 02:45 superstartran wrote:
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims. Because I said so? No, it's a statement of belief, there's no objective judgment call on whether the 2nd amendment is antiquated or not. As for the 2nd part of what you say, that's you committing the shifting the goalposts fallacy. In order to argue that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, you can go a number of different ways. One of them is, like you said, to make an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms, which is patently hard to do because there's a massive amount of obstruction by the NRA to prevent studies from being made, and other studies that are made are clearly not neutral. There are other ways to suggest that the 2nd amendment is antiquated though, one of them being that no other country has such a thing being interpreted by their supreme court, and the rest of the world is doing fine without that. The 2nd amendment in the US has no tangible benefits whatsoever, in fact it may have been part of the cause of the massive proliferation of untraceable, eventually black market firearms. If you have a lot of legal firearms that are not registered, a bunch of them will get into the wrong hands. They cease being "legal" firearms but they still originated in the rest of the world. So you have the 2nd amendment that brings just about nothing positive to the table, and you're asking me to give hard evidence for it being a bad thing? From my perspective it seems to me like YOU need to prove to me that the amendment either: 1) has tangible benefits that I don't see or 2) provably has no downsides. Put it this way, Canada doesn't have a 2nd amendment and I'm a gun owner, soon I'll be able to purchase a CZ-75 SP01 Shadow, already have a case of reloaded 9mm ready to shoot. What arguments would my government have for putting something similar to the 2nd amendment in the constitution, not knowing the consequences? Would it benefit Canadian society? Not really. Would it have downsides? Maybe. We don't know, the ONE country that has such provisions in their constitution happens to have a massive black market of firearms and absurdly high gun crime rates and they intentionally prevent proper unbiased research for being done. Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play. So I feel like the evidence that's needed to argue that the 2nd amendment is very thin. Something that has no benefits like the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be proven to be very harmful for people to kind of assume it's a piece of shit. Keeping the 2nd amendment because of the dogmatic belief maybe it's not that harmful is absurd. 1) By removing the 2nd Amendment you leave firearm legislation completely up to the state unless you pass another amendment through to rectify the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Bad idea.
So the 2nd amendment is fine, not because its content is fine, but because the process to rectify it is too clumsy? I recognize that it's difficult, I'm arguing for principles here not specific solutions with a walkthrough for how to get there.
2) Proper unbiased research. Right. Didn't we already go over why the CDC are a bunch of assholes, probably bigger ones than the NRA? The rider states only the CDC themselves cannot advocate or promote firearm legislation. The NRA has never done anything to well respected criminologists (people who actually study crime unlike the CDC) from studying firearm related violence and what can be done to reduce it.
Not familiar with the actions of the CDC.
3) The rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and overall violence because the rest of the world has a far more homogenized society where you don't have a strong mix of different cultures and ethnic heritages mixed together. You can't compare a country like Japan to the United States, not even feasible.
You people take ceteris paribus to mean essentially "no comparison can be made ever". Gun violence in America is rooted in... the presence of guns, racial issues, income inequality, mental illness. The existence of other factors, and even the existence of factors that are more important than gun violence, does not invalidate gun control as a potential and very important path of solution to consider. Odds are the US would see a lot less gun crime if poverty was less of a problem, and if that happened there would be less of a need for gun control.
Canada is pretty fucking diverse too but we have fewer guns, less poverty, a shitload more social mobility, better mental healthcare. None of this shit republicans would be willing to pay for.
4) The fact that you can't even refute any of the studies that have been put up here as evidence as to why increased gun regulation and bans doesn't work says a whole lot about your position in general.
I didn't see those studies here, I assume you linked pdfs and I missed them and now I'm expected to read 500 pages of biased studies and come up with a retort on the fly. Gun crime went down in Australia after they imposed drastic gun control measures... but again other variables were at play. Intellectual lightweights see "there are other variables" so it's difficult to get a clear picture, test is inconclusive and therefore guns are harmless. It's so fucking easy.
But sure I can google up like let's see... "Studies showing that vaccines cause autism", right? That's cool. I can follow that for weeks and find cool new information about this. I can write "Studies showing that gun control works" (or doesn't work, they both pop up into google). Let's see what this says... Tens of studies in a vast array of countries showing gun control reducing gun crime.
You have longitudinal public health studies saying "Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively."
I can find studies saying the opposite, though. And those are the ones you like. I'm not saying they're worthless and entirely fraudulent, but your eagerness to do nothing is quite disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
