Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 01:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But these are the exact communities that would benefit the most from laws that would restrict easy access to guns. These are the comminities where most gun violence occurs.
Public safety policies are based on public safety, not economics. People in marginalized communities are also effected more by requirements for drivers license and auto insurance. It is also harder for them to afford to remove lead plumbing or paint from their homes. This is unfortunate but it does not mean that they should be exempt from these public safety requirements.
You're ignoring the fact that the bar to pass for enacting restrictive laws on gun ownership is a whole hell of a lot higher than any of the things you list, gun ownership being a civil liberty and all.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're ignoring the fact that the bar to pass for enacting restrictive laws on gun ownership is a whole hell of a lot higher than any of the things you list, gun ownership being a civil liberty and all.
For some reason that last bit keeps getting ignored by the anti-gun side of the argument.
Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it is not s slippery slope at all. If liberals want to enact more strict guns laws they will. They don't need to start small.
The United Sated has survived so long because it is based on laws created by democratic elections. Now we have all these pro-gun people claiming that if the law does not go their way they are going to result to killing people who do not agree with them. They try to compare their beliefs to the original Revolutionary War that created this country but that is a complete false equivalency. The Revolutionary War was fought to give people the right to vote so that we could have a democracy. At that time there was no way to change the law through democratic means or winning elections. So the pro gun people who support the belief that they should be allowed to kill people when they lose elections are actually anti-democracy. Their beliefs are treasonous.
While I don't entirely disagree with you, both the insurrectionists and the patriots were petulant children. The patriots just didn't want to pay for a war they started. More in common than you'd think based on how we learn history.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I don't entirely disagree with you, both the insurrectionists and the patriots were petulant children. The patriots just didn't want to pay for a war they started. More in common than you'd think based on how we learn history.
Also, yet another attempt to connect the 2A community to the Capitol Hill rioters. If any proof was needed of the disingenuous nature of the anti-gun side was needed this would supply it. It also ignores the whole pesky Constitution thing. An elected majority could enact all kinds of laws that shouldn't be allowed, one need look no further than the South for an example. Some people can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that just because a majority want it doesn't make it right or lawful, which is rather disturbing from someone with a college education.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're ignoring the fact that the bar to pass for enacting restrictive laws on gun ownership is a whole hell of a lot higher than any of the things you list, gun ownership being a civil liberty and all.
Public safety is public safety. Everyone of our Constitutional rights have limitations placed on them.
Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, yet another attempt to connect the 2A community to the Capitol Hill rioters. If any proof was needed of the disingenuous nature of the anti-gun side was needed this would supply it. It also ignores the whole pesky Constitution thing. An elected majority could enact all kinds of laws that shouldn't be allowed, one need look no further than the South for an example. Some people can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that just because a majority want it doesn't make it right or lawful, which is rather disturbing from someone with a college education.
I'm going to derail my own thread with this, but that's like the meme I saw recently about people trying to abolish the Senate California having the same population of like ten states but the same number of Senators. THAT'S HOW IT WAS DESIGNED **** HEAD!!! I want a more representative government, but having the check of the Senate is still important.
Blargh!
/rant
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Some people can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that just because a majority want it doesn't make it right or lawful, which is rather disturbing from someone with a college education.
I have no problem with any gun control law being overturned by the Supreme Court. I may not agree with it but I will follow it. But from what I hear gun owners don't feel the same way.
Would you agree to comply with any gun control law as long as the Supreme Court allows it?
Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Public safety is public safety. Everyone of our Constitutional rights have limitations placed on them.
Indeed they do. However, those limits should only be placed if they meet a very high bar. There should be actual evidence to show the policy would work. The evidence isn't there. The only policy with some evidence behind it is a universal background check, but even that isn't too great. Nothing else has a statistically significant impact on gun violence. I've done the literature review on the research, so I've seen it.
Root cause mitigation is the way to go.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm going to derail my own thread with this, but that's like the meme I saw recently about people trying to abolish the Senate California having the same population of like ten states but the same number of Senators. THAT'S HOW IT WAS DESIGNED **** HEAD!!! I want a more representative government, but having the check of the Senate is still important.
Blargh!
/rant
100% It reveals such a fundamental lack of understanding of how our nation was created to function. Oddly enough, you get pretty much the same people making both arguments.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed they do. However, those limits should only be placed if they meet a very high bar. There should be actual evidence to show the policy would work. The evidence isn't there. The only policy with some evidence behind it is a universal background check, but even that isn't too great. Nothing else has a statistically significant impact on gun violence. I've done the literature review on the research, so I've seen it.
How can you research the effects of policies that have never existed? Gun control laws in lim ited areas like one city or state are not effective because people just go outside of the city or to another state to buy their weapon.
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed they do. However, those limits should only be placed if they meet a very high bar. There should be actual evidence to show the policy would work. The evidence isn't there. The only policy with some evidence behind it is a universal background check, but even that isn't too great. Nothing else has a statistically significant impact on gun violence. I've done the literature review on the research, so I've seen it.
Root cause mitigation is the way to go.
There is evidence. There's evidence that it doesn't work, at all. The "assault weapons" ban had absolutely zero affect on crime rates, literally none. But we can't let facts and logic get in the way of a nice appeal to emotion.
I can understand your frustration with your fellow liberals, some of their positions are as illiberal as it is possible to be.
Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 02:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can you research the effects of policies that have never existed? Gun control laws in lim ited areas like one city or state are not effective because people just go outside of the city or to another state to buy their weapon.
Some of the laws we have seen nationally, like the Assault Weapons Ban. As for the state-specific ones, you can absolutely use those. Policy analysis takes those sorts of things into account. This is why I can say that universal background checks have evidence behind them. Then there are also laws passed in other countries and the effects they have.
Don't get me wrong, when people point to the gun violence in Chicago as a way of saying gun control doesn't work, my eyes roll so hard I lose my contacts because of what you are saying, here, but the studies are out there. Not enough of them because of the limit on spending on those studies, but it is there.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Some of the laws we have seen nationally, like the Assault Weapons Ban. As for the state-specific ones, you can absolutely use those. Policy analysis takes those sorts of things into account. This is why I can say that universal background checks have evidence behind them. Then there are also laws passed in other countries and the effects they have.
The problem with UBC is that it requires a registry of gun ownership. I'm not ok with that as it will inevitably be used for confiscation purposes if the Dems ever get their way.
Quote:Don't get me wrong, when people point to the gun violence in Chicago as a way of saying gun control doesn't work, my eyes roll so hard I lose my contacts because of what you are saying, here, but the studies are out there. Not enough of them because of the limit on spending on those studies, but it is there.
To be sure, laws in Chicago/Illinois can't be analyzed on their own when you have less restrictive jurisdictions within an hour or twos drive. What it does show, definitively, is that the real gun problem in this country is exactly what happens in Chicago on a weekly basis. It's the perfect example of where the real problem lies.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem with UBC is that it requires a registry of gun ownership. I'm not ok with that as it will inevitably be used for confiscation purposes if the Dems ever get their way.
Well I guess that answers this question.
(02-16-2021, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Would you agree to comply with any gun control law as long as the Supreme Court allows it?
And this just proves my point about how pro-gun people are actually AGAINST our Constitution. They want to wrap themselves in the 2nd Amendment like they worship the Constitution, but as soon as Constitutional laws disagree with their position they are against it. They actually love their guns more than our Constitution. They support breaking the law if they disagree with it.
They believe in ruling through violence instead of democratic principles.
Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem with UBC is that it requires a registry of gun ownership. I'm not ok with that as it will inevitably be used for confiscation purposes if the Dems ever get their way.
Eh, I disagree that it requires a registry. I've laid out a policy solution for it, in the past, that doesn't involve a registry.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 03:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I disagree that it requires a registry. I've laid out a policy solution for it, in the past, that doesn't involve a registry.
Forgive me for not recalling. Without a registry anyone could sell a firearm to another person and you'd never know that ownership had changed, or that the new owner wasn't always the owner.
Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 03:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Forgive me for not recalling. Without a registry anyone could sell a firearm to another person and you'd never know that ownership had changed, or that the new owner wasn't always the owner.
My plan hinged upon requiring individuals to keep the information of to whom they sell the firearms and places responsibility on those individuals. So a firearm is found at the scene of a crime. Law enforcement can get information from the manufacturer on the FFL where it was originally sold. Each person that firearm is passed to should have information on who that firearm was sold to. If not, then they receive a fine. If it was stolen and not reported, fined. Responsibility for that firearm lies with the owner, so there is incentive to keep the records. No registry, so central storage of information, no access for LE without a warrant.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 04:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My plan hinged upon requiring individuals to keep the information of to whom they sell the firearms and places responsibility on those individuals. So a firearm is found at the scene of a crime. Law enforcement can get information from the manufacturer on the FFL where it was originally sold. Each person that firearm is passed to should have information on who that firearm was sold to. If not, then they receive a fine. If it was stolen and not reported, fined. Responsibility for that firearm lies with the owner, so there is incentive to keep the records. No registry, so central storage of information, no access for LE without a warrant.
That would only work going forward. There are probably over a 100 million firearms in this country that are way older than any such records. I have a firearm my Great-Grandfather brought back from WW1.
Posts: 16,084
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59424
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(02-16-2021, 04:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That would only work going forward. There are probably over a 100 million firearms in this country that are way older than any such records. I have a firearm my Great-Grandfather brought back from WW1.
Would never be a perfect program, but nothing will be. I have firearms that would be in the same boat. Heck, I have a machine gun that would've been had I not been kind enough to notify the ATF about it. 
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 10,978
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43379
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(02-16-2021, 04:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Would never be a perfect program, but nothing will be. I have firearms that would be in the same boat. Heck, I have a machine gun that would've been had I not been kind enough to notify the ATF about it.
Oooooo, what it is?
|
