Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Symmetry]

So because some people kill others or themselves with guns, we should keep all people from having guns? Where do Constitutional rights come into the picture? Or are those not allowed either?

You are welcome to rejoin the discussion when you calm down NS.

[Metsfanmax]

So because some people kill others or themselves with guns, we should keep all people from having guns? Where do Constitutional rights come into the picture? Or are those not allowed either?

You cannot expect to have constructive argumentation if you respond to "here are reasons why we should consider limiting the number of guns available" with "you cannot take away all of the guns."

[thegreekdog]

So because some people kill others or themselves with guns, we should keep all people from having guns? Where do Constitutional rights come into the picture? Or are those not allowed either?

You cannot expect to have constructive argumentation if you respond to "here are reasons why we should consider limiting the number of guns available" with "you cannot take away all of the guns."

This is why the NRA and its various conservative supporters will not be taken seriously by others. The response is "YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS" to any action taken by the government, whether it is as minor as "appoint a head of the ATF" or "make background checks mandatory for gun show purchases." It's really very sad.

[Night Strike]

So because some people kill others or themselves with guns, we should keep all people from having guns? Where do Constitutional rights come into the picture? Or are those not allowed either?

You cannot expect to have constructive argumentation if you respond to "here are reasons why we should consider limiting the number of guns available" with "you cannot take away all of the guns."

This is why the NRA and its various conservative supporters will not be taken seriously by others. The response is "YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS" to any action taken by the government, whether it is as minor as "appoint a head of the ATF" or "make background checks mandatory for gun show purchases." It's really very sad.

I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.

So because some people kill others or themselves with guns, we should keep all people from having guns? Where do Constitutional rights come into the picture? Or are those not allowed either?

You cannot expect to have constructive argumentation if you respond to "here are reasons why we should consider limiting the number of guns available" with "you cannot take away all of the guns."

When dealing with Constitutional rights, there must be compelling and necessary reasons to violate those rights. Forming cogent arguments is NOT enough to justify taking away rights via legislation. The VAST majority of gun owners are completely law-abiding citizens that are responsible in their gun ownership. Furthermore, that majority are the only ones who would actually follow any further onerous regulations that government would put on gun owners. Exactly none of the executive orders or proposed laws will save lives because criminals don't follow the law already. In fact, it has a much higher chance of costing lives because fewer people will have the ability to protect themselves.

[thegreekdog]

I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.

On the way home from work last night I listened to a conservative talk radio station (I usually listen to sports talk radio, but I had enough of the Chip Kelly debate). The entirety of the calls (in Philadelphia, mind you, not a rural hotspot) involved the president, the NRA, tyranny, guns, and the taking away of said guns. Most of the calls were impassioned people who could barely form coherent sentences. Where do you think they became impassioned (or ensorcelled, most likely)? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck?

[Night Strike]

I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.

On the way home from work last night I listened to a conservative talk radio station (I usually listen to sports talk radio, but I had enough of the Chip Kelly debate). The entirety of the calls (in Philadelphia, mind you, not a rural hotspot) involved the president, the NRA, tyranny, guns, and the taking away of said guns. Most of the calls were impassioned people who could barely form coherent sentences. Where do you think they became impassioned (or ensorcelled, most likely)? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck?

People become more impassioned whenever they hear that the government wants to directly regulate their personal activities and rights. We should have more people become passionate about protecting their Constitutional rights, not fewer. Gun ownership and use is a Constitutional right. We don't need more laws that will keep more law-abiding citizens from owning the guns they want to own. We already ban automatic and heavy weapons; we don't need to ban more weapons simply because some politicians think they look scary.

[thegreekdog]

I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.

On the way home from work last night I listened to a conservative talk radio station (I usually listen to sports talk radio, but I had enough of the Chip Kelly debate). The entirety of the calls (in Philadelphia, mind you, not a rural hotspot) involved the president, the NRA, tyranny, guns, and the taking away of said guns. Most of the calls were impassioned people who could barely form coherent sentences. Where do you think they became impassioned (or ensorcelled, most likely)? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck?

People become more impassioned whenever they hear that the government wants to directly regulate their personal activities and rights. We should have more people become passionate about protecting their Constitutional rights, not fewer. Gun ownership and use is a Constitutional right. We don't need more laws that will keep more law-abiding citizens from owning the guns they want to own. We already ban automatic and heavy weapons; we don't need to ban more weapons simply because some politicians think they look scary.

Yes, this is the rhetoric that I heard last night.

It appears, at least from this post, that your point is that the government wants to ban scary-looking weapons and that you don't want them to ban scary-looking weapons. So the sticking point is the scary-looking weapons issue.

The sticking point is not your constitutional rights and yet that's all the conservatives are discussing at this point. You still have the right to own the same weapons, they just look different. Frankly, I think conservatives could score some points by sighing and saying, "Yeah, we should ban these scary-looking weapons." Protecting them doesn't really do you any good; you just look like morons and crazy people since you're not actually arguing for anything substantive.

Also, regulation is perfectly constitutional and legitimate. So I'm not sure why there's outrage against these types of items. Let me ask you this Night Strike - are you in favor of waiting periods and restrictions comparable to regular purchases of guns for gun show purchases of guns? If not, why not? What is the constitutional difference between purchasing a gun from a store and purchasing a gun from a gun show?

[Metsfanmax]

Exactly none of the executive orders or proposed laws will save lives because criminals don't follow the law already. In fact, it has a much higher chance of costing lives because fewer people will have the ability to protect themselves.

So you completely ignored the bit about how more than half of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted. Right.

[thegreekdog]

Exactly none of the executive orders or proposed laws will save lives because criminals don't follow the law already. In fact, it has a much higher chance of costing lives because fewer people will have the ability to protect themselves.

So you completely ignored the bit about how more than half of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted. Right.

That's largely irrelevant. Night Strike's point, and I would make the same point, is that people who do not commit crimes with guns should not be punished for the activities of people who do commit crimes with guns. That's like taking away cars or baseball bats or knives or penises because people commit crimes with those things.

[Metsfanmax]

Exactly none of the executive orders or proposed laws will save lives because criminals don't follow the law already. In fact, it has a much higher chance of costing lives because fewer people will have the ability to protect themselves.

So you completely ignored the bit about how more than half of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted. Right.

That's largely irrelevant. Night Strike's point, and I would make the same point, is that people who do not commit crimes with guns should not be punished for the activities of people who do commit crimes with guns. That's like taking away cars or baseball bats or knives or penises because people commit crimes with those things.

It is relevant because NS said the laws will not save lives. It is evident that they will save lives, even if the only lives they save are the people who no longer commit suicide because it is more difficult for them to access a gun. If you wish to argue that it is not worth "punishing" people who do not commit crimes in an effort to save those lives, you may do so; but ignoring the problem of suicide by firearm does not make it vanish. His argument that we will lose more lives than we currently do if we limit access to guns is tenuous at best because more than half of the lives that are currently lost, are by suicide.

[thegreekdog]

Exactly none of the executive orders or proposed laws will save lives because criminals don't follow the law already. In fact, it has a much higher chance of costing lives because fewer people will have the ability to protect themselves.

So you completely ignored the bit about how more than half of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted. Right.

That's largely irrelevant. Night Strike's point, and I would make the same point, is that people who do not commit crimes with guns should not be punished for the activities of people who do commit crimes with guns. That's like taking away cars or baseball bats or knives or penises because people commit crimes with those things.

It is relevant because NS said the laws will not save lives. It is evident that they will save lives, even if the only lives they save are the people who no longer commit suicide because it is more difficult for them to access a gun. If you wish to argue that it is not worth "punishing" people who do not commit crimes in an effort to save those lives, you may do so; but ignoring the problem of suicide by firearm does not make it vanish. His argument that we will lose more lives than we currently do if we limit access to guns is tenuous at best because more than half of the lives that are currently lost, are by suicide.

I think you're arguing correlation and causation. Bear with me.

If someone is of the mindset that he or she wishes to commit a crime, in this case suicide, will the unavailability of the tool of choice change the person's mind such that he or she would not commit the crime, in this case suicide? I doubt there are any studies on the subject since people who commit suicide cannot be reached for comment. Unlike drunk driving, taking away the tool used to commit the crime may not solve the problem of the crime, it may merely move the criminal to a different tool. Therefore, I don't take as rote that criminalizing guns will solve or help the problem of suicide (if that is indeed a problem).

Furthermore, I'm sort of stumped by the suicide issue. I was under the impression (mistaken impression maybe) that most liberals were in favor of the legality of suicide. I suppose that doesn't matter for purposes of this conversation.

[Metsfanmax]

I think you're arguing correlation and causation. Bear with me.

If someone is of the mindset that he or she wishes to commit a crime, in this case suicide, will the unavailability of the tool of choice change the person's mind such that he or she would not commit the crime, in this case suicide? I doubt there are any studies on the subject since people who commit suicide cannot be reached for comment. Unlike drunk driving, taking away the tool used to commit the crime may not solve the problem of the crime, it may merely move the criminal to a different tool. Therefore, I don't take as rote that criminalizing guns will solve or help the problem of suicide (if that is indeed a problem).

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

I began this discussion by linking to the above study; I'll quote my earlier post for convenience:

You may have the notion that people who commit suicide make a plan to do it, and will successfully do so regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Actually, according to this study, the majority of suicide cases are either unplanned (i.e. temporary crises) or are self-limiting (e.g. will go away if the person does not have immediate access to something with which to kill themselves). Also, the other common methods of suicide (drug overdoses and cutting) are much less successful at actually killing people. The paper demonstrates that there is a substantial link between suicide risk and access to a gun in the home. So that's why suicides count. I don't know about you, but I think it's generally bad when people kill themselves in temporary psychological crises when living otherwise fairly normal lives. This would happen far less often if guns were not as commonly owned.

Furthermore, I'm sort of stumped by the suicide issue. I was under the impression (mistaken impression maybe) that most liberals were in favor of the legality of suicide. I suppose that doesn't matter for purposes of this conversation.

I am strongly in favor of the legal right to commit suicide. That does not mean that I am in favor of suicide in most cases; I think it is a bad thing when someone has a temporary psychological crisis and kills themselves when normally they would have done no such thing. When liberals say they are in favor of the legality of suicide, what they are really trying to get at is the cases where there is prolonged suffering over the course of months or years (e.g. a terminal and painful disease). In those cases many of us believe that a person should be able to end their suffering, if the person wants this. On the other hand, a temporary source of trauma such as the loss of a job or the end of a marriage should probably never be a cause for suicide in a healthy person, yet a number of people commit suicide in these desperate times because they have access to a successful method of doing so.

[thegreekdog]

I read the study (or the abstract... whatever you've linked to). It is rather disturbing that the suicide rate is directly related to the gun ownership rate (in the states studied). That is the only evidence I would take as valuable from the article. The timing issue is irrelevant to me. There are other ways to commit suicide apart from guns, no matter the amount of time it takes between decision and execution (no pun intended). This goes back to the "liberals concerned about suicide" discussion, which I'll take up further later.

To move back to the state study, if the gun ownership percentage (or rate) is reduced, then we would see a reduction in the overall rate. I would like to know more about the state-by-state study itself, since it appears that more states were studied where gun ownership was prevelant than not, but that may be a population issue (since gun ownership rates are lower in the New Yorks and New Jerseys of the world). I would also note that there may be other issues affecting the rates of suicide in the states studied. For example, the states with higher gun ownership rates appear to share certain cultural characteristics and the states with low gun ownership rates appear to share certain cultural characteristics and there appear to be differences between the two groups of states. If we looked at the high gun suicide rate states, they all tend to be mid-west states with little to no urban sprawl and largely run by Republican governments. If we look at the low gun suicide rate states, they all tend to be east coast states with more urban sprawl and run by Democratic governments. Does that mean something to the suicide rate generally or to the gun suicide rate generally?

I would also not the following discrepancy:

In our experience, many clinicians who care deeply about preventing suicide are unfamiliar with the evidence linking guns to suicide. Too many seem to believe that anyone who is serious enough about suicide to use a gun would find an equally effective means if a gun were not available. This belief is invalid.

Physicians and other health care providers who care for suicidal patients should be able to assess whether people at risk for suicide have access to a firearm or other lethal means and to work with patients and their families to limit access to those means until suicidal feelings have passed.

On the one hand, the publishers of the article make the point that gun availability should be a primary concern, but then go on, in the next paragraph, to note that "other lethal means" should also be of concern. I don't agree with this line of thinking, albeit I'm not a psychologist. The issue should not revolve around guns, it should revolve around any lethal means.
On the liberal support of suicide, I'm one of those liberals (or at least I'm liberal on that particular issue). So I'm not trying to debate the merits of the discussion and your points are good ones relative to that issue. However, I did not see a link between the small amount of time between decision and execution and the availability of a gun, so ultimately I do not believe that it is less likely that treatment would be effective if a gun was not available than was available.

[Metsfanmax]

I read the study (or the abstract... whatever you've linked to). It is rather disturbing that the suicide rate is directly related to the gun ownership rate (in the states studied). That is the only evidence I would take as valuable from the article. The timing issue is irrelevant to me. There are other ways to commit suicide apart from guns, no matter the amount of time it takes between decision and execution (no pun intended). This goes back to the "liberals concerned about suicide" discussion, which I'll take up further later.

Consider this: what is the logical reason why suicide rates are correlated with gun ownerships? Unless there is absolutely no causation between the two (unlikely, given the raw amount of data we have and what we know about those who attempt suicide), then we have to figure out why it is that increased gun ownership leads to more gun-inflicted suicides. That is what the two authors attempt to do in the first couple of paragraphs; they cite a study that shows that 70% of suicide attempts happen less than one hour after the decision to commit suicide occurs. This is a direct refutation of the narrative in which a person who commits suicide always rationally sets their plan in stone and then coldly finds a method of execution. Backing this up is their observation that "more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt... do not go on to die by suicide." It suggests that if we could find some way of limiting access to tools for the impulsive suicides (or find ways to slow down the attempt, e.g. gun lockers), that we could substantially decrease the number of suicides that occur.

To move back to the state study, if the gun ownership percentage (or rate) is reduced, then we would see a reduction in the overall rate. I would like to know more about the state-by-state study itself, since it appears that more states were studied where gun ownership was prevelant than not, but that may be a population issue (since gun ownership rates are lower in the New Yorks and New Jerseys of the world).

If you look at the table where they do a meta-analysis of the various literature, it shows that there are roughly the same number of person-years being analyzed between the high gun ownership states and the low gun ownership states. That should remove much of the bias that would exist if one had only studied, say, New Jersey.

I would also note that there may be other issues affecting the rates of suicide in the states studied. For example, the states with higher gun ownership rates appear to share certain cultural characteristics and the states with low gun ownership rates appear to share certain cultural characteristics and there appear to be differences between the two groups of states. If we looked at the high gun suicide rate states, they all tend to be mid-west states with little to no urban sprawl and largely run by Republican governments. If we look at the low gun suicide rate states, they all tend to be east coast states with more urban sprawl and run by Democratic governments. Does that mean something to the suicide rate generally or to the gun suicide rate generally?

Interesting question. I think that it is not relevant to the general conclusion of the study, but it is probably very relevant in determining how the various states implement a policy that best suits their attempt to limit the number of suicides caused by gunshot wound.

I would also not the following discrepancy:

In our experience, many clinicians who care deeply about preventing suicide are unfamiliar with the evidence linking guns to suicide. Too many seem to believe that anyone who is serious enough about suicide to use a gun would find an equally effective means if a gun were not available. This belief is invalid.

Physicians and other health care providers who care for suicidal patients should be able to assess whether people at risk for suicide have access to a firearm or other lethal means and to work with patients and their families to limit access to those means until suicidal feelings have passed.

On the one hand, the publishers of the article make the point that gun availability should be a primary concern, but then go on, in the next paragraph, to note that "other lethal means" should also be of concern. I don't agree with this line of thinking, albeit I'm not a psychologist. The issue should not revolve around guns, it should revolve around any lethal means.

One thing the authors observe is that "[a]ttempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often." So, if you're interested in public health only, then what you see is a crucial balance between the two problems: on the one hand, suicide by gunshot wound is much less common than other methods of attempted suicide; on the other hand, this method of suicide is far more effective than the other common methods, and therefore accounts for slightly more than half of all (successful) suicides. A balanced public health approach would therefore be to limit access to all of these methods of suicide for people who are at risk to have a temporary crisis.

[patches70]

Suicide is not against the law. You won't find anyone in prison for attempted suicide.
It is illegal in the US to assist someone in a suicide. One can go to jail for that, but if a person attempts suicide, the cops take that person into custody and deliver them to a mental health ward for observation. Against your will even, as attempted suicide is a sign of mental illness. Up to 96 hours one would be observed and after that it would be determined if the person requires treatment or is released, this decision is made by the doctors usually, not the cops.

You won't go to jail for attempting suicide. Unless you use an illegal firearm, you might get charged with that. Or if you committed any crimes during your attempted suicide. But the suicide attempt itself is not illegal.
At one time there were states that had attempted suicide laws, but if any still have them they don't enforce them, like old blue laws.
But there is no one in jail in the US because they tried to kill themselves.

In the US military that may be a different story. There is a marine who is suing the military because he was allegedly sentenced to 180 days for a suicide attempt. I might look into that case if I get some time. Something sounds a bit off about it, but the military is a different animal. They have a serious suicide problem but I was under the impression that they weren't tossing men into the brig for it. The military can be highly stressful for some people. Doesn't seem right to toss failed suicider's in jail.

But the attempted suicide can find themselves tossed into a mental health ward.

[Metsfanmax]

Suicide is not against the law. You won't find anyone in prison for attempted suicide.
It is illegal in the US to assist someone in a suicide. One can go to jail for that, but if a person attempts suicide, the cops take that person into custody and deliver them to a mental health ward for observation. Against your will even, as attempted suicide is a sign of mental illness. Up to 96 hours one would be observed and after that it would be determined if the person requires treatment or is released, this decision is made by the doctors usually, not the cops.

To be clear, what I was obliquely referencing above (and perhaps TGD too) was actually physician-assisted suicide. That is what I believe ought to be legal, but it is a subject for a different thread.

[thegreekdog]

Consider this: what is the logical reason why suicide rates are correlated with gun ownerships? Unless there is absolutely no causation between the two (unlikely, given the raw amount of data we have and what we know about those who attempt suicide), then we have to figure out why it is that increased gun ownership leads to more gun-inflicted suicides. That is what the two authors attempt to do in the first couple of paragraphs; they cite a study that shows that 70% of suicide attempts happen less than one hour after the decision to commit suicide occurs. This is a direct refutation of the narrative in which a person who commits suicide always rationally sets their plan in stone and then coldly finds a method of execution. Backing this up is their observation that "more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt... do not go on to die by suicide." It suggests that if we could find some way of limiting access to tools for the impulsive suicides (or find ways to slow down the attempt, e.g. gun lockers), that we could substantially decrease the number of suicides that occur.

Right, and the latter suggestion is not limited to guns. I've seen the PSA-type videos on locking up pharmaceuticals.

Interesting question. I think that it is not relevant to the general conclusion of the study, but it is probably very relevant in determining how the various states implement a policy that best suits their attempt to limit the number of suicides caused by gunshot wound.

Interesting.

I cannot prove my hypothesis because my firm does not let me get search results from the words "firearm" or "gun." However, my hypothesis is that the "homicide by gun" rate is higher in the states that have lower rates of firearm ownership than in the state that have higher rates of firearm ownership. What conclusions can we draw from that data? Can we draw the same conclusions? On the one hand, we have data showing that higher rates of gun ownership leads to higher rates of suicide by gun (and suicide generally), therefore banning guns would make sense in limiting suicides. On the other hand, my hypothesis is that the data will show that higher rates of gun ownership leads to lower rates of homicide by gun, therefore mandating gun ownership would make sense in limiting homicides.

Wiki, which does not have all the data I want, provides that the states mentioned for low gun suicide rates, have the following gun homicide rates:

- Hawaii - 0.51 (47th)
- Massachusetts - 1.53
- Rhode Island - 1.48
- New Jersey - 2.65
- Connecticut - 2.60
- New York - 2.67

I will continue to develop this more.

[patches70]

Suicide is not against the law. You won't find anyone in prison for attempted suicide.
It is illegal in the US to assist someone in a suicide. One can go to jail for that, but if a person attempts suicide, the cops take that person into custody and deliver them to a mental health ward for observation. Against your will even, as attempted suicide is a sign of mental illness. Up to 96 hours one would be observed and after that it would be determined if the person requires treatment or is released, this decision is made by the doctors usually, not the cops.

To be clear, what I was obliquely referencing above (and perhaps TGD too) was actually physician-assisted suicide. That is what I believe ought to be legal, but it is a subject for a different thread.

I must have misread, I thought someone had wrote that attempted suicide was illegal or criminal, which is not true.

As you were.

[BigBallinStalin]

I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.

On the way home from work last night I listened to a conservative talk radio station (I usually listen to sports talk radio, but I had enough of the Chip Kelly debate). The entirety of the calls (in Philadelphia, mind you, not a rural hotspot) involved the president, the NRA, tyranny, guns, and the taking away of said guns. Most of the calls were impassioned people who could barely form coherent sentences. Where do you think they became impassioned (or ensorcelled, most likely)? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck?

Word of the Day. Thanks, TGD.

[Night Strike]

I have not heard anyone take umbrage to Obama finally doing his job and filling necessary governmental posts. The mandatory background checks for everybody could become extremely onerous when private individuals are trying to sell their guns to other people.

On the way home from work last night I listened to a conservative talk radio station (I usually listen to sports talk radio, but I had enough of the Chip Kelly debate). The entirety of the calls (in Philadelphia, mind you, not a rural hotspot) involved the president, the NRA, tyranny, guns, and the taking away of said guns. Most of the calls were impassioned people who could barely form coherent sentences. Where do you think they became impassioned (or ensorcelled, most likely)? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck?

People become more impassioned whenever they hear that the government wants to directly regulate their personal activities and rights. We should have more people become passionate about protecting their Constitutional rights, not fewer. Gun ownership and use is a Constitutional right. We don't need more laws that will keep more law-abiding citizens from owning the guns they want to own. We already ban automatic and heavy weapons; we don't need to ban more weapons simply because some politicians think they look scary.

Yes, this is the rhetoric that I heard last night.

It appears, at least from this post, that your point is that the government wants to ban scary-looking weapons and that you don't want them to ban scary-looking weapons. So the sticking point is the scary-looking weapons issue.

Considering gun control advocates don't even use the proper terminology to discuss the guns they want to ban (equating assault with semi-automatic and automatic), I think "scary-looking weapons" is more accurate than what they use.

The sticking point is not your constitutional rights and yet that's all the conservatives are discussing at this point. You still have the right to own the same weapons, they just look different. Frankly, I think conservatives could score some points by sighing and saying, "Yeah, we should ban these scary-looking weapons." Protecting them doesn't really do you any good; you just look like morons and crazy people since you're not actually arguing for anything substantive.

And after those are banned, they'll work to ban handguns. The encroachment on Constitutional rights never ends for progressives, so we have to draw the line somewhere. The line is currently drawn at banning automatic and heavy weapons. There's absolutely no reason to ban more.

Also, regulation is perfectly constitutional and legitimate. So I'm not sure why there's outrage against these types of items. Let me ask you this Night Strike - are you in favor of waiting periods and restrictions comparable to regular purchases of guns for gun show purchases of guns? If not, why not? What is the constitutional difference between purchasing a gun from a store and purchasing a gun from a gun show?

Regulations cannot infringe on Constitutional rights, especially when the 2nd amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed". We cannot continue regulating our right to own and carry guns until that right is gone.

Waiting periods are stupid and should not be mandated. If I pay for a product, I expect to receive it immediately (knowing of course if something has to be shipped, etc.). The government shouldn't get to dictate which products I have to buy and then wait days to receive. As for background checks, I already stated that forcing every private individual to call up the FBI and wait for a background check is quite onerous. If businesses sell at gun shows, then they should still be required to carry out the background checks. However, if I own a gun and wish to go sell it to someone, I should have that ability, just like how I don't have to get a license or authorization for anything else I want to sell.

[thegreekdog]

Considering gun control advocates don't even use the proper terminology to discuss the guns they want to ban (equating assault with semi-automatic and automatic), I think "scary-looking weapons" is more accurate than what they use.

I agree. It's either moronic or disengenous, depending on who is relaying the message.

And after those are banned, they'll work to ban handguns. The encroachment on Constitutional rights never ends for progressives, so we have to draw the line somewhere. The line is currently drawn at banning automatic and heavy weapons. There's absolutely no reason to ban more.

But again, the ban wouldn't actually change gun ownership. It merely bans scary looking weapons. You can use the same exact weapon and paint it pink and you're good to go. So why fight that kind of law? You are using up all your political capital fighting something that is ineffective.

Regulations cannot infringe on Constitutional rights, especially when the 2nd amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed". We cannot continue regulating our right to own and carry guns until that right is gone.

Waiting periods are stupid and should not be mandated. If I pay for a product, I expect to receive it immediately (knowing of course if something has to be shipped, etc.). The government shouldn't get to dictate which products I have to buy and then wait days to receive. As for background checks, I already stated that forcing every private individual to call up the FBI and wait for a background check is quite onerous. If businesses sell at gun shows, then they should still be required to carry out the background checks. However, if I own a gun and wish to go sell it to someone, I should have that ability, just like how I don't have to get a license or authorization for anything else I want to sell.

Regulations can infringe on Constitutional rights. There are examples of this with respect to free speech rights, self-incrimination rights, religious rights, privacy rights, and voting rights. Your rights across the board are subject to regulation.

You should absolutely not have the ability to sell a gun to anyone. Most guns used in crimes here in Philadelphia were illegally obtained. What does that mean? That means that someone purchased a gun legally and then immediately sold it to someone who used it in a crime. It's called a straw man purchase.

A lot of gun advocates, and maybe you, live in this idyllic world where bad things don't happen with respect to guns. Guns cannot be left unregulated. Your agrument for deregulation (and the relevant infringement upon constitutional rights) would call for the deregulation of bazookas, for example. Do you, Night Strike, want the deregulation of bazookas? You accuse gun control advocates of slippery slope... can the same be said for you?

[stahrgazer]

As for background checks, I already stated that forcing every private individual to call up the FBI and wait for a background check is quite onerous. If businesses sell at gun shows, then they should still be required to carry out the background checks. However, if I own a gun and wish to go sell it to someone, I should have that ability, just like how I don't have to get a license or authorization for anything else I want to sell.

Actually, you can't buy a prescription drug and then resell it without violating a law, even if you want to sell it.

Restaurants can't buy fish from jo-fisher and resell it in their restaurant, even if they want to because they think it's fresher that way - not unless jo-fisher is commercially licensed himself; which also means jo-fisher can't catch a fish and sell it without a license. At least, not legally.

That said, I agree with you about individuals and background checks. The problem is the "loophole" of someone without a record (probably need to add "yet" to that statement) buying something and then selling it to someone when they know the someone is not legally supposed to have a gun//could not buy one himself.

But I get weary of folks looking for all the loopholes and using those to violate the intentions of laws, and I get weary of governments trying to over-regulate to close all the loopholes when those really only hurt those who would do things legally and morally.

No matter what law is written, criminals are gonna break it. I have issue with laws suddenly making law-abiding citizens pay the price for the criminals because the criminals are breaking laws.

Just go after the criminals, dangit, and leave me alone. STOP insisting I wear a seatbelt or get a ticket, whether I wear a seatbelt or not isn't going to hurt ANYONE else. Meanwhile, you're pulling someone over bc of no seatbelt and letting someone who didn't use a turn signal go scott free - while, their refusal to signal COULD hurt someone else.

And STOP trying to say my gun of any type should be illegal because some dickwad somewhere did wrong things with a gun. Go find the dickwads and stop THEM, and leave me alone.

[Juan_Bottom]

Regulations can infringe on Constitutional rights. There are examples of this with respect to free speech rights, self-incrimination rights, religious rights, privacy rights, and voting rights. Your rights across the board are subject to regulation.

You should absolutely not have the ability to sell a gun to anyone. Most guns used in crimes here in Philadelphia were illegally obtained. What does that mean? That means that someone purchased a gun legally and then immediately sold it to someone who used it in a crime. It's called a straw man purchase.

A lot of gun advocates, and maybe you, live in this idyllic world where bad things don't happen with respect to guns. Guns cannot be left unregulated. Your agrument for deregulation (and the relevant infringement upon constitutional rights) would call for the deregulation of bazookas, for example. Do you, Night Strike, want the deregulation of bazookas? You accuse gun control advocates of slippery slope... can the same be said for you?

According to the FBI, only 2.2% of homicides in this country are called "justified."

But NS reminded me of this old quote I read a million years ago:

"It is an existing evil for which we are not responsible. We must endure it, and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the Constitution."

No matter what law is written, criminals are gonna break it. I have issue with laws suddenly making law-abiding citizens pay the price for the criminals because the criminals are breaking laws.

Just go after the criminals, dangit, and leave me alone. STOP insisting I wear a seatbelt or get a ticket, whether I wear a seatbelt or not isn't going to hurt ANYONE else. Meanwhile, you're pulling someone over bc of no seatbelt and letting someone who didn't use a turn signal go scott free - while, their refusal to signal COULD hurt someone else

This is a terrible argument. Why should we have any laws at all? Why should you pay taxes for police or firemen? You don't start fires, that funding should be other people's responsibility, right?

[KoolBak]

I believe Star referred ONLY to Gun Control regs that punish honest people and do nothing to criminals. The seatbelt / helmet was an example, which I also DETEST. I taught my children to be safe but, dammit, I don't want to have to wear that shit all the time. I did learn, however, WHY they passed those laws.....

I got a seatbelt ticket and could either pay $200 or pay $20 and take a class. So, this class was hours of preaching and a horrendous triple-R rated real movie of people fucked up in accidents. 2 people in the class ran out to puke....several were crying...it was awful. But in the end, the Doctor (yes Doctor) that was teaching the class said in a nutshell, the law was passed so the govt ends up footing the bill for fewer living vegetables subsequent to lack of seatbelt / helmet accidents. Apparently it's a multi billion dollar annual expense......makes sense; it's not for our safety, it's for their checkbook.....lol.

Anyway...I liked your post Star....back to the ropes.

[Metsfanmax]

I got a seatbelt ticket and could either pay $200 or pay $20 and take a class. So, this class was hours of preaching and a horrendous triple-R rated real movie of people fucked up in accidents. 2 people in the class ran out to puke....several were crying...it was awful. But in the end, the Doctor (yes Doctor) that was teaching the class said in a nutshell, the law was passed so the govt ends up footing the bill for fewer living vegetables subsequent to lack of seatbelt / helmet accidents. Apparently it's a multi billion dollar annual expense......makes sense; it's not for our safety, it's for their checkbook.....lol.

You mean for our checkbooks. We are the ones who pay the taxes.