How can we regulate guns ... ?

Effectively anyone whose approach when discussing social ills and violence includes "fuck gun regulation" rather than accepting that tackling social ills AND tackling the prevalence of weapons designed to kill in society should be done together.

Given a situation in which social problems and violence are rife do you think a proliferation of deadly weapons will:A) Help the situation
B) Exacerbate the situation
C) Make absolutely no difference at all to the situation In practical terms you are making a distinction without a difference because that is exactly the situation that already exists. Indeed not just guns but the sort of guns used in recent massacres are highly prevalent and readily available.Do you think given a situation where social problems and violence are rife that an abundance of such weapons is a good idea?My point is that only some kind of lunatic would think so.So in the absence of some sort of Utopian society where all social issues have been resolved it makes sense to reduce the availability of such weapons doesn't it?

Well way back in Message 17 Oni suggested that the policies already successfully implemented in New York be more widely rolled out.I haven't seen any of the anti-regulation-contingent confront this very sensible seeming suggestion.Perhaps you would like to comment on this suggestion which is after all based on a real life constitutionally legitimate US specific example?

Well, for example, the sort of regulations that have been imposed in New York.

FFS CS - Why are you attempting to try and turn this into a definitional quibble about the term "available"....?You asked me what sort of gun regulations I was talking about. I told you I am talking about the sort of regulations successfully implemented in New York.Given the success of these regulations in New York it would be perfectly valid and sensible to adopt a similar approach in other US locations to see if similar results can be achieved wouldn't it?I don't care whether you refer to these regulations as leading to reduced availability, accessibility, prevalence or any other suitable terminology. Substance over semantics.

I’m saying that where social problems and violence are rife a proliferation of readily accessible deadly weapons will exacerbate, rather than help, such a situation.Do you actually disagree with that? The regulations in New York have had a positive effect on gun crime in New York. How you choose to express that in terms of terminology I leave entirely up to you. Whether the effect of regulation is expressed in terms of availability, accessibility, prevalence, proliferation or whatever is immaterial to the point being made. Why did it work in New York? Why didn’t it work in Chicago?If one was really interested in evidence based conclusions rather than simply defending a predefined position one would look at the reasons these measures worked in New York, look at the reasons they didn’t in Chicago and then try to implement measures that work with the same success they did in New York in another US location. That would be the non-partisan way forwards with regard to evidence based progress wouldn’t it?Would you support this sort of analysis and the wider rollout of New York style regulations in order to test this analysis? What I’d like you to do is actually respond to evidence, case studies and research. I (and several others) have cited research and evidence which you have just ignored. (e.g. the research cited in Message 1159) Rather than act like a sarcastic dick why not actually state whether you think a wider rollout of such measures would have a positive or negative effect and make an evidence based case for the position you hold on this?I think the reason you won’t do this is because you can’t justify a no-more-regulation stance on that basis. I know.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you agree that guns exacerbate violent situations why does it matter whether more guns result in more homicides or more homicidal people equates to a greater prevalence of guns? The case study of New York originally raised by Oni in Message 17 and all of the research I and others have linked to in this thread and the previous one.Do you at least now accept that there is an evidenced correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates? (because for a long while you were in denial about that as well) But if you want to successfully tackle these issues isn't it absolutely imperative to find out?If one was really interested in evidence based conclusions rather than simply defending a predefined position one would look at the reasons these measures worked in New York, look at the reasons they didn’t in Chicago and then try to implement measures that work with the same success they did in New York in another US location. That would be the non-partisan way forwards with regard to evidence based progress wouldn’t it? For someone who has stated that he doesn't know why specific measures have worked in some places but not others you seem incredibly certain (to the point of entrenchment) that gun regulation will not and cannot work.Am I correct in deducing that you would oppose New York style gun regulations being implemented in other US locations even for the purposes of research into whether gun regulation does work?It seems you are not alone in fearing that evidence based research will fail to draw the conclusions you want.

quote:

---

For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. financing cut in 1996. The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based. Link

---

You - and other gun advocates - Really need to decide what the basis for your position is. Because at the moment you are relentlessly and shamelessly flip flopping between several different positions. One minute disputing that there is any correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates at all, the next minute disputing that correlation is suggestive of any causal relationship between these factors and the next minute asserting that the correlation between these factors is the result of homicidal people causing increased gun numbers.It really smacks of making any argument at all to defend that which you have already decided. You need to get your story straight. Because at the moment it looks like you are just saying anything in order stop yourself from drawing a conclusion about guns that you won't like. With that in mind please answer the following:1) Do you accept a correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates?2) Do you accept that this correlation isn't just random and that it is in fact due to a causal relationship between the two things?3) What do you think the nature of the causal relationship between these factors is? (i.e. what causes what) I am absolutely in favour of evidence based conclusions.Would you support the full range of measures implemented in New York, including gun regulations, being implemented in other areas to see if similarly positive results can be achieved?

Nobody has said "guns always make things worse".What is being said is that situations where guns are genuinely needed are very few and far between. And that even in situations here guns might be needed if they are in the wrong hands they are likely to do more harm than good.The idea that deadly weapons being readily available to civilians, who are themselves members of an imperfect society in which violence is inevitably an issue, will do anything other than exacerbate the situation is obviously silly. And unsurprisingly the evidence tells us exactly that.So what do we do in reponse to that evidence?Well whatever the answer to that question may or may not be it is obvious to most people around the world that a situation where the sort of guns used in recent massacres are so available and so much a part of everyday life that you can purchase them at the local supermarket is entirely bonkers and that anybody sane would seek to change that situation.Events have somewhat overtaken the question originally posed in this thread. The question now is how far Obama can take the measures he has put forward, how strong the opposition to those measures will be and whether or not this opposition has a rational evidence based case or not.Personally in the coming weeks I expect to see a lot of frothing at the mouth and hysterical talk of tyrannical government seeking to remove people's guns as some sort of first step to imposing a new world order.Oh wait. I've just read Faiths posts. It seems my own predictions have also been overtaken by events......

So the latest hook on which to hang your pro-gun hat is the notion that owning guns is a "natural right" is it?Does this mean that all the previous discussion you were involved in regarding correlation, evidence, deadly weapons exacerbating situations etc. etc. etc. (Message 714 and upthread from that) was all completely irrelevant because you don't actually care about any of these things anyway? But apparently this doesn't matter. As long as the "natural right" to own guns is fulfilled it doesn't matter whether this actually results in a worse situation or not.Frankly CS this "natural right" angle looks like yet another attempt by you to find a justifying argument to support the predetermined position you are going to hold come-what-may. Do you think I have the "natural right" to wander round London armed with a crossbow? A spear? A samurai sword? Nunchukkas? Poisoned darts? A chainsaw?Do you have the "natural right" to possess these things as you go about your daily life in St Louis?Why do "natural rights" apply only to guns?

The sort of gun regulations being proposed in this thread would bring the US more in line with what is considered "normal usage" across the rest of the Western world.If your "natural rights" argument equates to weapons use being limited to that which is deemed "normal usage" then the sort of weapons that have been used in recent massacres would be highly regulated and highly restricted.So your "normal usage" argument would seem to bring you down firmly on the side of much tighter gun controls in the US.Welcome aboard.