|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And the statistics support this view. So reducing the prevalence of guns will reduce the homicide rate. I realize you hold that view, but you've seemingly chosen to ignore the entire rest of my post that actually dealt with that view. Do you think you could go back and actually reply to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am not limited to saying a simple 'no' to in response to your questions. No, you're not; I was just thinking it would save you the effort. But, do as you will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I guess you wanted a more detailed answer to the other stuff Well, far be it from me to ask for more details about stuff, I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Except, dear kofh2u, that the figures show the murder rate is declining and is now as low as it's been in a hundred years. But we better control guns anyway, just in case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You have to compare states of equal population density, since population density does make a difference. That's a pretty sound principle, which is why I was surprised that you chose to compare NY and Texas, which have nowhere near a similar population density: Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Cut out the wide open places that no one lives, you will get the same density. Ok, go ahead and do that. I'll wait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
This also needs consideration for the observation that murders blossomed and doubled after 1960 when America began paying Single Mothers to have fatherless bastards: Sigh... I hate to even engage with you on this, because it's fairly clear you're an idiot, but I guess I'd like to see how deep the idiocy goes. Every Western nation "pays single mothers" to "have fatherless bastards," why would that uniquely be the cause of a high murder rate in only the US?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So I'll ask you what you suggest we do, as a nation? Well, obviously, we should deny law-abiders the tools they need to participate in their own defense while not making any effective effort to seize arms from criminals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are aware, surely, that hunting rifles, assault rifles, and handguns use the same ammunition? Or can, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Not the point I was trying to convey in my previous post but, sure, citizens should NOT take the law into their own hands. Nobody's talking about "taking the law into your own hands."
I don't support the ownership of concealable handguns or assault rifles. I see no point to them. The point is to shoot someone who is going to kill you before the police can arrive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
So one effective way of reducing criminals' access to guns would be to take them away from everyone else. But surely you don't think you can conflate denying access to new guns with seizing guns from criminals without the rest of us noticing, right? Even if you completely disarmed legitimate gun owners - and that's sidestepping the ethics of penalizing a vast majority of responsible gun owners for the actions of a criminal element they're not responsible for, as most guns aren't even stolen even once - and thereby prevented 600,000 guns from entering criminal hands each year, that wouldn't do anything to remove the guns already in criminal hands, or prevent criminals from gaining guns simply by stealing them from each other. And in the meantime you've eliminated basically any possibility of regular people from participating in their own defense against armed criminals. As we've seen in the UK that doesn't work well for society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well it seems like you are. The job of the police is to carry out deadly force when need be.I believe the point is that no one shoots anyone, period. Guns aren't the only tool for committing the crime of murder. You can be stabbed, strangled, or beat to death with a bludgeon as well, and a handgun is an appropriate tool in defending yourself against those attacks, as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Be specific as to how you mean they use the same ammunition. I mean that while in theory there are loads that are best for hunting, best for semi-auto assault rifles, and best for handguns, in practice there is substantial overlap about which guns use which ammo. The "varmint-hunting" .22 long rifle is also a popular caliber for small handguns. 9mm Parabellum is shot from both pistols and rifles. The classic Western rifle, the Winchester Lever-Action Repeater, is most commonly chambered for .45 Colt. I mean, suppose we enact your "no ammo for handguns and assault rifles" law, and the guys who make 9mm and .223 simply say "well, we're not making handgun or assault rifle rounds. We're making 9mm and .223, which are popular and effective hunting loads, and if someone should decide to load them into pistols or assault rifles which were already chambered for those ammunitions, what's that to us?" Now what? How are they, in fact, not legally in the right since "hunting ammunition" means any ammunition used by hunters in long rifles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
"Fuck those children", right, Panda?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Or, any one of those other items. Except that it's already been made illegal to carry those items, based on the premise that legitimate self-defense is accomplished with handguns and the others aren't protected by the Second Amendment. And it stands to reason that, broadly speaking, to the extent that lethal weapons form somewhat of a hierarchy of danger, you're better protected by the superior weapon than by the inferior one.
A tazer, some pepper spray and some classes in MMA should ward off any would be attackers. Based on what?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024