LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[Rylan]

Who is qualified then?

[Rylan]

Gun control specifics? Anyone?

I'm not arguing specifics. I doubt anyone here is even qualified to get into this that deep. But to completely deny that tighter controls would help some gun violence...that's absurd. I don't even think you believe what you're writing in that regard.

This is probably how this thread goes all the time, isn't it? People converting grey into black and white.

I've stated several times already that I support common sense laws on gun ownership. I don't know how much more clearly I can state that.

My point is that the vast majority of the gun control lobby is long on pathos and short on logos.

Nice use of Greek bro

[shmenguin]

No, it isn't. It shows that our culture IS the problem. Not the guns.

These recent examples have presented us with "cultures" of compulsory and quasi compulsory military service. So sure, there is a way to train our society to treat guns with more respect. But is it an avenue that's in the realm of possibility? Not even close.

Give some of these stats from a meaningful country, and now we're talking.

[Gaucho]

"Meaningful" country, seriously?

[MRandall25]

No, it isn't. It shows that our culture IS the problem. Not the guns.

These recent examples have presented us with "cultures" of compulsory and quasi compulsory military service. So sure, there is a way to train our society to treat guns with more respect. But is it an avenue that's in the realm of possibility? Not even close.

Give some of these stats from a meaningful country, and now we're talking.

So what you're basically saying is "I'll only believe it if it makes my point".

[MRandall25]

You can't question those stats and believe in the stats that tell the other side of the story. This is soft science we're talking about here.

You said this 2 pages ago.

[ulf]

can we get a list of meaningful countries?

[shmenguin]

"Meaningful" country, seriously?

Eh, not what I meant.

Switzerland is absolutely my favorite country outside the US. But as it relates to this discussion about gun safety, its not meaningful because of its militia training.

Israel, same deal.

Does that clear it up?

[ulf]

So if we had more training involved in gun purchases, would that be okay?

[shmenguin]

So if we had more training involved in gun purchases, would that be okay?

If we had the majority of young men in our country go through organized military training, then a comparison to Switzerland and Israel could begin. Craaaazy, I know.

[Tico Rick]

I almost wish the government would just completely ban private firearms a la Cuba. Then the next time the inevitable mass shooting takes place, We won't have to listen to weeks of gun control debates afterwards.

Walking the streets of Havana at midnight, I felt totally safe - much safer than when I lived in NYC.

(And to my knowledge there have been no mass shootings in Cuba since 1959. )

[Tico Rick]

I don't own guns and will not. I do not hunt and was not brought up in a home or an area that cared much about hunting or firearms in general, but it seems like the only option is "ban guns" and any other view is "binary" or "naive".

Who in this thread is calling for a ban on guns?

[shmenguin]

I don't own guns and will not. I do not hunt and was not brought up in a home or an area that cared much about hunting or firearms in general, but it seems like the only option is "ban guns" and any other view is "binary" or "naive".

Who in this thread is calling for a ban on guns?

Yes, enlighten us

[ulf]

So if we had more training involved in gun purchases, would that be okay?

If we had the majority of young men in our country go through organized military training, then a comparison to Switzerland and Israel could begin. Craaaazy, I know.

I was just asking if more training should be required to own a gun.

[Tico Rick]

I can't help but laugh at the utter naïveté (and that is a kind word) to think that strict gun laws will drastically lower violence or specifically gun crimes.

I like your insertion of the word "drastically" there. The link I provided earlier shows that states with stricter gun laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. How much lower do the numbers need to go for you to consider the difference to be "drastic"?

I'm just genuinely curious...everyone is screaming "WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL". I want specifics, not generalities.

How about following the model for getting a driver's license? Gun training classes, followed by a field test. And I'd throw in a compulsory psychological exam and criminal records check.

[ulf]

I don't own guns and will not. I do not hunt and was not brought up in a home or an area that cared much about hunting or firearms in general, but it seems like the only option is "ban guns" and any other view is "binary" or "naive".

Who in this thread is calling for a ban on guns?

Yes, enlighten us

I'm having a hard time understanding what kind of gun control is being asked for. Besides "gun control"

[Alejandro Rojas]

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular nor was I making a policy statement. "Ban Guns" was just a short colloquial way of referencing pro-gun control advocacy.

[Alejandro Rojas]

Tico Rick, on the statistics, why have the quite strict gun laws in Chicago and D.C. not cut down on the number of gun-related deaths?

[Factorial]

So if we had more training involved in gun purchases, would that be okay?

If we had the majority of young men in our country go through organized military training, then a comparison to Switzerland and Israel could begin. Craaaazy, I know.

I was just asking if more training should be required to own a gun.

Getting a gun should be at least as difficult as getting a driver's license.

[Tico Rick]

Switzerland is widely regarded as one of the safest nations in the world and everyone has a gun.

Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 people, almost half the 88.8 guns per 100 people in the U.S.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

[Alejandro Rojas]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/r ... Totals.pdf

Interesting stat a friend posted on facebook (second only to wikipedia in its accuracy)

Homicide caused by firearm:

2006 - 10,225
2007 - 10,129
2008 - 9,528
2009 - 9,199
2010 - 8,775

and to further put these numbers in perspective...

Total NCIS Background Checks (these numbers do not reflect total number of firearm sales as 1 check could contain multiple purchases):

2006 - 10,036,933
2007 - 11,177,335
2008 - 12,709,023
2009 - 14,033,824
2010 - 14,409,616
2011 - 16,454,951

[tifosi77]

I know passing laws makes people feel better, but the statistics do not back up the rational that more gun laws = less gun deaths.

That's not quite right....... more gun laws do lead to fewer gun deaths. However, more gun laws also have the wonderful side-effect of leading to more crime in general in the areas where such laws apply.

Looking at the mechanism rather than at the actor completely misses the point. The gun is a tool, and is completely useless and harmless unless and until it is in the hands of a human. Making guns harder to obtain legally to address gun crime is like making cars harder to buy to address drunk driving.

I would love to be able to own a bazooka, and using your logic, I should be able to. After all, a bazooka is merely a tool. Bazookas don't kill people, people kill people.

That is not what I said, and that is not what the law says. And I suspect you know that and are selectively parsing words to make what is, ultimately, a completely false equivalency and blatantly incorrect argument.

So far, Sandy Hook does not seem to be about someone acting in a fit of rage, but about the easy availability of weapons to a deranged person. Should we try to make it harder to get weapons? Hell, yes.

Emperor Tico, what is your mandate in this regard?

You can not pick and choose your arguments about the constitution and expect any true results. If the constitution is too old for 1 amendment, then it is too old for ALL amendments.

Wow, that's...... a leap.

The reason why the 2nd Amendment is such a sticking point is the advancement of technology has meant that what a person can do with a gun in the 21st century is quite a bit removed from what a person could do with a gun in the 18th century. The same can't be said for things like the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or the protection from restrictions on free speech.

[Tico Rick]

Tico Rick, on the statistics, why have the quite strict gun laws in Chicago and D.C. not cut down on the number of gun-related deaths?

Sure, you can pick small geographical areas and make that argument. Which is why we need to have a federal standard, not a hodge-podge of state laws.

[Alejandro Rojas]

I don't know. The Founders certainly didn't foresee Bush's power grab and the aforementioned illegal Patriot Act, but that didn't stop the 4th Amendment from stopping that nonsense. Oh wait...

[Rylan]

Why? The evolution of society would make anything written 200 years ago look old.

Look at the problems the government has with the internet or with drugs/weapons. What if you don't have reasonable cause but could search someone for weapons? You search and you find the guy's car to be armed to the teeth. You just prevented the next mass shooting. Lets celebrate!