Immigration Stance Proves Democrats Don’t Really Care About Gun Violence

that study jumps from illegal immigrants to all immigrants.

bogus

 

You evidently do not know what constitutes 'strict gun control'. Trust me, there is no state in the union that has any such thing. No state is permitted to, either through circumstance or law. The laws do not exist, the enforcement does not exist, and the will to change either does not exist.

 

It appears you are suggesting that there are U.S. states that do not have "strict gun control"? Am I understand that correctly? And would you explain in a little more detail. I am sometimes a little slow on the uptake. Others here will vouch for that.

 

I am suggesting that they don't and that they can't even if they wanted to.

 

Really ?
I do not know what strict Gun Control is ?
N.Y.C. does not have strict Gun Control ?
New Jersey ? California ? Washington D.C. ?
Yeah, Ok.....

 

Think about. One of the premier arguments of the gun lovers, is that anyone who really wants a gun, can get their hands on it. That means by definition that 'strict gun control' does not exist in this country. The same people who talk about how meaningless our southern border is with respect to sneaking in real live human beings, cannot possibly say that there have been any sincere efforts to prevent guns from crossing state borders. The will does not not, thus far, exist to really control weapon access either with loophole free gun restraint, or consistent and uniform enforcement.

 

First of all, I am a Retired LEO, second the problem of Criminals obtaining firearms in relation to gun control is irrelevant, criminal behavior is not controlled by laws, since criminals by definition do not obey laws.

So therefore, strict gun control that affects only law abiding citizens is a distinct waste of time.

 

I think you are onto something here. There are some strict laws but they are not really working therefore there is not actually any "strict gun control". Since those strict laws are not working anyway lets just do away with all of them and go back to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Bravo! I like it. You are genius. You have just single-handedly defeated all the gun control arguments. Thank you.

 

Murderers by definition, murder, so anti- murder laws are a waste of time. Thieves by definition steal, so anti theft laws are a waste of time. Your nihilist argument is circular and absurd.

Its about whether we as a culture want to take a specific prohibition seriously or whether we are playing at it. There are jurisdictions that play at gun control, but none that mean business or are allowed to mean business. There has to be a cultural change large enough and deep enough to make enforcement a priority.

 

Enforcement of current laws?

 

Then it is being stated that these individual states, such as California, New York, New Jersey, and numerous others, simply have no interest in actually enforcing the firearm-related restrictions that they have implemented?

Then for what purpose do they bother with enacting such, if there is no will on the part of anyone to actually make use of them?

 

Are you implying that "strict gun control" means that bad guys cannot get their hands on guns?

 

It means it is harder. A better system ....not a perfect one

 

What good does "harder" do if criminals can still get their hands on guns? Based on btthegreat's post, unless a bad guy cannot get a gun, the process isn't strict enough.

 

Because some criminals will not be able to get their hands on guns. I am speaking for myself.

 

By your definition, strick gun control doesn’t exist in any country. Guns are very easy to make, you don’t even need gun powder. Borders cannot be completely sealed. Theft of weapons, from the state cannot be completely prevented.

 

I always roll my eyes when someone makes this argument, because it shows that the person is ignorant of the point of and reason for laws.

Laws do nothing to prevent anyone from committing an act. What laws are is society's statement of what behaviors are acceptable on the part of its members. If a person chooses not to conform to those rules, laws give a society the ability to punish that person. Wishing to avoid the punishment is what deters others from acting in a similar fashion; but as we know from history there will ALWAYS be those who will choose to defy society's rules... so does that mean we don't need laws? Of course not!

Murder is always a bad thing, so it makes sense to penalize those who commit it. Same thing for theft, assault, rape etc. Ergo, it is beneficial and morally defensible for society to have laws regarding such actions. Gun ownership, however, has benefits to society. Theft, murder, etc. are NEVER acts that benefit society. Gun ownership gives honest people the means to defend themselves from crime and violence. They are tools of self-determination, one of the reasons the Founders codified their ownership in the Constitution. Banning guns harms honest people while doing exactly nothing to affect the actions of criminals. Laws which give us the ability to punish societal predators are morally right and justified, but laws which place infringements upon the rights of honest citizens in hopes it will affect the actions of the predators are wrong-headed on their face, and not compatible with a free society.

Which creates nothing but a society dedicated to authoritarianism, devoid of respect of the civil rights of its population.

 

Look in the mirror.

Crime and laws against crime currently exist, and I have never advocated against them, when I was 9, I was hurt by an evil man, a Church athletics coach, Rape is illegal and needs to remain a crime, so your claims are fatuous and irrelevant and immaterial and incompetent.

There are laws prohibiting firearms from people with criminal histories, those with mental illnesses whereby they are a danger to themselves and others.

Firearms are a Right to those law abiding citizens, those not prohibited, and prosecution of those in violation as well as prosecution of criminals is essential in order to preserve life and safety.

 

CA. NY. HI. NJ. DC.

 

False premise, that the definition of "strict" in reference to a law depends on the efficacy of said law.
Under your argument, a total prohibition of firearms does not quality as "strict', should someone get their hands on a gun.

 

This is only true of these laws were enacted with the intent to prevent murder and theft.
They weren't - they were enacted with the intent to punish those that commit those acts.
Thus, your statement is not true.

 

Good to see you understand there's no need for additional laws until the current laws are enforced.

 

Yet somehow there is a law I must present my passport at the border. Yeah we should do away with that. Prevention does not work. LOL

 

Hey, great way to demonstrate your mastery of COMPLETELY missing the point! And yet another irrelevancy bolstered by a childish "LOL"! Oh, yeah, way to go!

 

I will try again to all these posts. The passage of laws that criminalize behavior has more than one goal. It is not just to punish a wrongdoer, or just to make a moral statement about specific social conduct, or just to prevent or discourage specific conduct, or just to inconvenience or harass wrongdoers. We pass laws in the hopes of accomplishing some of each of these goals to varying degrees. So we don't decide that because one or two of these goals is not achieved as a specific measurable level, that passage of a criminal statute is an abject waste of time. We weigh the totality of the negative and positive impacts, under current circumstances and then re-weigh them assuming some variables under our collective control might change the dynamics even if it is a 'losing proposition' currently. My point is not do discourage state efforts to find the right recipe for gun control or restriction, if that is what a state desires, but to note that such efforts will not succeed in great measure, without a sea change in our collective cultural will to support those laws. That does not make them abject failures, as long as our ambitions for the regulation are realistic.

Soo yeah, one can decide that taking 10% of a specific weapon out of public circulation, is of sufficient benefit to pass a specific statute that regulates gun access, ownership or use. It will depend on what sits on the other side of the scale as a potential negative impact. Maybe just making it a hair more difficult to do a 'stupid' with a dangerous weapon is a fine and honorable legislative goal.

Baby steps can still be steps in the right direction.