How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

Nowhere have I claimed the rise in homicide rate was due to placing restrictions on firearms. My quote you provided above is ample proof of that. Stating a FACT is not equivalent to attributing causality.

Please study the difference between correlation and causation. It will help you avoid using fallacious arguments in the future.

Sorry. As poverty rates were falling, firearm homicides were rising. You have been misled. You have opinions but they are based on easily demonstrated false statistics.

Again, statistics do not support your opinion. You are making it all up because your premises contradict the actual statistics.

When poverty was high violence was low. As poverty rates decreased, rates of firearm homicides skyrocketed. That is a fact.

I just showed you statistics of a time period of increasing INEQUALITY where firearm homicides DECREASED substantially. Again, reality and data contradict your opinions.

Between 1959 and 1980 the poverty rate for blacks decreased from 55% to 30%. We have already seen firearm homicides increased dramatically over that time period. Your opinion again is contradicted by facts.

And again, there have been periods of increasing inequality where firearm homicides plummeted.

I grew up dirt poor. My family had several families we interacted with socially that were middle class, upper middle class, and 1%ers. There were no problems with social cohesion. Some of those 1%ers I still count as dear friends as did my parents although they never attained what you would call financial success. Bernie has taken you for a ride by appealing to your emotions. Bernie has no idea what he’s talking about.

Oh, my lack of desire to commit firearm violence as a kid with constant access to firearms does not differ from my lack of desire to commit firearm violence today in a totally different economic “class”. This continued manufactured class warfare garbage is what creates division.

I have. That’s why I know the actual data and statistics and have to educate you on them. You are simply repeating untrue things claimed by folks like Bernie apparently. None of your premises agree with the data.

Access to what?

You can’t fix inequality by redistribution.

LOL. So you want politicians to take autonomy away from the states it was promised to snd then maintained for 250 years intentionally. At the same time you claim the federal government should take over states you advocate for getting rid of the mechanisms preventing that from happening. Then you say it’s paranoia when people wish to prevent what you ADMIT you want to do. Sorry, that’s not what paranoia is.

Thanks for the humor. That is amusing.

Well, you just advocated for federal takeover of states. This would ensure secession. You are now the biggest supporter of succession. Congratulations.

You can’t get rid of poverty or inequality by redistribution or by counterfeiting money. No matter how much you counterfeit, one group will figure out how to get most of it. It’s usually the politicians you want to take over states.[/QUOTE]

 

All of the above is based on your refusal to admit that growing inequality since the late 60's, (mirrored in Detroit's fate, for example) is a more important factor in crime rates, than the poverty rate itself. Eg a poor nation in which everyone is poor will be less violent than a country like the US, with extremes of inequality being among the highest in the world (see quote following).

(link)

Inequality as a factor in social unrest | The World in Crisis

"The extremes of wealth and income inequality that have developed within the OECD countries, and particularly in the United States, since the early 1980s, have created unbalanced societies, which are by their nature more unstable than was the situation in the 1950s and 1960s. Arguably the mass of the OECD populations have little idea just how extreme the levels of inequality are, but the increasing pressures on the bottom 40% of the population will result in higher levels of social volatility."

Toss in race tensions, and likelihood of higher crime rates is obvious. You claimed restrictions on gun access increased in 1968, but even so US gun-control law is and remains ridiculously loose, hence the climbing gun related deaths. (And there's the problem with different rules in different states (it's easy to travel to purchase a gun in a state with lax rules).

Refuted above...."higher levels of social volatility"/"more unstable communities" is the significant factor in community violence.

Your error is based on ignoring the overall trend of increasing inequality from the 70's. Short periods of an apparent decrease in inequality don't disturb the longer term trend.

The apparent discrepancy is explained above: poverty rates decreased, but inequality increased.

Only short periods...the overall trend is one way, as noted above.

Refuted above. Bernie is backed by the authors of "The World In Crisis" (linked above).

Wrong. Sky-rocketing inequality is creating the division.

You are misreading the statistics, because you refuse to admit inequality (rather than poverty per se) is a significant factor in social unrest and lack of community cohesion.

Guns.

But you can fix it with a Job Guarantee.

250 years ago; 13 colonies on the edge of a vast unknown continent....with the King of England threatening them...

Times have changed. You claimed to be "one of 2 or 3 socialists" on PF (!!)... but you sure ain't progressive...

States autonomy? Paranoia re authority of the national government , IMO.

Yes... opposing ideology does make for humorous interactions at times.

Thanks for the chuckle......... humorous twisted ideological outcomes indeed...

I'm pleased you have now admitted inequality as a factor in this debate. {Just think, with less inequality, and more social cohesion, you could free up access to guns AND have less gun violence}

Now all that remains is to teach you MMT and how to fund a Job Guarantee......(which is not "counterfeiting money")

Start with Stephanie Kelton's best-seller: 'The Deficit Myth'.

 

This guy can’t even define what an “assault rifle” is, and he screams to ban them. I can almost guarantee this individual has never touched a firearm in his life.

 

TLDR......

Holy crap. Do you really feel the need to make such long posts to get your point across? The rambling is a bit much.

In your OP you claim you do not think it is possible to "ban ALL guns" but do think it is possible to "ban SOME"......if you do not think it is possible to ban ALL guns what makes you think that "SOME" can be banned?

 

Yes! It's called an Opening Post. That's a post in which you make a case providing all your arguments. Don't recommend long posts as a response, but it's fine in an OP when it's indispensable to make your point.

Besides, the "Irrelevant Argument" portion has saved us quite a bit of time, given that I only have to point to the number when a poster tries to change the subject with a strawman fallacy.

Update: BTW, you think that's long? That's an average size OP for this forum. Looks like you're not too fond of reading. But you do have to do some work, if you ever expect to contribute anything worthwhile to any debate. Reading an OP from start to finish is the minimum effort required.

Because they HAVE been banned in the past, with great results.

 

Is this the society you want to live in?
One where school children have to be escorted by armed guards in order to safely get to their classrooms.

 

maybe you can explain how to guarantee no one ever commits terrible crimes.

 

Remember posting this:

Your incorrect information on Detroit for example is irrelevant to the discussion which is firearms.

I have posted actual statistics showing as inequality increased firearm homicides decreased. This is just a fact. I base my posts and beliefs on facts. I’m completely uninterested in your unsubstantiated opinions. Or opinions of your “heroes” that are also based on incorrect statistics.

Yet as inequality grew, firearm homicides decreased. An THAT is the subject here.

Law is not permissive in the US. For example, law existed that would have prevented the July 4 popularized mass shooting and all the unreported mass shootings that weekend. But the laws are not enforced.

I NEVER claimed there were short periods of increasing inequality. I pointed out there have been periods where there was correlation between inequality/firearm homicides and long periods where there has been negative correlation between the two. This negative correlation excludes the possibility of causative relationship you propose.

Inequality causes nothing. Envy is the word you should use.

And for long periods of increasing inequality, firearm homicides decreased drastically.

Again, I have never referred to short periods of increasing inequality. I’ve simply pointed out increasing rates of inequality ARE NOT correlated with firearm homicide rates. Often there is negative correlation.

Catholicism is backed by the Pope. Islam by the Koran. It’s irrelevant what Bernie is backed by. He’s not backed by facts so it’s irrelevant.

No. Only envy/covetousness can do that. Following your logic we should ban professional sports and the Olympics.

No. I’ve posted accurate statistics. You do not post statistics, only your opinions that conflict with the statistics.

But access to guns often has negative correlation with inequality.

There are almost two jobs currently open for each unemployed person in the US.

SMH.

You going to FORCE people to work? I doubt it.

No. If my state had followed federal guidelines on Covid we would have had many more deaths and a much worse economy. The federal government can not serve the people nearly as efficiently or correctly as state and local governments. It has nothing to do with paranoia.

Times have NOT changed. Every act and amendment since the country was founded has intentionally preserved the right of states to self govern. This is a fact your Bernie Bros have not let you in on. You probably ought to expand your reading list a bit.

Especially when you reject actual data showing inverse correlation and continue to claim positive causation based on that negative correlation.


Your ideology is not fact based. It’s unsubstantiated opinions founded in emotion.

We are laughing at your lack of data and rejection of data. We aren’t laughing at you or with you.

Where did I say inequality was a factor in firearm homicides except to point out there is no correlation?

You are advocating for taxation through inflation. It’s not a new idea. It began in earnest in the US in 1913. It worked so well at taking assets from the worker and transferring them to elites now you want to do it on a grander scale. If you can convince enough people to raise their taxes such an enormous amount more power to you. I really don’t care. I always have plans to mitigate the effects of whatever nutty economic policy comes down the track.

Yes, I am one of 2-3 practicing socialists on PF. It is impossible to be a practicing socialist and also a progressive. The foundations of each are diametrically opposed. Progressives focus on re-branding conservative ideas. Turd polishing I guess you could say. A real socialist utilizes ideas and actions eschewed by governments throughout history. Progressives rebrand the same old ideas like feudalism and slavery and attempt to profit by imposing them on the citizenry.

I’m done here. You believe things contradicted by the facts. You see causation when there is not any correlation in the data. And I’m completely uninterested in Bernie’s economic theories. I’m well versed in all theories. That’s why I’m a practicing socialist. Your ideas have little appeal to people who have taken charge of their destiny snd don’t need nannies or kings. Sorry.

I encourage you to have the last word. Unless you have a specific question I won’t take up any more of your valuable time you could spend proselytizing those less informed and more gullible than I.

Good luck.

 

Only a fool makes policy based on absolutism.
The goal should be to reduce terrible crimes.
Aiming for zero crime is a fools errand.

 

So I guess the kids shouldn't get a secure school? Hardening of security layers is how buildings keep out the riff raff.

 

Yes. I want a society where killers don't have easy access to victims. For the sake of discussion, do you have an issue with armored car guards being armed?

 

I prefer a society where killers don't have easy access to guns.
In my country the police aren't even armed let alone armoured car guards.
I watch your country with a mixture of horror and pity.

 

So you have to rely on the cops to save you? That’s hilarious and sad. What happens while the cops are headed your way?

 

You don't watch our country; you watch the news. I am certain that people in your country enjoy armed security. My kids are more valuable than your (queen etc)

Since the discussion is going global, the main killer of innocent people is government. The main victim is unarmed.

 

I'm so sorry you live in a country where you need a gun to feel safe.

 

Dysfunctional government, yes.

No doubt you claim government can NEVER be functional, or is ALWAYS the problem....

 

You said previously : "This negative correlation excludes the possibility of causative relationship you propose".

The negative correlation might be explained by other factors, while the positive correlation - of increasing inequality and increasing (gun) violence - stands up to reason., as noted in "The World In Crisis " article.

The only actual stats I can recall you posting were to do with changing rates of poverty, apart from you acknowledging an "increase in inequality between 1980 and 2000", when gun violence apparently decreased .

Fact is after the GFC, inequality and insecure (gig economy) work have hit levels responsible for BLM and other chronic social unrest, increasing with Covid, so that gun violence hit 45,000 deaths last year.

As I stated above positive correlation is not disproved by negative correlation lasting for only certain periods of time.

Too expensive/impractical to enforce existing law? (Dealing with mental illness would require massive government intervention).

And now we see your ideology exposed in all its survival of the fittest horror. What happened to common well-being and security?

Nonsense, what I want is basic economic security for all, regardless of your 'survival of the fittest' ideology.

.

Yet you don't even regard inequality as a factor in gun violence, because of erroneous conclusions over correlation of data.

Given a choice between poverty level welfare, and above poverty secure employment, no force is required.

No, a quick lesson (...after this, it's up to you)

Jerome Powell should have simply (electronically) changed the digits in the bank accounts of lock-downs workers, during the pandemic, so they could pay (electronically) for food, housing and essential utilities.

Result: no increase in government debt, no increase in pent-up demand/purchasing power, and no inflation other than that caused by supply blockages ... which interest rate rises won't fix...

Powell should be sacked for the damage he is about to wreak on the economy.

Thanks. I can't think of a question right now.

 

Inequality?

 

I’m sorry you live in an imaginary world where criminals carry bananas instead of weapons.

 

I never said that. Do you always create positions for others? If you care to address my position, it is one of minimal government power and minimal interference in our lives. The power you support for a "functional" government will eventually change hands.

 

A banana is the closest thing to a weapon you are allowed to carry in public here.

 

So obviously you can see the folly in judging the policies of a country that is nothing like yours based on those standards. FWIW your criminals still own weapons, they didn't all hand them over like sheep.

 

Bullshit!!

On the bright side, this thread has revealed who all the Tankies are.

 

Very very few of them do and they will go to prison for a minimum of 5 years if found in possession of one so it is extremely rare for them to routinely carry a gun.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...aths-in-six-months-as-police-stifle-gun-trade

 

Pointless. "Assault weapons" are defined by cosmetics, not capabilities. And most "assault weapon" ammo is also used by guns considered not to be "assault weapons", so... What then?

"Strong compensation" better start at 10x the fair market value. Even then, I'm only going to sell you redundant ones from my collection. Actual criminals will not participate, so you just be spending a LOT of money for no reason. But, hell, if you'll pay me 10x for the ones I no longer need or want, I'll happily laugh all the way to the bank.

What are you, stuck in 1982? There's no such thing as "cop killer bullets". But in 1982, NBC labeled teflon coated bullets, that had until then only been available to law enforcement agencies as "cop-killers", and the name stuck. The reason they called it that is because they thought the teflon coating would make it easier to penetrate a soft bullet resistant (no such thing as "bullet proof") vest, because it was slippery and they thought it would glide through a vest the way eggs glide off a teflon coated pan.

But testing put an end to that, as they were no more or less likely to penetrate a soft vest than any other types of rounds of the same caliber.

Now, virtually ALL rifle rounds will penetrate a soft vest, but that is because of their muzzle velocity which is ~3,000 fpm, a supersonic speed. But, banning rifles wouldn't fly politically, and would cause 2A issues, so the issue was quietly dropped.

The good news is that in 2022, teflon coated bullets are, to my knowledge, no longer sold. But not because they were banned, rather because the tests done on them proved it was nothing more than a gimmick. Some States still have laws on the books banning them, but since they are no longer made, those laws are pointless.

What is "high-capacity"? Because what you call high, many people would call "standard". Regardless, most magazines are made of a few pieces of plastic and a spring, trivially easy to make at home with even a consumer grade 3d printer. And since they are neither serialized nor registered, nobody knows who has them or how many, only that there are hundreds of millions already in the hands of civilians, for all different types of guns, both rifles and pistols.

However, under Bruen such a ban would not pass the requisite tests to be Constitutional anyway.

5- Ban ghost guns

Ghost guns are merely homemade firearms, and once again you'd run into issues with the Bruen tests of what is and is not Constitutional. Regardless, you can put a law on paper, but that won't prevent anything from being made. And even if it did, all it would do is prevent the ATF from determining who was the original buyer, and that person rarely turns out to be a perp that eventually used them in a crime. Rather they get sold or stolen, likely numerous times. As just one example, only one of my guns would trace back to me (or to be more specific, my wife, as she is the one who filled out the paperwork), so if I commited a crime (and I'm not the type to do that), a trace wouldn't help anyway.

They are easy to make for someone with the right tools and knowledge, which millions of people have. I don't, but I know several who do,and almost purchased one from him at one point.

Perhaps I will do so just to peeve you off.

Once again, another Unconstitutional suggestion from you. That doesn't surprise me a bit, however. But I'll support that as soon as you support requiring a license to vote.

Unconstitutional and pointless. Though you could compare it to the NFA process and requirements, but the reality is if you can pass a run of the mill bgc, you can pass an NFA one, it just takes months because the Federal government can't get out of it's own way. The one guy we bought new, my wife's bgc came back in like 2 seconds, so...

Likely would be Unconstitutional, but in any event, with rare exceptions (like when an infant hurts or kills someone by playing with a gun casually left in their reach), we don't prosecute people for the crimes of others. I think "cruel and unusual" would definitely apply.

Give the "defendant" a chance to defend themselves and this is fine. But most of these are jammed through with no due process, and often from anonymous sources. That needs to stop.

I can live with this, so long as the minimum age for military service is likewise raised.

You seem to have a hard-on for "assault weapons", and really for no reason. Even if you had an "easy button" to eliminate ALL homicides committed with them, the number is so small as to be statistically insignificant. It would be an unnoticeable difference. Yes, large scale shootings that involve them make lots of headlines, but as a percentage of total homicides, it's a fraction of one percent of the total. Combined.

Good luck with that. But, hey, I have an idea... Why don't you set the example and file a lawsuit designed to accomplish precisely that. Literally anyone can do so, why not make it you who does. We'll see how that turns out, but I wouldn't be putting my money on you. ESPECIALLY since the Court just doubled down on that decision with Bruen, which not only reinforces that ruling to be proper, but expands on it.

You're desperate, and you're fighting a losing battle. You sound like "Baghdad Bob" did, giving press conferences about how thousands of Americans were being slaughtered at the gates of the City, when we all now know (and was obvious at the time) that it was simply wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is all you've got, kiddo. Soooo not sorry.