Conservatives in favor of gun control

Ummmm, I hate to break it to you but, you're not a conservative.

 

The right to own slaves was also considered a god given right at one time and was also upheld by the supreme court.

 

I am common sense, small government conservative who, in spite of appearances, does NOT support governement intrusion into peoples' lives. The issue of gun control is one of common sense.

 

You're a small government conservative in favor of big government gun control?

Ooooooh-kay.......

Do you really think your little ruse will work? C'mon man.....

 

A conservative adheres to the Constitution without changing its meaning to fit a particular viewpoint. Its liberals who stretch and change the meaning to fit their idea of the times. You dismiss a constitutional right out of hand as if its meaningless.

Outlawing the ability for one to protect themselves---and making them wholly dependent on government for protecting themselves or one's family---is not small government.

It would be interesting to hear what other policies you advocate for or against.

 

Ayuh,... If that's the case,...

How is it, yer advocatin' a view that completely Lacks common sense,..??
That makes No sense at All,..??

 

I am advocating a view based on the examination of statistics and the application of reason.

Amending the constitution is well within the intentions of the founding fathers.

See: Article 5 of said document.

 

Advocating Government forcing us to accept Gay Marrage & The Right to vote for "Recently Arrived" future citizenry, and forced diversity at any cost ,& no more 2 cycle boat motors on Tahoe or Personal Water Craft on Whiskeytown Lake...

 

Ayuh,... In that case,... weren't we Safer, before the gun control act of 1968,..??..??

Gun control laws have No effect on the other causes of the American societal collapse....

Crime brought about by poverty being warehoused, 'n perpetrated by government policy...

 

I would certainly not deny the case for carrying a gun in the case of legitimate self defense. In a case where an individual ligitimately fears for his or her safety, a gun should be licensed and allowed. Today, we have municipal police forces and the military so unless anyone at all can carry a firearm, there is no reason for the general population to fear for their safety and carry guns.

If you want to talk about the effects of even very limited gun control, look at the effects of the Brady law.

From 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.

Source: Wikipedia

You cannot tell me that we would have been better off had 1.8 million criminals been armed with guns.

Here again is an example of a conservative in favor of gun control. Tends to happen when you are senselessly shot in the head by someone attempting to take the life of a great American.

 

These issue go back to what I was talking about before. Marriage between a man and a woman is an idea that has existed since the beginning of humanity. This concept is a basic underpinning of society and one that I do not beleive should be changed.

 

The right to vote for legal citizens is one that I would support. The right to vote for illegals (people who have not right to be in the country in the first place) obviously not.

 

As I said no one can define what optimum gun control is.

How are you going to determine the amount and nature of unreported crime ie when a firearm is used. The 'effects' data is corrupted by unreported incidences. Nor do we know how many firearms are in the hands of citizens, which undermines the data, which harms the conclusions of the studies and such things. Add to that lies when crimes are reported and the number of mistakes VIA human error. The result is or could be highly inaccurate data, which is fairly useless to more useless as the level of corruption by the mentioned problems (which was not complete) increase in number. Of course the other side of the coin are positive ext's (of the right to bear arms). For example; when firearms save lives. Yes, my hand cannon saved me at least once. Trust me I sure did not call the cops and report it.

You know my opinion on that smoke and mirrors game! We are speaking of the USA, not England or the UK, which is to me a freedom lost Orwellian nightmare of a country, well at least as far as individual privacy and freedom is concerned, I happen to like England and the UK in general. Here in the USA, as per supreme court demand, our individual rights trump a third party claim of damages to his cooter cat even if that third party is the bulk of a nations population. Really Reiver, instead of embracing gun control you should instead consider the what the positive externalities of very minimal gun control would grant for the vast majority of your countries citizens. However your fellows may be too frightened to live in a real world where they have to live with the responsibility of real freedoms and actual decision making.

Instead of attempting to neutering the rest of the world, the gun control and other gun hating self mutilated (analogically speaking) statistic junkies should concede that maybe they do not understand are the positive externalities of civilian gun ownership. I hinted as much in past rebuttals and replies as well as a bit earlier in this reply (above). Positive externalities not be on MSNBCs brady bunch anti gun minions must do list but the positive externalities are tangible and outweigh the negative externalities of the right to bear arms.

Anyway, I did not want to even discuss this mess. You should just admit that Gun control is a highly subjective subject and thing. Your countries fellows many be as happy as pigs in slop to allow the government to seize and outlaw their firearms in order to make England/UK's Orwellian third party happy and feel safe. By third parties I mean the bulk of England's gun hating citizens.

That said the law abiding pro firearm anti gun control USA citizens that follow the ideals and spirit of freedom set forth in the Constitution and bill of rights etc view your and your neutered (analogically speaking) buds ideas of gun control repulsive and even criminal, as per the recent SC rulings. In the USA amongst the freedom loving constitution loving, firearm loving citizens consider your idea of optimal gun control nothing shout of moral and ethical enslavement.

Rev A

 

Already defined it: internalising externalities such that gun ownership preferences take into account social costs. Its actually a rather exact definition as it is inherently part of a cost-benefit quantification exercise.

You're actually arguing that we will underestimate the social costs. I doubt you meant to do that though! However, much of the analysis focuses on homicides. Unreported homicides aren't going to be a dominating empirical bias!

Nope. That just means that we will often have to use proxies. That will enable the use of disaggregated data, whilst allowing multiple means to test for robustness in estimate.

 

Yes, the world has changed since the American Revolution. From a worldwide perspective no one fears the British anymore. The primary concern is the Chinese with 1.3 billion people. The Military leaders of China take pause knowing that US Citizens are well armed. The US military while perceived strong with 1.5 million active members can be easily overcome by such a large Country if China decide to invade. Do you really want to take the guns and gun experience from law abiding citizens that may need to be drafted in an Emergency. And, where would all the extra millions of guns come from quickly to support the draftees?

Another point to consider. The US represents only 5 percent of the worldwide population yet uses over 20 percent of its finite supply of oil. As oil supplies begin to dwindle in the next 20 years how do you think other Countries will react to the US use of oil?

 

gay marriage dates back to ancient rome, china greece, etc.

 

Gingrich and Romney

 

It has everything to do with liberty. My rights are being restricted because of the irresponsible actions of a few.

 

The problem with your hypothesis is that you think we do not have a armed force ready to attack us. We do, and it's called the US Government, gang bangers, etc. An attacker, or belligerent, if you will, does not have to come from outside our country to be a danger to us, the people. All through history, attacks have come from within the borders of the country or empire in question, as many times as have come from without. making an armed populace all the more necessary. Simply because you, personally, have not experienced such an occurrence does not mean it can't happen. That is complacency, and in this day and age, has no part in prudent and polite society. So control YOUR guns, if you must, but remember what you have done, after some gang banger hopped up on PCP executes your family for drug money, and you COULD HAVE STOPPED IT, if only you had a gun. It would be too late. How would you explain it to your family, while you cradle their cold, bloody bodies in your hands? From their graves, they would accuse you of negligence, and failure to protect them when they needed you most. So are you still in favor of gun control, or do you still want to rely on the tender mercies of the drugged up hoards, and apathetic police?

 

So this further buttresses my point, since in 1791 (when the 2nd Amendment was ratified), the US did indeed have a solid national army: "because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791."

 

Yet you (or any other gun control advocate on this forum) have failed to provide ANY data or statistics to support your argument for more gun control. And you talk about "application of reason?" Then tell me, how reasonable is it to support a system (e.g. gun control) that has be proven to be a failure time and time again? That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

 

It's "common sense" to support a system that proven to be utterly ineffective? That's a strange definition of "common sense" that you have.

 

Don't worry sweetie!

There are whole nations of people who think like you do!

Australia
New Zealand
UK
etc

We all stand around in shock/horror/hilarity reading the weird and wonderful mythical beliefs that have come to fruitition in America surrounding the whole gun issue

In fact I am firmly convinced you would be better off keeping the guns but ditching the myths

 

Australia

We did it.

Lots of other nations have now too

I suggest you google up "mass shootings Australia" and see the "before" and "after" figures

 

That's wonderful. Was there a significant reduction in violent crime or not? Look at the data.

Equally wonderful that many other nations are willilng to sacrifice their G-d given rights for absolution nothing in return. Absolutely inspiring.

Show me statistically significant results.