Conservatives in favor of gun control

For example in those cases where the assailant is armed with a gun. If someone comes at me with a knife or tries to take me down, there is a good chance that I would be able to take him down before he could do the same. And chances are we would both come out alive. But if we each come at each other with a gun, or one is armed with a gun and the other isn't, chances are much greater that one of us is going to die.

They just broke a couple of bones and got all of $8. I never carry much cash. They were real geniuses.

 

I do understand the logic however, it is illogical to assume that someone will attack you with any specific weapon. Guns have been around for thousands of years and are not likely to just go away just because of a law. If someone comes at you with a knife all you would have to do is pull your gun and I guarantee 9 times out of 10 the aggressor would be stopped in their tracks, turn tail and run. You would never have to even fire a shot.

Glad you are OK.

 

Your abstinence from carrying a gun does not prevent the assailant from carrying a gun.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

What does your information show to be the precise size of our national army at that time?

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #29

​

The Framers were not big fans of standing armies.

 

Terrorist: "No body move, I have a box cutter and we are taking over the plane".

Guy with gun: "No you're not knife boy"

 

Your statement has no historical veracity. Our Constitutional Courts have determined otherwise.

 

.... or they may have had guns too.

 

Like a fish gasping for air ol Mitt was all for gun control before he started singing a different tune for his power grab.

Thats the thing about flip floppers and cheats.

once a cheat always a cheat just ask one of Newts ex wives.

 

Why isn't he? Because you SAY he isn't?

Hardly compelling.

 

Wow, what a load of whoowie. It wasn't Liberals who changed settled law in 'Heller', and it wasn't Liberals who stood the Constitution on its head to justify that corporations are individual citizens in 'Citizens United'. Your view on this seems to be based more on ideology than realities.

Secondly, I fail to see how he "dismiss[ed] a constitutional right". He simply supported (as I see it) the Constitutional limitations of that right. As you know, we also have limitations on our First amendment right. The Second Amendment is no different in this regard. You appear to be looking for absolutes where they don't reside.

Please show where he stated a desire for gun abolition? It would appear that your idea of 'small government' depends on your own personal preferences. If your own standard of small government were applied to the abortion issue, or National Defense, or even Immigration policy, I dare say your position (or at least the predominate Republican position) might well be found to be inconsistent.

 

That's funny. Why isn't this obvious to more people anti-gun?

 

I read the abstract of the study that you use to form opinions. The study - Social Science & Medicine, Vol 50, pp 285-291 - was performed in 1996, which is over 15 years ago.

This study is junk for several reasons.

It was a telephone survey of 1906 people. 13 of those people mentioned that a gun was used in the household to intimidate them.

I'm both shocked and amazed that someone would form an opinion based off of this study. First, the study was done over 15 years ago, second, 13 people responding may not even be statistically significant. Third, the question "a gun was used to intimidate" is so vague. Just knowing that someone has a gun could intimidate someone.

I would not be surprised if this study was funded by the government to gather some evidence that gun control is good. Epic fail.

 

You'd have to assume that somehow gun owners and/or wife beaters have significantly changed in nature. Any evidence in support of that?

Random sampling is quite standard.

I'm not shocked and amazed by your attempt (and failure) at dismissal. Its a standard strategy of course.

Ahh the "its biased cos that fits with my bias" cliché!

 

Having one also increases the chances that the assailant who did not have a gun to being with will have one at the end...and that the person being jumped will wind up unarmed and dead.

 

Yes..words meant to inspire patriotism.

Where are your stats coming from?

 

One less scum-bag walking the streets with decent folks. I bet other scum-bags will think twice before jumping another decent citizen. In fact, the guy with the gun (the one that was going to get mugged) should be given a medal and a key to the City by the Mayor in a huge nationally televised ceremony. Fair warning to all scum-bags.....

 

This is not evidence that GUNS are the problem. This is a random bunch of facts that indicate the US has higher crime rates than other "high income" countries. Did you read my posts at all where I stated that the US has different laws, different crime rates, different gang cultures, different penalties, different recidivism rates, etc, etc, etc, than these other "high income" countries? I guess not, since if you did you would have understood that it is specious reasoning to conclude that gun availability is the problem, since there are MANY differences between the US and Europe other than gun availability.

Look at Japan. They have very strict gun control, but yet their suicide rate is MUCH higher than that of the United States. Look at Switzerland. Their gun control laws mimic the USA's more than Europe's, and yet they have a violent crime rate that is LESS than most of their European counterparts. Why do you think that is? Using your logic, you would have to conclude that guns DECREASE crime. However, this again would be specious reasoning. What you need is a comparative study that isolates the "gun effect" by setting controls. Only then can you make an intelligent conclusion. Since I already have reviewed the literature regarding the efficacy of gun control, I can tell you with confidence that there is no definitive evidence that gun availability increases violent crime rates.

 

First of all, where is the evidence of all the times a victim armed with a gun gets his gun taken away (by a unarmed assailant) and subsequently used against him? This is probably less frequent than death via lightning strikes.

Second of all, in your two scenarios, there is no net loss for the victim, so he might as well have the gun. Let me explain:
The victim is being attacked by an assailant either way (armed or unarmed). If the assailant is so quick and powerful that he can easily disarm his victim, then he easily could kill or severe maim him anyway, with or without the weapon. Thus, there is no net loss for the victim in a comparison of these two scenarios. However, at least with a gun the victim has a much greater CHANCE to thwart the crimminal. Nobody is claiming that a firearm is a panacea for all assaults, but at least it gives the victim a fighting chance where he/she otherwise would be left defenseless.

 

Size is irrelevant (insert joke here). The poster that I was responding to had stated that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to "prevent a foreign invasion of the US at a time when no national army existed." He was incorrect, inasmuch as we had a national army in 1791.

Did you read Federalist Paper #28:
That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction. If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.


It seems that Alexander Hamilton was talking about the right to self defense (in reference to the 2nd Amendment), and not for the purpose of preventing a foreign invasion of the US at a time when no national army existed.

Try again.

​

This does not nullify the FACT that we had a standing army in 1791.

 

I fully dismiss this study in its entirety. Drawing conclusions from a research study when only 13 of 1906 people responded is irresponsible.

 

You must understand that this specious reasoning, right? Let me give you an example:

John has a lucky rabbit's foot. John was never attacked by a bear. John has two friends, Bob and Mike. Bob and Mike do not have lucky rabbits' feet. Bob and Mike went camping once, and were attacked by a bear. John concludes that his lucky rabbit's foot protects him from bear attacks, and lack of a lucky rabbit's foot caused his two friends to be attacked by a bear.

Now, don't you see the necessity of having a controlled study, rather than jumping to huge conclusions based on an assortment of random facts?

 

I've been reading your posts (142 &143) and am very impressed with your knowledge and reasoning.

What is your opinion on gun control in the US?

 

define all of the "good" and all of the "harm", then quantify them arithmetically, so that you can support your thesis, harm > good.

 

You are saying that law abiding citizens should alter their lives so that they don't run into criminals. Let's run with that for a moment. What liberties should law abiding citizens give up so they don't encounter criminals - in your words "jump off a bridge"?

Should we stay away from schools, Ihops, McDonalds, Post Offices, Restaurants, Malls, convenience stores, parking garages, etc. Should we also not go outside after certain hours? Are there certain areas of some Cities that we should not enter like the south side of Chicago, the south east side of Los Angeles, Newark, New Jersey, etc?

 

Thank you!

If we compare violent crime rates of strict gun control states like NJ, NY, and California to states with less strict gun control (but with comparable demographics and poverty rates), then we can easily conclude that gun control is entirely ineffective in curbing violent crime rates.

I think if we follow the US Constitution, most gun control laws should be thrown out. By this statement, I include state gun control laws as well, since state law does not trump the Bill of Rights. Such laws include state and federal "assault weapons" ban that target cosmetic features of firearms, magazine capacity laws, among many others. Also, if we truly believe in the "right to keep and bear" arms, then open and conceal-carry should be legal in all 50 states, without a licensing procedure.

With that being said, I do stray from my libertarian roots, and I believe in some measure of gun control. Regarding real "assault" (automatic) weapons, I personally do not have a problem with the Firearms Act of 1934 and the others that followed that strictly control these automatic firearms. I feel this way because I am a huge proponent of responsibility, and one needs to be accountable for every bullet fired from his/her gun. An automatic weapon makes it nearly impossible for this level of accountability, and hence I have no problem with gun control in this respect.

Again, my libertarian friends may disagree with me here, but I also have no problem with background checks regarding violent criminals and those with a history of severe pyschiatric illness. In a libertarian utopia, criminals would be locked up until they are reabilitated 100%, but this is unfortunately not reality and recidivism rates are very high. Hence, I am not against these background checks.

I don't want to stray off topic further and hijack this thread, but we can certainly discuss this issue further on other threads.