Gun Control needs to be instituted

You have certainly supplied a lot of information about a lot of things and I do not have the time or desire to address each and everyone. In addition, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying.

The difference between our way of thinking has more to do with what is doable and what is not and how to accomplish what is doable and what to put aside as undoable.

I have noticed that you take the view of looking at the details of the problem and I do not do that, Why is it that I don't look at the details of the problem? because reality is that it is not just one detail but many (statistics, opinions, politics, different situations in different States, etc). Fixing one detail or two and in one State or two is not going to make any measurable difference. In addition, human nature will not allow things to change permanently as the desire for power, fallibility of people, funds available, expertise available, etc. will prevent much change.

As such, I look at the big picture and things that have to be changed, such as preventing unnecessary deaths. The worst thing that can happen is death because if a person dies, there are no more possible solutions for that person.

We have two statistics that are set in stone, with 1) more guns in the hands of individuals that anywhere else in the world and 2) more deaths from mass killings by individuals than anywhere else in the world. These are clearly defined and can be addressed to some degree with less guns and less ability to buy guns by people that have violent tendencies. These two have to be addressed because the end result of not addressing them is death to someone and we have to do "something doable) that can lower the death count. Key word is "doable".

Will something doable break some rules, step on some rights, and not be as successful as one would hope? Absolutely on all three. Nonetheless, outlining the problems in detail and clearly (as you have done) is not going to solve anything because human nature, resources, availability to do it, and everything needed to get it done are just not there, or if there, not going to be used because it requires compromise between the parties, requires funds, requires expertise, requires commitment, and it requires so much work that reality shows that all of that is not going to happen no matter what, at least the way things are now.

Nonetheless, we have to reduce the amount of deaths that are occurring. Less guns = less death, if for no other reason that there will be less guns. More controls on who gets guns, also means less deaths because it will reduce the number of people that are most likely to use a gun to kill without reason.

As it is, nothing is being done in a way that everyone agrees to. Some States have more gun regulations and some have less. If all States had the same regulations the results would even out (meaning that there would not necessarily be a difference in deaths per 100,000 population). Some States show 3% per 100,000 and some States show 28% per 100,000. There is no reason for such disparity other than the gun regulations of those individual States.

Is your approach better than mine? absolutely!!! It is the right thing to do and will offer the best results!!! Nonetheless and looking at reality, is your approach doable? Not likely. So trying to do it your way suggests nothing will change. My approach brings more problems as it breaks things that should not be touched, it is not going to solve the problem in any kind of big way. It is not a long term solution. Nonetheless, it will mean less dead people and it is more doable.

So I ask, do we keep things as they are or is trying to bring the amount of deaths by doing something doable but problematic something that should be done.

It would be nice if we could include the dead people's vote on this decision.

that is it in a nutshell. I agree with your approach but I do not believe it is doable.

 

not at the expense of the freedom of millions given less than 3000 murders a year are caused by legal gun owners. we keep asking you to tell us what will actually decrease gun deaths and we never get answer. We just keep hearing something has to be done

the second claim is nonsense. complete nonsense in the sense that it ignores demographic evidence. some groups cause more crime than others. guns or not

 

Your repetitious verbosity aside, what's your plan for removing the guns from criminals? You appear to be big on ideas, but you haven't offered any viable solutions or how this would be accomplished without violating protected rights.

 

There is even a song about it.

"The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenements halls and whispered in the sounds of silence." Paul Simon

 

ASAP!

 

Have you ever heard the terms "amendment" or "repeal"? Which one of them do you consider to be unconstitutional?

 

"I guess I'll just have to take it from you".

 

are you under the delusion there is no gun control in the USA? what we need is more control of violent criminals and less bullshit laws liberals push that only hassle honest people

 

neither one of those is realistic

 

neither, so long as its done according to the constitutionally prescribed process.

 

I am happy to see that you learned something today. Now, what we need to know is if implementing them is up for a democratic vote or stifled by political corruption such as payola kickbacks from the NRA. It's not as though we are unaware of such widespread and extremely powerful, criminal enterprising. Right? We need to know.

 

What is it that you think 'Ive learned'? Infringing on gun rights isn't up to a 'democratic vote' its up to a constitutional vote. This can be done in congress or with a convention of the states, but in either case, a supermajority is required for constitutional amendments to pass. And nothing is preventing either constitutional process (via congress or convention of states) from being attempted, except for a lack of supermajority support. Few politicians are willing to get the ball rolling on something like that unless and until they think theres a chance of success.

 

That "amending" and "repealing" are both constitutional and part of the wisdom of the constitution itself. You think they are unconstitutionally altering or ignoring the constitution. In your own words ....

This proves that you do not understand it.

 

Making a constitutional amendment via achieving a supermajority either in congress or a convention of the states is the only constitutional (lawful) method of infringing ('altering') gun rights in the US. We have been simply ignoring that process to 'regulate' gun rights via bureaucratic (often democratic, but not constitutional) fiat for quite some time. That's why I asked.

If you keep reading, you'll notice the OP replied in agreement that gun control should be instituted constitutionally. If sincere, that is imo a refreshing position deserving of kudos (even tho I do not support such an alteration to our civil rights) coming from any within the anti-gun crowd, who typically just prefer to ignore our constitution for the sake of expediency and convenience and/or pretend it just doesn't say what it clearly says ...presumably because they understand there is no chance in hell of gun control achieving supermajority support at the national level anytime in the forseeable future.

 

So, you prefer to side-step the issue at hand or you still do not understand "amending" and "repealing". I'm betting on the former.

 

In this subject, I don't see any distinction between 'amending' and 'repealing' as meaningful. For example- Amending the 2A to include 'militia = police' would in effect be repealing the 2A from its current purpose. Call the alteration whichever you want, IDC. The point is that amending and/or repealing anything in the constitution both require a supermajority, and there does not exist even close to one for altering the 2A to be successful. But I'm not opposed to trying. Go ahead.

 

You're avoiding the issue but your smokescreen doesn't work on me so you'll have to stand alone with egg on your face.

 

What issue do you think I'm avoiding?

 

You've wasted enough of my time.

 

You only get out what you put in. I believe I've addressed every issue you've mentioned. Perhaps you just dont like it?

 

ah yes, another left-winger who hates the NRA for supporting conservative politicians-at least you don't pretend your support for gun bans is going to stop criminals because they aren't your enemies.

 

your arguments are fairly empty of any relevant points. But you have proven you hate lawful gun ownership and those who vote against gun banners. BFD

 

I think it’s sad the top priorities aren’t human life. Nobody wants to address inconvenient truths. There is plenty of time to advocate for violating constitutionally protected rights and to post misinformation. Not so much for addressing actual causes of violence.

No. You are willing to violate constitutionally protected rights. When one is willing to do that there is no excuse for what is “doable” and what isn’t.

Furthermore, how can something be “undoable” when it’s not even public knowledge it exists? How do you know addressing violence is undoable when you and others haven’t even been made aware of the causes of violence?

Again, no. I’m looking at the whole picture—violence and ALL it’s causes. You are looking at ONE specific correlation that is as often as not an inverse correlation. You are focused on ONE specific false narrative founded on disinformation and misinformation . I’m educating on the whole broad issue, using actual real statistics, medical science, social science, etc.

Nope. You’ve latched onto a false premise based in large part on misinformation. You are laser focused on ONE mitigation that has no evidence of causality, only inconsistent cases of correlation. You are laser focused on one mitigation that we can observe not working in places like Illinois.

Again, if you were concerned about death, firearms wouldn’t be your “thing”. You would be starting threads on opioid abuse, obesity, alcohol use, or fatherlessness. All of which are responsible for far more deaths than firearms.

Then enforce the laws we have NOW that are intended to address those problems that ARE NOT currently being enforced.

Ok. So it’s easier to violate rights than do actual work to solve a problem. I guess that’s why the Founders included the 2A in the Bill of Rights. They were true visionaries.

Nope. The demographics owning the most guns in the US have the lowest firearm death rates. That’s just a fact.

Why would you make such a statement? There is no foundation in reality for believing such a thing. Even countries with very restrictive laws that are homogeneous nation wide have drastically different rates of firearm crime regionally. Here’s one example of England and Wales.



The same holds true for Mexico or Germany or any other country. Firearm crime and firearm death rates will NEVER be equal in the different states. Even if law was homogeneous nation-wide. Why? Because as I’ve shown, law does not affect rates of firearm deaths nearly as much as other factors.

You admitted access to firearms and firearm law are the least causative factor in gun deaths when you changed your initial claim of the US having the highest rate of firearm deaths in the world to the claim it has the highest amongst cherry picked first world nations.

But there is NO evidence violations of rights will save lives. It’s just your opinion that actually conflicts with mountains of evidence. They keep adding laws in Illinois and the rate of firearms deaths increases there faster than some states that aren’t adding laws.

We should enforce the laws we have in place that are not being enforced. We should start educating the public on the causes of violence so those causes can be addressed. A society as ignorant as ours on the subject of violence needs education before voting on any more legislation. We should stop using misinformation and disinformation to create the false narrative that access to firearms is a significant factor in firearm violence when the evidence shows the contrary. We should stop violating constitutionally protected rights because we are too lazy to address societal ills that cause violence.

It’s traditionally quite common for this to occur in parts of Illinois. Shame that tactic isn’t working either. Ironically, it’s the parts of the state with the most dead voters that have the highest rates of firearm violence.

In a nutshell I’m opposed (vehemently) to violating constitutionally protected rights. Your idea requires amending the Constitution. I don’t think that’s doable. I wish you would try though instead of willfully advocating for violating people’s rights. The rule of law matters. If you further erode equality under the law things will certainly get worse because adding law into a society without equal application of law will result in more chaos and death, not less.

 

Was that a flyby? Doesn't look like he could hit it the broadside of a barn even from two feet away.

 

Looks like he knew those who understand what a joke that place became would eviscerate his nonsense so he ran off. 20 points for this "I appeal an infraction".