Gun Control

[WuDrWu]

I get the notion about banning these weapons, it makes you feel good, like you did something constructive. But all it does is gives you a false sense of security, all the while forfeiting rights.

Well said. And NONE of these ideas address the actual problem....the human condition. Just like you said, it makes you feel good (if you think that way) and provides a false sense of security.

[jdshock]

No, I'm pointing out the idiocy of the gun control argument with equal doses of idiocy.

We are told that if we banned these so called assault rifles, gun violence would drop dramatically. But when statistics point out that these so called assault rifles account for very few deaths, then the rationale morphs to if we could stop just one or two mass shootings, the ban would be worth it. Well, no, it wouldn't. Because the violence didn't drop when there was a ban on these guns, and the violence won't slow if a ban is reenacted. France has a complete ban on these weapons, yet these shootings continue to occur. How can that be?

Furthermore, if we melt down every freaking gun, even find and and melt down every gun illegally posessed, you won't stop mass killings. Jihadists already use hydrogen peroxide, slow cookers, pipe bombs, poison and now semi trucks. Violent people will find a way to kill. Period.

I get the notion about banning these weapons, it makes you feel good, like you did something constructive. But all it does is gives you a false sense of security, all the while forfeiting rights.

What will you do when these weapons are banned and the mass killings continue? Ban 9 volt batteries, steel wool, aluminum powder and iron oxide?

Where do you stop?

You're conflating two arguments. You even do it in the same paragraph. You say that stopping "one or two mass shootings" wouldn't be worth it "because the violence didn't drop when there was a ban on these guns." That's not a reason that stopping one or two mass shootings wouldn't be worth it. You understand that, right? That's an argument that it wouldn't stop one or two mass shootings, not an argument that it wouldn't be worth it.

So your main argument is that an assault weapon ban would be ZERO percent effective, which is fine, but it's impossible to know. It's incredibly unlikely that the policy would be 100% effective and it's equally unlikely that it would be 0% effective. It's absolutely impossible for us to know how effective it would be, that's why I've asked that we assume it's a tiny, non-zero percent effective so we can say the benefit will be small, while discussing the relative burdens placed on society. That will prevent a silly discussion that can't possibly be supported by evidence. We just don't know how effective it will be. I'm not even arguing that it's 99% effective. I'm granting you the full benefit of the doubt, minus one inch, when I say that we assume it's a nonzero percent effective. Just for the purpose of the discussion at this point, could the law hypothetically be worth it if there is one life saved?

In furtherance of your argument, you say that the policy "won't stop mass killings." You're oversimplifying my argument. If anyone suggests that it would completely resolve mass killings, they're delusional. It won't stop all mass killings. But a policy need not be 100% effective to be a positive benefit. That's why killings via other means are irrelevant. A speed limit doesn't need to solve the problems that are better addressed by a stop light, you know?

Your five words about forfeiting rights is the only point I'm interested in. This is a second argument: there is some burden from banning the weapons. You don't flesh out the argument, though. What is the impact of forfeiting the rights? What is the burden on society when you ban assault weapons? Why is it bad to ban these weapons? I listed three burdens in my post that you quoted. Do you have any others?

Where do you stop? When the burden outweighs the benefit. That has been my proposal since day one. Trucks are obviously too important to society.

[jdshock]

Well said. And NONE of these ideas address the actual problem....the human condition. Just like you said, it makes you feel good (if you think that way) and provides a false sense of security.

I fully agree that none of the proposals address the root of the problem. Why is that a reason to not enact a policy?

Speed limits don't stop people from being in a hurry. A wall on the Mexican border doesn't stop people from wanting to get into the United States. Security in airports doesn't stop people from wanting to get weapons onto planes.

1. Why does a second policy prevent someone from addressing the root of the problem?
2. How can we address the root of the problem?

[WuDrWu]

1. Why does a second policy prevent someone from addressing the root of the problem?
2. How can we address the root of the problem?

1. It doesn't but that's not the point. You're limiting the rights of law abiding citizens and not affecting and change for the criminals.
2. That's the $64 question and I don't have the answer. I will say I believe we're heading the wrong way with our education and setting up young people to fail, but that's really just pollyanish. Some evil isn't fixable. That's why we should be able to choose to defend ourselves however we choose.

[jdshock]

1. It doesn't but that's not the point. You're limiting the rights of law abiding citizens and not affecting and change for the criminals.

You are calculating the burden vs the benefit. You say ZERO benefit ("not affecting any change for the criminals") and you say there is some huge burden ("limiting the rights of law abiding citizens").

I've already made clear that I want you to assume that the benefit is the absolute smallest benefit you could think of that is not zero. One life is spared. I'm not interested in hearing arguments about the benefit side of the equation. We just can't know in advance. It's impossible. Even past laws can't give us exact predicting power because we didn't have control tests. As I stated, I'm giving your side of the debate the full benefit of the doubt, minus one inch.

I am only interested in the burden. What are the rights that are infringed? Why are those rights important? What exactly is the harm in banning the weapons? I've listed three burdens earlier. You can argue with me about those three. You can list other burdens that I haven't thought of. Either way, saying a law "limits the rights of law abiding citizens" is not a reason to not propose a law without further exploration. If Texas had no speed limits, people who go 100 mph are "law abiding citizens." Placing a speed limit on them of 65 would "limit their rights." There has to be some reason this is different. Why would this law be particularly burdensome?

[MoValley John]

You're conflating two arguments. You even do it in the same paragraph. You say that stopping "one or two mass shootings" wouldn't be worth it "because the violence didn't drop when there was a ban on these guns." That's not a reason that stopping one or two mass shootings wouldn't be worth it. You understand that, right? That's an argument that it wouldn't stop one or two mass shootings, not an argument that it wouldn't be worth it.

So your main argument is that an assault weapon ban would be ZERO percent effective, which is fine, but it's impossible to know. It's incredibly unlikely that the policy would be 100% effective and it's equally unlikely that it would be 0% effective. It's absolutely impossible for us to know how effective it would be, that's why I've asked that we assume it's a tiny, non-zero percent effective so we can say the benefit will be small, while discussing the relative burdens placed on society. That will prevent a silly discussion that can't possibly be supported by evidence. We just don't know how effective it will be. I'm not even arguing that it's 99% effective. I'm granting you the full benefit of the doubt, minus one inch, when I say that we assume it's a nonzero percent effective. Just for the purpose of the discussion at this point, could the law hypothetically be worth it if there is one life saved?

In furtherance of your argument, you say that the policy "won't stop mass killings." You're oversimplifying my argument. If anyone suggests that it would completely resolve mass killings, they're delusional. It won't stop all mass killings. But a policy need not be 100% effective to be a positive benefit. That's why killings via other means are irrelevant. A speed limit doesn't need to solve the problems that are better addressed by a stop light, you know?

Your five words about forfeiting rights is the only point I'm interested in. This is a second argument: there is some burden from banning the weapons. You don't flesh out the argument, though. What is the impact of forfeiting the rights? What is the burden on society when you ban assault weapons? Why is it bad to ban these weapons? I listed three burdens in my post that you quoted. Do you have any others?

Where do you stop? When the burden outweighs the benefit. That has been my proposal since day one. Trucks are obviously too important to society.

You do realize that there was a ban on these weapons, right? You realize that statistically it had no impact, right? You realize that these weapons are banned in all of Europe, right? You realize that there are still mass shootings in Europe with weapons that ate banned, right?

Your ban takes away rights, but does no good. Other than making you feel good. The left likes to say that the gun ban was about to work, what the hell does that mean when there is overwhelming global evidence that it doesn't work?

I don't have a problem with restrictions on gun ownership from bad people. How we go about determining who should, and should not be allowed to own guns is the crux. Felons shouldn't own guns, some mentally ill shouldn't own guns. But who decides the criteria? Who declares someone mentally unfit? Where is the due process if you are unjustly declared unfit to own a gun? Answer these questions and I'd support gun ownership restrictions. Due process must be a part of your answer, we are a lost society the second we don't include due process in all of our decisions.

[MoValley John]

You really want to fix the problem? Enact real, tough laws on gun crimes. Then enforce the law. A person committing a gun crime has no business on the streets. 25 years, minimum, no good time.

[jdshock]

You do realize that there was a ban on these weapons, right? You realize that statistically it had no impact, right? You realize that these weapons are banned in all of Europe, right? You realize that there are still mass shootings in Europe with weapons that ate banned, right?

Point me to the academic study suggesting it had no impact. All of them I saw said it was too early to determine the effect. It doesn't matter, though. We can't possibly know with 100% certainty because it's impossible to have a control test in these kinds of scenarios.

Which is why I asked that you give me literally any nonzero effectiveness... but you're unwilling to engage in that argument, and you just keep pounding the table about "rights" without saying why whatever rights are at stake are important. That isn't how constitutional law works. You don't just say "here's a right" and no law can infringe on that right.

[MoValley John]

Point me to the academic study suggesting it had no impact. All of them I saw said it was too early to determine the effect. It doesn't matter, though. We can't possibly know with 100% certainty because it's impossible to have a control test in these kinds of scenarios.

Which is why I asked that you give me literally any nonzero effectiveness... but you're unwilling to engage in that argument, and you just keep pounding the table about "rights" without saying why whatever rights are at stake are important. That isn't how constitutional law works. You don't just say "here's a right" and no law can infringe on that right.

There haven't been any academic studies, just statistics. Statistics point to no effect. Academic opinion, which has a slant and agenda, has said just what you parroted, that how can we know for sure?

Well, all you can do is look at statistics, not much to study, banning these weapons, over the course of several years, had zero effect. Zero. I guess we could, as you wish, ban them for 30 years and take a look, but just like France, there would be no difference. Then again, gun control nuts would once again opine that the ban was just about to work and we should give it another 20 years...... Rinse, repeat.

When you can tell me how a gun ban prevented mass shootings in France, then we're onto something. The guy in the truck, besides mowing over scores of people, was shooting a banned gun.

[MoValley John]

2000px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.jpg

I don't know what else needs to be studied. Handguns do the most killing, "assault rifles" fatalities maintained static, before, during and after the gun ban.

Do you want more pie charts or graphs?

[MoValley John]

Assault style weapons, shotguns, hunting rifles and pellet guns combined kill about twice as many people as blunt objects. We should ban blunt objects.

[MoValley John]

If we could reduce the murders from blunt objects by just one.... It'd be worth it.

[pinstripers]

Objects need to be made blunter.

[MoValley John]

Fact checking from Connecticut.

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-fact-check-democrats-20160617-story.html

You probably don't want to read this if you support a weapons ban. Then again, it might be informative.

[Aargh]

I don't support a weapons ban. I've got some problems with the AR-type weapons and big clips. Those were designed as offensive weapons and they're not that great in a defensive situation.

I'm also not big on the argument that civilians need their weapons to protect them from an overstepping and tyrannical government. Using weapons in that wituation will always result in firing on (and possibly killing) law enforcement personnel.

What would the attitude be on liability insurance for owners of firearms? Just like we've got for owner/operators of vehicles. If a weapon registered to you is used to injure or kill someone, your liability insurance pays the medical bills and any pain and suffering that might be awarded - just like liability insurance on vehicles.