Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Calamari

The research is clear: gun control saves lives

127 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, Eastsider said:

Want to ponder he is one for ya. Just think how many lives could have been saved if prohibition did not end.

Do many people die from having bottles of legal alcohol thrown at them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hst2 said:

Do many people die from having bottles of legal alcohol thrown at them?

LOL.

No but all the health issues it causes sure do.

And irresponsible drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hst2 said:

Do many people die from having bottles of legal alcohol thrown at them?

No but die from:

  1. Alcoholism
  2. Drunk driving
  3. Drunken rampages
  4. Suicide
  5. And maybe the occasional bottle being thrown at them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Do many people die from having bottles of legal alcohol thrown at them?

Many die from the results of drinking whats in those bottles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Many die from the results of drinking whats in those bottles.

So they are only a danger to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hst2 said:

So they are only a danger to themselves.

So why do we have drunk driving laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The problem is that almost all of those ideas require an enormous government run database. We've seen how badly the "no fly" list is run. I cannot imagine a gun database would be run any better. And that's if I can get past my instinctive distrust of government and its data collection problem (it's addicted). In order to support those laws one must believe that government is essentially benevolent. Is it? I think the best one can hope for is that it's indifferent. Under some leaders - perhaps the current one - it may actually be malevolent. And we have seen that malevolent governments are very possible; they exist all over the world.

So: first convince me I should trust the government. I'll warn you you're facing an uphill battle to do so.

Edited by Evil Yoda
Replaced incorrect word with correct word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't understand how any reasonable person could possibly argue that gun controls won't save lives.  This is one of those "in other news, water is wet" kind of stories.

The problem, of course, is that the controls imposed have to be constitutionally acceptable and therein lies the perennial rub.  Most of the changes typically seen here are blatantly unconstitutional.

Edited by MiddleOfTheRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments for and against guns get really ridiculous at times.  It seems that there should be no locks on anything because criminals get get around locks.  It seems there should be no laws because criminals don't obey laws anyway.  There should be more "nanny state" laws prohibiting smoking, drinking, etc. because all that stuff kills people.

Now before you all jump all over me and tell me that I'm a foot loop.  I really don't care if someone owns a gun or not.  I just hope that if you own a gun, you are a responsible gun owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Again, the mental health aspect DOES need addressing obviously.

The problem is.....,, 

Who decides if you're mentally capable of owning a gun?

If the Govt. implemented a mental health check how is that going to work.

Yeah, the really obvious cases are a no brainers.

What about a man or woman who suffered from anxiety or depression?

Who decides in the tough cases?

I tell you what if I was licensed to determine who is "fit" and who isn't Im denying guns to ANYONE I have a 1% doubt about..... so I don't get sued.

That's not fair...... but that's what would happen quite often I believe.

Edited by mcorioles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Again, the mental health aspect DOES need addressing obviously.

The problem is.....,, 

Who decides if your mentally capable of owning a gun?

If the Govt. implemented a mental health check how is that going to work.

Yeah, the really obvious cases are a no brainer

What about a man or woman who suffered from anxiety or depression?

Who decides in the tough cases?

I tell you what if I was licensed to determine who is "fit" and who isn't Im denying guns to ANYONE I have a 1% doubt about..... so I don't get sued.

That's not fair...... but that's what would happen quite often I believe.

Edited by mcorioles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mrsmlh said:

The arguments for and against guns get really ridiculous at times.  It seems that there should be no locks on anything because criminals get get around locks.  It seems there should be no laws because criminals don't obey laws anyway.  There should be more "nanny state" laws prohibiting smoking, drinking, etc. because all that stuff kills people.

Now before you all jump all over me and tell me that I'm a foot loop.  I really don't care if someone owns a gun or not.  I just hope that if you own a gun, you are a responsible gun owner.

BINGO and be proficient with your weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, lots of folks who didn't read the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JoyinMudville said:

Let me ask you an honest question, and by honest i mean that i don't know the answer. If you could go back in time and recreate a country with laws that would have required the vegas shooter to register every gun purchase or some other  tracking mechanism that would have raised a red flag at a guy assembling such an extensive arsenal, assuming that such a red flag would have allowed authorities to pre-emptively track or question him and that that may have prevented this, would you support those measures?

now, before you start talking rights, if i make a run on pharmacies and start buying a bunch of non perscription drugs, i am going to get questioned. There are also a slew of industrial chemicals that i cannot buy without drawing state and federal attention. And, of course, if i start sending money to my friend's bank in Yemen, i am going to get a visit from the fbi.

so again, i don't know the answer but are there ways we can balance a right to buy guns with public safety?

 

The problem with hypothetical questions is they elicit hypothetical responses.

Hypothetically, yes, I would agree with such a process.

But we're not dealing with a hypothetical situation-the reality is far different and I have too many questions and doubts, many already expressed by others in this thread, to endorse such a proposal without a better understanding.

In short I have no problem with gun control, but have a real problem with the "we have to do something" mentality.

I hope that answered your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Problem with these hypotheticals is that they prove you all didn't read the article.

The methods employed work, whether you like it, believe it, or "trust the government :rolleyes:" or whatever sophomoric idiocy you are employing in a desperate attempt to keep your own heads firmly wedged in your asses. None of that is even relevant compared to the facts.

It's high time we admitted it.

Edited by Calamari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Calamari said:

Problem with these hypotheticals is that they prove you all didn't read the article.

The methods employed work, whether you like it, believe it, or "trust the government :rolleyes:" or whatever sophomoric idiocy you are employing in a desperate attempt to keep your own heads firmly wedged in your asses. None of that is even relevant compared to the facts.

It's high time we admitted it.

Yawn....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

I don't understand how any reasonable person could possibly argue that gun controls won't save lives.  This is one of those "in other news, water is wet" kind of stories.

 

Because the change in deaths in Australia is not statistically significant. Australian Govt. Statistics

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

 

Look at the charts -- the trends are flat lines.

It is quite interesting that the ban was enacted in 1996, where there were 67 gun homicides -- and 5 years later there were 65 -- yes that's total for the entire country of 24 Million.

2014 -- there were 32  -- oooh 50% decrease --- but the sample size is so small it is not statistically significant

Cultural change -- not gun control is the answer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

I don't understand how any reasonable person could possibly argue that gun controls won't save lives.  This is one of those "in other news, water is wet" kind of stories.

The problem, of course, is that the controls imposed have to be constitutionally acceptable and therein lies the perennial rub.  Most of the changes typically seen here are blatantly unconstitutional.

"In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gunownership being 25. It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as lawenforcement officers."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Brazil

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Brazil has harsher restrictions than we do -- yet a gun homicide rate twice ours.  and a comparable population - 210 Million

 

Guess what else they have in common with the US??? Rampant poverty, and a huge socioeconomic gap between rich and poor.

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

Yawn....

Not really surprised are ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that gun control doesn't save lives is either fooling or lying to their self, or just plain head in the sand dullards. Of course, unquestionably, gun control reduces death by guns.

Instead of arguing futilely against the irrefutable and obvious, it only remains to consider and discuss what you want to do, if anything, about it to get your out-of-hand situation under control. It's a matter of culture, conscience, constitution and commonsense. That is for Americans to decide, and Australian, Swiss or British gun death data, fair or false, is irrelevant to the American problem.

But at least be honest with yourselves, gun control does and will save lives in exactly the same way as quitting smoking does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Calamari said:

Problem with these hypotheticals is that they prove you all didn't read the article.

The methods employed work, whether you like it, believe it, or "trust the government :rolleyes:" or whatever sophomoric idiocy you are employing in a desperate attempt to keep your own heads firmly wedged in your asses. None of that is even relevant compared to the facts.

It's high time we admitted it.

The article is long on generalities and short on detail.

The only specific process the writer deals with in the article is "buyback" and I don't think even the most nutty of gun nuts would argue that participating in a voluntary buy back program would harm his or her 2A rights.

Any kind of government "buyback" program beyond voluntary is not "essentially" confiscation, at the author suggests, it is confiscation.

The author suggests that "stricter access controls" will reduce gun deaths and that is very likely true.  As I posted earlier, I'm not sure any one with more than an iota of common logic would deny that position.  Where the author fails, as most such writers do, is to suggest specific "stricter access controls" - because most will violate the Constitution.

There is nothing to stop a Congresscritter from either side of the aisle in either House from putting forth a proposal that would change the Constitution sufficiently to address this issue.  It's easier, I suppose, to whine about it than to do something that will actually have an effect.  That's too bad because the majority party has never been politically weaker that it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

The article is long on generalities and short on detail.

The only specific process the writer deals with in the article is "buyback" and I don't think even the most nutty of gun nuts would argue that participating in a voluntary buy back program would harm his or her 2A rights.

Any kind of government "buyback" program beyond voluntary is not "essentially" confiscation, at the author suggests, it is confiscation.

The author suggests that "stricter access controls" will reduce gun deaths and that is very likely true.  As I posted earlier, I'm not sure any one with more than an iota of common logic would deny that position.  Where the author fails, as most such writers do, is to suggest specific "stricter access controls" - because most will violate the Constitution.

There is nothing to stop a Congresscritter from either side of the aisle in either House from putting forth a proposal that would change the Constitution sufficiently to address this issue.  It's easier, I suppose, to whine about it than to do something that will actually have an effect.  That's too bad because the majority party has never been politically weaker that it is today.

Exactly, when I posted that the author's idea of gun control was confiscation I was accused of not reading the article and other denials.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, WKDWZD said:

 

Instead of arguing futilely against the irrefutable and obvious,

I refuted it.

Brazil has tighter gun control restrictions than the US -- yet double the gun death rate. (21.52  vs 10.54)

and 5+ TIMES the homicide rate (19.99 vs 3.6)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

the table is sortable

FACTS -- not fake ones

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0