Posted by 79 at 3:50am Jul 1 '12If this premise were true, then we should see a general slowing in the rate of decline as fewer and fewer states are heavily restricting guns. Why? Quite simply because there'd be fewer and fewer Illinoises affecting the statistics.
not really. i think whatever's behind the general trend outweighs gun laws. all i was saying was that if there's any effect of guns being more prevalent, it doesn't seem to help the trend at all - and that areas where stricter laws are in place seem to do a lot better than where the laws are looser. perhaps in a few years, if guns are still becoming more prevalent, you'd notice the decline.
then they certainly warrant closer inspection to figure out what they're doing differently, figure out what's working, why, and then see if that's applicable elsewhere. Ditto Arizona -- if they're exceptional (as in, exceptionally poor) then we should study them to find out why, and try to fix it.
agree wholeheartedly. i would suggest, for one thing, that the prevalence of guns be looked at. isn't that one possible - and very noticeable - difference? it should at least be investigated, i think, just in case there is a causal relationship or effect.
...the real result of all gun control laws is "going after" the private arms of citizens who overwhelmingly do no harm, ever, with them.
that's a pretty sweeping statement. do you stand by it?
for instance, i fail to see how it's "going after" law-abiding citizens to keep privately held guns off of elementary school grounds. or how background checks are "going after" the overwhelming majority of owners.
i'm certainly not in favor of "buy-as-you-please-over-the-counter" or "carry into private establishments where the owner doesn't want them" policies, so if you're including those in your statement, we're gonna be at an impasse.
Instituting "gun-free zones" similarly only disarms law-abiding citizens -- the criminals intent on doing harm will not stop and turn around just because there's a sign saying he can't bring his gun in!
it's a common fear-mongering argument. "the bad guys are always going to have guns no matter what we say! only the good people are harmed!"
two points:
1. you're missing the point of those laws. they're not there just to fuck with law-abiding gun owners, despite what some gun nuts believe. they're there because if a gun is found or detected it can automatically result in immediate arrest. otherwise, you've just got to sit around on your thumbs until the criminal opens fire. those laws are meant to stop crimes before they happen, instead of waiting until it does.
2. it assumes that there's no way to stop criminals acquiring guns, and any attempt to do so is useless. you want a straw man argument, there it is.
That hypothetical guy who bought a gun without a background check? That's already illegal. How are more laws going to change that?
good question. how about we make obtaining guns illegally far more difficult? or put more resources into enforcing the laws? are there options, or are we just stuck in a situation where we can expect criminals to walk around with guns all the time, and our only solution is an arms race in our communities?
If you have ideas for how to go after illegal guns without further impinging on the rights of law-abiding citizens -- including law-abiding gun owners -- then I'm all ears
depends on what you view is too inconvenient for gun owners. i hear we have a right to bear arms - i don't know anything in the constitution that says it has to be as convenient as possible to do so. making something difficult doesn't mean your rights have been taken away, if it's possible to reasonably have access to that right.
i've suggested things like registries that actually work - similar to the registration of cars, with insurance and only certain people (dictated by the owner) allowed access to a certain gun.
you've poo-poo'd that in the past because you don't think it'll work and would be too expensive. i'd say if we as a country actually gave a damn about the bad sides to gun proliferation (eg, criminals with guns), we could make it work. and the DMV doesn't lose a shitload of money, afaik. i'd like to at least see something worked out on a national level - you're right, patchy regional laws are mostly a joke.
All activities incur risk. You're safer flying than driving cross-country, and yet no one's talking about "road trip control" laws.
the only thing i was saying about that cartoon is that its statement is false. the only comparison made was an individual with a gun versus one without - i spelled out the caveats and said in all other cases its wrong. nothing was said about driving or cars - but you're right, and the statement would be just as false had it said that a person with a car would be safer without one (again, with caveats - there are situations where being able reach a wider area in less time is safer than being more limited, of course).
the point is that owning a gun is actually safer than simply living in the US
to assert that, you'll need to show that gun owners are victims of violent crime + accidents at a statistically significant lower rate than non-gun-owners. i don't see that shown anywhere.
(another fun fact: gun accidents are no longer on the CDC's "top 10" list of accidental fatalities or injuries, and haven't been for at least a few years)
i don't find that surprising in the least.
you know why some people (eg, me) get so worked up about gun regulation? it's not because we see a plague of gun death running rampant ("some people", not "all who argue this side of the debate"), it's because it seems like no one on your side sees any shades of gray - any idea about how to curb illegal gun possession and use is automatically demonized into a plot to take away all legally owned guns. i'm not concerned at all about legally owned and used guns - definitely not my cup of tea, but i support it for the same reason i support legalization of drugs which i think are harmful.
but try doing anything about regulating guns, and your only possible goal is eradicating the 2nd amendment. it makes you guys seem very scary, even before the point that most of your arguments are based on fear and boogeymen.
not really. i think whatever's behind the general trend outweighs gun laws. all i was saying was that if there's any effect of guns being more prevalent, it doesn't seem to help the trend at all - and that areas where stricter laws are in place seem to do a lot better than where the laws are looser. perhaps in a few years, if guns are still becoming more prevalent, you'd notice the decline.
then they certainly warrant closer inspection to figure out what they're doing differently, figure out what's working, why, and then see if that's applicable elsewhere. Ditto Arizona -- if they're exceptional (as in, exceptionally poor) then we should study them to find out why, and try to fix it.
agree wholeheartedly. i would suggest, for one thing, that the prevalence of guns be looked at. isn't that one possible - and very noticeable - difference? it should at least be investigated, i think, just in case there is a causal relationship or effect.
...the real result of all gun control laws is "going after" the private arms of citizens who overwhelmingly do no harm, ever, with them.
that's a pretty sweeping statement. do you stand by it?
for instance, i fail to see how it's "going after" law-abiding citizens to keep privately held guns off of elementary school grounds. or how background checks are "going after" the overwhelming majority of owners.
i'm certainly not in favor of "buy-as-you-please-over-the-counter" or "carry into private establishments where the owner doesn't want them" policies, so if you're including those in your statement, we're gonna be at an impasse.
Instituting "gun-free zones" similarly only disarms law-abiding citizens -- the criminals intent on doing harm will not stop and turn around just because there's a sign saying he can't bring his gun in!
it's a common fear-mongering argument. "the bad guys are always going to have guns no matter what we say! only the good people are harmed!"
two points:
1. you're missing the point of those laws. they're not there just to fuck with law-abiding gun owners, despite what some gun nuts believe. they're there because if a gun is found or detected it can automatically result in immediate arrest. otherwise, you've just got to sit around on your thumbs until the criminal opens fire. those laws are meant to stop crimes before they happen, instead of waiting until it does.
2. it assumes that there's no way to stop criminals acquiring guns, and any attempt to do so is useless. you want a straw man argument, there it is.
That hypothetical guy who bought a gun without a background check? That's already illegal. How are more laws going to change that?
good question. how about we make obtaining guns illegally far more difficult? or put more resources into enforcing the laws? are there options, or are we just stuck in a situation where we can expect criminals to walk around with guns all the time, and our only solution is an arms race in our communities?
If you have ideas for how to go after illegal guns without further impinging on the rights of law-abiding citizens -- including law-abiding gun owners -- then I'm all ears
depends on what you view is too inconvenient for gun owners. i hear we have a right to bear arms - i don't know anything in the constitution that says it has to be as convenient as possible to do so. making something difficult doesn't mean your rights have been taken away, if it's possible to reasonably have access to that right.
i've suggested things like registries that actually work - similar to the registration of cars, with insurance and only certain people (dictated by the owner) allowed access to a certain gun.
you've poo-poo'd that in the past because you don't think it'll work and would be too expensive. i'd say if we as a country actually gave a damn about the bad sides to gun proliferation (eg, criminals with guns), we could make it work. and the DMV doesn't lose a shitload of money, afaik. i'd like to at least see something worked out on a national level - you're right, patchy regional laws are mostly a joke.
All activities incur risk. You're safer flying than driving cross-country, and yet no one's talking about "road trip control" laws.
the only thing i was saying about that cartoon is that its statement is false. the only comparison made was an individual with a gun versus one without - i spelled out the caveats and said in all other cases its wrong. nothing was said about driving or cars - but you're right, and the statement would be just as false had it said that a person with a car would be safer without one (again, with caveats - there are situations where being able reach a wider area in less time is safer than being more limited, of course).
the point is that owning a gun is actually safer than simply living in the US
to assert that, you'll need to show that gun owners are victims of violent crime + accidents at a statistically significant lower rate than non-gun-owners. i don't see that shown anywhere.
(another fun fact: gun accidents are no longer on the CDC's "top 10" list of accidental fatalities or injuries, and haven't been for at least a few years)
i don't find that surprising in the least.
you know why some people (eg, me) get so worked up about gun regulation? it's not because we see a plague of gun death running rampant ("some people", not "all who argue this side of the debate"), it's because it seems like no one on your side sees any shades of gray - any idea about how to curb illegal gun possession and use is automatically demonized into a plot to take away all legally owned guns. i'm not concerned at all about legally owned and used guns - definitely not my cup of tea, but i support it for the same reason i support legalization of drugs which i think are harmful.
but try doing anything about regulating guns, and your only possible goal is eradicating the 2nd amendment. it makes you guys seem very scary, even before the point that most of your arguments are based on fear and boogeymen.
Re: it's a pretty picture, yes - 79