Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

DC Ban on carrying handguns struck down


Slateman

Recommended Posts

First of all, we could argue all day about whether or not the founding fathers' vision of gun rights applies fully in a modern context. Or whether context should matter at all.

But I want to ask you where you believe gun regulation should start and finish. At what point does intervention in gun possession become the destruction of a Constitutional right? Do all United States citizens have the exact same rights regardless of their motivation or mental state? And is it unconstitutional to impede them?

"It's the law, and things are going relatively alright-ish, so let's move on" just seems like a terribly dangerous attitude to have, even if in this instance you may be correct.

If you're going to justify taking one right, you should be able to justify taking all of them. If you can't legally own a firearm, you shouldn't be allowed to vote or decline a search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's stroll down a street in Compton or Anacostia at 2 am and tell me if it's irrational to be fearful.

Are you simply afraid of being shot? If we got rid of guns, would you be completely fine with simply being stabbed/mugged/raped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what else that has a death rate of 1/10 of 1% of the population is being focused on as much as guns right now?

 

Terrorism? 

 

Heart disease? 

 

Who you're talking to on the phone? 

 

Child molesters? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what else that has a death rate of 1/10 of 1% of the population is being focused on as much as guns right now?

So, Parkinson's affects far less than one percent of the population (about .3%) give or take.  I suspect you want to end all medical research on solving the disease.  ALS or Lou Gherig's disease is even rarer.  I suspect again... that we shouldn't give a damn about the people suffering from this condition.  In 2011, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. This number is obviously even smaller than the number of fatalities from gun violence (even if we decide not count people who were merely shot, but survived, suicides,  and all the groups that are excluded from gun violence routinely to artificially supress the number.) 

 

What you are clearly telling me is that we should have no restrictions on drinking and driving because the numbers are too low to be concerned with.

 

Edit: Terrorism in the continental US is another great example.  Clearly, gun rights supporters want to end all budget expenditures that try to police or limit such a trivial and statistically insignificant event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's stroll down a street in Compton or Anacostia at 2 am and tell me if it's irrational to be fearful.

 

 

And how is gun control going to help with that? I would wager that the vast majority of guns on the streets of Compton and Anacostia at 2 AM are not of the legal variety and as such would not be impacted by any new laws.

 

 

Are you simply afraid of being shot? If we got rid of guns, would you be completely fine with simply being stabbed/mugged/raped?

 

I think y'all are ignoring his point.  (Or it's going over your heads.) 

 

The declaration has been made that it is irrational to be fearful of a 1% change of being killed. 

 

I assume that Burgold's assertion is that a person walking (wherever he's talking about) has less than a 1% chance of being killed. 

 

Therefore, if the assertion that a 1% chance of being killed is not rational to fear, is true, then it should be irrational to fear his situation, too.  Right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Parkinson's affects far less than one percent of the population (about .3%) give or take. I suspect you want to end all medical research on solving the disease. ALS or Lou Gherig's disease is even rarer. I suspect again... that we shouldn't give a damn about the people suffering from this condition. In 2011, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. This number is obviously even smaller than the number of fatalities from gun violence (even if we decide not count people who were merely shot, but survived, suicides, and all the groups that are excluded from gun violence routinely to artificially supress the number.)

What you are clearly telling me is that we should have no restrictions on drinking and driving because the numbers are too low to be concerned with.

Edit: Terrorism in the continental US is another great example. Clearly, gun rights supporters want to end all budget expenditures that try to police or limit such a trivial and statistically insignificant event.

Is operating a motor vehicle a right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think y'all are ignoring his point. (Or it's going over your heads.)

The declaration has been made that it is irrational to be fearful of a 1% change of being killed.

I assume that Burgold's assertion is that a person walking (wherever he's talking about) has less than a 1% chance of being killed.

Therefore, if the assertion that a 1% chance of being killed is not rational to fear, is true, then it should be irrational to fear his situation, too. Right?

The point is moot. There seems to be concern with one consequence instead of the underlying behavior. You might get stabbed. Should we have the same regulations for knives? You might get brained with a baseball bat. Ban those too.

Why is it I feel safe walking down the street in Arlington or Fairfax, but not Anacostia? Is it the availability of firearms or could it be another issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is operating a motor vehicle a right?

 

Yeah, you're not that dense.  Your argument is that we shouldn't care about things that are so statistically unlikely.  Given that, we should not care about ALS, Parkinson's, terrorism, DUI, etc.

 

Your argument can bare no weight because it's a false one.

 

The other obvious falsehood is that we are only citing kills.  In other words, if you get shot and they save your life it doesn't count.  I grabbed these stats just because they were the quickest I found on Google...

 

 

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

 

 

So, what I'm hearing from you is that the third leading cause of injury or violent death in the United States is irrelevent? Is this a serious argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not worth requiring education/training that serves only to take away rights. Especially when it effects so little of the population and the "solution" simply puts a band aid on a nasty infection.

To use the DUI example the punishment is afterwards. What you're suggesting would be akin to requiring everyone who wants to drink undergo hundreds of dollars in education and training about the effects of alcohol on driving, then have to be screened and issued a permit by the government to be allowed to drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is moot.

Uh, no, it isn't.

no matter how quickly you run from one talking point to another.

 

There seems to be concern with one consequence instead of the underlying behavior. You might get stabbed. Should we have the same regulations for knives? You might get brained with a baseball bat. Ban those too.

 

 

I see we're already running from "Hah!  a 1% chance of getting killed is nothing!  We should do nothing about it." to "Well, if a 1% change of getting killed is a problem, then how come you aren't doing anything about problems that are vastly smaller than this one, huh?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's where we differ.  I believe in prevention.

 

I know that education programs aren't fool proof and that trying to hammer the message home in driver's ed classes won't always work, but we certainly have changed the culture and probably saved many lives.  We don't save all of them because people will still be idiots.  The same is true when it comes to guns.  You will never prevent all violence because there will always be a group of people who are idiots, evil, irresponsible, or insane.  However, that doesn't mean that you don't try to limit the third biggest cause of injury or violent death in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't bounced from anything. I'm still asking why it is you only care about this one result that has a less than 1% chance of happening, and not the behaviors that drive these results.

I guess that's where we differ. I believe in prevention.

I know that education programs aren't fool proof and that trying to hammer the message home in driver's ed classes won't always work, but we certainly have changed the culture and probably saved many lives. We don't save all of them because people will still be idiots. The same is true when it comes to guns. You will never prevent all violence because there will always be a group of people who are idiots, evil, irresponsible, or insane. However, that doesn't mean that you don't try to limit the third biggest cause of injury or violent death in the United States.

But you're not preventing anything. The auto world is a perfect example. Tons of training and education goes in to that. Even more government regulation. And yet it's still hurting/killing more people. And most of those are by accident. That driver was simply attempting to get from a to be. A gun is known to be more inheritantly dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't bounced from anything. I'm still asking why it is you only care about this one result that has a less than 1% chance of happening, and not the behaviors that drive these results.

 

And, off we go again with

 

1)  Denying things he's actually said.

2)  And claiming other people said things they didn't say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't bounced from anything. I'm still asking why it is you only care about this one result that has a less than 1% chance of happening, and not the behaviors that drive these results.

We believe in it all.  The whole enchilada.

 

Are you seriously saying that there's no point in having any kind of restriction on weapons (after all, knives are an arm and so we have the right to bare them. For that matter, an atom bomb can be defined as an arm, but no one is that ridiculous and so we limit our right to arms to only guns and not all kinds of arms.  I guess it's okay to shred the constitution to that degree.) until we entirely eliminate the human impulse towards violence?  Your fixation on the 1 percent is foolish especially since it is a baldfaced lie.

 

That one percent number is magnitudes higher because of all the exclusions.  The bombing at the Boston Marathon only killed three people.  Do we only count those three and ignore the 264 who were injured?  That's what your one percent tries to do.  It's insane and to keep pushing it as a truth. It is also insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

19,392 of those 31,076 were suicides. What gun laws do you propose/support that would stop people from killing themselves with legally owned firearms in their own homes? What percentage of people that kill themselves with firearms would not do so by another method or by whatever guns they are allowed to own after tighter regulations are passed? If we are to change the laws to save them I wish to know how many people we are really talking about. Also this group represent very little threat to me, the number shouldn't be included in arguments of making the US safer.

Removing suicudes leaves 11,684. Of that number, representing homicides and accidents, what percentage occurs with a legally owned gun? Gun laws tend to affect those that have a care to follow it more strongly than those already content to ignore it. How big of an impact will restricting legal ownership have on this number. Again, if we are going to change the laws I wish to know how many people we are really saving, or as close as we can estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I believe in all, Destino.  We have not yet addressed the mental health aspect well in America.  That needs to be considered.  Often there are signs when people are in distress significant enough to trigger a suicide.  That's not entirely about guns, but maybe there some baring.

 

For instance, if someone has a longstanding/permanent neurological condition which makes them a danger to themselves or others should that person have access to firearms?  What if the condition is controllable by medication?  Should they then?  I'm not certain especially as the effects of medicine often have to be readjusted and people can go off their meds as we all know.  More, should there be better communication between agencies and retailers as to who has these conditions or is that too big a betrayal of confidentiality?  Remember, even though they have been diagnosed often these people have not committed a wrong and may not... can we deny them rights preemptively?  The NRA says "no."  They say everyone regardless of condition has the right to posess and use firearms.  I vividly remember one interview with the President of Gun Owners of America who argued that a blind man (he technically had six inches of vision) had the right to use his weapon anywhere including a crowded shopping mall if he felt threatened.  The guy claimed his other senses would kick in giving him a Daredevil like radar.  This interview started with a man who had already killed his "best:" friend.

 

Continuing the suicide question, though I don't have the answer, how many of those suicides would have been committed or even attempted without access to a firearm?  All of them?  A Quarter of them?  We don't know, but what we do know is that killing with a gun is easy, it's convenient, and very lethal/fast.  Other methods, slitting your wrists, ODing, etc.  give a better window for saving the person.  More, mentally, people imagine that because death by gun shot is quick it will be easier and less painful.  That makes it more attractive.

 

It's not clean.  It's not simple.  These arguments about guns, but to dismiss whole categories...  To say, I don't care about suicide, I don't care about victims of robberies who recover or are only paralyzed.  Remember, the conservative definition of an act of mass violence is that at least four people must die and while that sounds fair on the surface, it means that the bombing of the Boston Marathon was not an act of mass violence.  Only three died.  The 264 who were harmed, many permanently don't count in these supressed statistics.  That's how the gun lobby frames your argument.  They say, let's only count these 11,000... suicides certainly don't count and so we'll dismiss those 30,0000 "accidents" don't count and so there go more tens of thousands... and injuries don't count and so there go 100,000's more from our consciousness.

 

To do that is to commit an intentional wrong. Finally, the argument of the last few pages is the number of deaths are so small that they don't even deserve our attention despite nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers (5,247) wounded in action that year in the war in Afghanistan (source: CDF, CDC, Department of Defense) and the fact that over ten years a total of 335,609 people died from guns -- more than the population of St. Louis, Mo. (318,069), Pittsburgh (307,484), Cincinnati, Ohio (296,223), Newark, N.J. (277,540), and Orlando, Fla. (243,195) (sources: CDF, U.S. Census; CDC)

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite

 

The big picture:

  • Every year in the U.S., an average of more than 100,000 people are shot, according to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.
  • Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention, the Brady Campaign reports.
  • Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 335,609 people died from guns -- more than the population of St. Louis, Mo. (318,069), Pittsburgh (307,484), Cincinnati, Ohio (296,223), Newark, N.J. (277,540), and Orlando, Fla. (243,195) (sources: CDF, U.S. Census; CDC)
  • One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people are killed during an average day, and 609 are killed every week. (source: CDC)

Homicides by weapon:

  • Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2011; 4.1 percent were with shotguns; 3.8 percent were with rifles; 18.5 percent were with unspecified firearms.
  • 13.3 percent of homicides were done with knives or other cutting instruments.
  • 5.8 percent of homicides were from the use of hands, fists, feet, etc. (source: FBI)

Guns and kids:

  • 82 children under five years old died from firearms in 2010 compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty (sources: CDF, CDC, FBI)
  • More kids ages 0-19 died from firearms every three days in 2010 than died in the 2012 Newtown, Conn., massacre (source:CDF, CDC)
  • Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers (5,247) wounded in action that year in the war in Afghanistan (source: CDF, CDC, Department of Defense)
  • Half of all juveniles murdered in 2010 were killed with a firearm (source: Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand how everytime we have this conversation people miss the point of legal gun ownership.

 

Rehashed time and time again. Criminals do not care about legal...that's the biggest point that many people miss.

 

Why should the criminals have free access to guns, but responsible legal gun owners have to jump through hoops just to hunt or protect their homes ?


Ugh..."bearing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's stroll down a street in Compton or Anacostia at 2 am and tell me if it's irrational to be fearful.

 

and this gets down to the nitty gritty of the matter.  Gun Control advocates believe that more gun control will stop those guns you fear in Compton and Anacostia at 2 am from being there.  

 

It won't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand how everytime we have this conversation people miss the point of legal gun ownership.

 

Rehashed time and time again. Criminals do not care about legal...that's the biggest point that many people miss.

 

Why should the criminals have free access to guns, but responsible legal gun owners have to jump through hoops just to hunt or protect their homes ?

Ugh..."bearing"

As Bang would probably say... let's de-criminalize murder and theft then... rape too because criminals do not care about legal.  In fact, let's only keep laws on the books or write laws that criminals agree to obey.

 

Edit: Painkiller, to steal from the gun rights advocate's argument.  Homocides are down in a big way since the 1980's in Anacostia.  DC has some of the strictest control laws out there.  The idea of gun control is not to prevent all crime and violence, but to try to make it tougher and limit it a bit.  Make the criminal jump through a couple extra hoops.  Make the gun dealer think twice before selling his wares to people who either are or will sell their merchandise to bad guys. 

 

The question really is whether doing nothing is a good solution or as some of the people in the posts above seem to be saying... are the trends and number of deaths and injuries per year acceptible.  That's what I've been reading over the last few pages anyway.  Newtown, Aurora, 150 mass shootings since January (more than one individual shot)... is a level that makes you comfortable and happy.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/2014massshootings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...