DC Ban on carrying handguns struck down

[Larry]

Yes. We get it. The number of people being killed (in killings that are classified as homicides) has been trending downward.

Probably been posted 10 times, just in this thread alone. And never disputed.

But I notice that you didn't actually make a point, with your post. Just quote a huge hunk of statistics.

Did you actually have a point? That you feel like stating?

[Commander PK]

Did you actually have a point? That you feel like stating?

 

Why yes Larry

 

New gun control laws would largely be a waste of time and resources.  The root problems of gun violence need to be addressed.  

 

Edit: and also, the NRA and it's members are not the people doing the killing.

[Pedro]

 Imagine a world where only the people in charge had guns...

 

That's the reality you live in now.  Your 'pop' guns don't protect you from your government controlled military.  For that you would need the hardware required to give you air superiority as well as a missile defence system and the ability to take out multiple armoured vehicles.

 

Sans that the counter balance to a potentially bad government doesn't hold water, in reality.

[Commander PK]

That's the reality you live in now.  Your 'pop' guns don't protect you from your government controlled military.  For that you would need the hardware required to give you air superiority as well as a missile defence system and the ability to take out multiple armoured vehicles.

 

Sans that the counter balance to a potentially bad government doesn't hold water, in reality.

 

I know some people in Afghanistan and Iraq who might beg to differ.  Guerrilla insurgencies have proven quite effective with minimal means.

 

but really that isn't the larger point anyway.  

[Pedro]

I know some people in Afghanistan and Iraq who might beg to differ.  Guerrilla insurgencies have proven quite effective with minimal means.

 

but really that isn't the larger point anyway.  

 

Iraq under a 'bad government' that used it's military as military rather than policemen had none of the issues you imply, for more than a brief period before the problem was wiped out.

 

Your military could take out the Chinese army and most of it's 1.5b people, if tasked to do so.  Again your 'pop' guns don't do what you suggest re: government control.

 

EDIT: If it's not part of the larger point anyway, don't use it as an example, 'cos it's not part of the larger point anyway

[Commander PK]

 

EDIT: If it's not part of the larger point anyway, don't use it as an example, 'cos it's not part of the larger point anyway

 

I wasn't the one insinuating people with 'pop guns' could do nothing against a superior military force.  I didn't go there until you went there.

 

The larger point, is that the guns are not REALLY the problem in America.  The problem is people who are not taught the value of human life.  The all volunteer US Military would never obey an immoral order to invade it's own country and disarm the population anyway.  I have no fear of that premise, and if our civilian politicians every did advocate and try to enforce such a policy it would be just about the only situation where I would advocate for a military coup until new elections in the United States.  

 

Our citizen soldiers would not obey an order to disarm their families.

[Larry]

Why yes Larry

 

New gun control laws would largely be a waste of time and resources.  The root problems of gun violence need to be addressed.  

 

Then how about

 

1)  Stating that claim?  And

 

2)  Making an attempt to support it? 

 

Edit: 

 

As opposed to simply moving down the NRA menu of talking points to "We need our guns so we can take over the government". 

[Commander PK]

Then how about

 

1)  Stating that claim?  And

 

2)  Making an attempt to support it? 

 

Larry, whether you like it or not the Department of Justice's statistics on this matter are quite relevant to this current gun discussion, and all the ones prior and yet to come on Extremeskins.  It shows that violent gun crime has diminished, despite the fact there are more guns in private hands than ever before in this country.  

 

With that said, reducing gun violence even more would best be served by addressing the root causes.  Poverty, which makes people think that becoming a member of violent street gangs (domestic terrorists) and killing each other in droves is the only way to live, and doing a much better job of treating the mentally ill and mental illness in general, which will hopefully head off many of potential mass shooters or killers before they can do any damage.  Enforce the current gun laws on the books, and give out maximum sentences for criminals who use guns while committing violent crimes.

[Pedro]

I wasn't the one insinuating people with 'pop guns' could do nothing against a superior military force.  I didn't go there until you went there.

 

The larger point, is that the guns are not REALLY the problem in America.  The problem is people who are not taught the value of human life.  The all volunteer US Military would never obey an immoral order to invade it's own country and disarm the population anyway.  I have no fear of that premise, and if our civilian politicians every did advocate and try to enforce such a policy it would be just about the only situation where I would advocate for a military coup until new elections in the United States.  

 

Our citizen soldiers would not obey an order to disarm their families.

 

 

Not sure where you got this reply from.

 

You said:

 

 

So utopia shreds the 2nd Amendment?

And because people are dumb, evil, untrustworthy, and crazy, AND governments are made up of people, is the exact reason a 2nd Amendment is necessary. Imagine a world where only the people in charge had guns...

 

Given the 'world' being discussed here is the US (unless you believe gun ownership by private citizens in the US has any bearing on how governments in other countries treat their citizens?) my response was that the small arms being discussed did not in fact ensure the US government cannot use military oppression on it's people.

 

As you have said, it's almost inconcievable that the US military would obey such orders.  So now were at a point where the threat that the right to bear arms was originally brought in for is pretty much inconcievable as well as not actually effective in this day and age.

 

Arguments can be made on other issues, they just don't hold water on that bit where you said the bit about only the people in charge having guns.  So don't use it

[Commander PK]

and with that I'm out of this one.  I've said my bit.  Don't have the desire anymore to argue for hours with the same people about the same things.

Arguments can be made on other issues, they just don't hold water on that bit where you said the bit about only the people in charge having guns.  So don't use it

 

Hi my name is Painkiller.  The person you quoted is Popeman38.  

[Larry]

Larry, whether you like it or not the Department of Justice's statistics on this matter are quite relevant to this current gun discussion, and all the ones prior and yet to come on Extremeskins.  It shows that violent gun crime has diminished, despite the fact there are more guns in private hands than ever before in this country.

But that wasn't your point. Was it?

New gun control laws would largely be a waste of time and resources.

And, have you ever heard the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"?

[Popeman38]

Not sure where you got this reply from.

You said:

Given the 'world' being discussed here is the US (unless you believe gun ownership by private citizens in the US has any bearing on how governments in other countries treat their citizens?) my response was that the small arms being discussed did not in fact ensure the US government cannot use military oppression on it's people.

As you have said, it's almost inconcievable that the US military would obey such orders. So now were at a point where the threat that the right to bear arms was originally brought in for is pretty much inconcievable as well as not actually effective in this day and age.

Arguments can be made on other issues, they just don't hold water on that bit where you said the bit about only the people in charge having guns. So don't use it

You know me and Painkiller are different posters, right?

[PeterMP]

Larry, whether you like it or not the Department of Justice's statistics on this matter are quite relevant to this current gun discussion, and all the ones prior and yet to come on Extremeskins.  It shows that violent gun crime has diminished, despite the fact there are more guns in private hands than ever before in this country.  

 

With that said, reducing gun violence even more would best be served by addressing the root causes.  Poverty, which makes people think that becoming a member of violent street gangs (domestic terrorists) and killing each other in droves is the only way to live, and doing a much better job of treating the mentally ill and mental illness in general, which will hopefully head off many of potential mass shooters or killers before they can do any damage.  Enforce the current gun laws on the books, and give out maximum sentences for criminals who use guns while committing violent crimes.

 

This is an oddly worded post, and I'd not be surprised that as worded is correct.

 

But I think the relevant thing is the number of PEOPLE/HOMES with a gun.

 

If a person owns 200 guns, in terms of them killing people that isn't really that relevant (I don't know anybody that has killed people with guns that has used more than a relatively small number of guns during the actual killing event.  I guess if you look at some of the cult and very extremist situations where you have lot's of guns, but also lot's of people, it is possible that one person actually ended up using a lot of guns, but I don't know that).

 

The gun collector that owns 200 guns doesn't matter.  He drives up the number of guns owned by people, but he can't really use all 200 of them to kill people in a relevant manner if he decides to start killing people.

 

In terms of crime, the fact that he owns 200 is meaningless.

 

The number of Americans that own guns (and therefore could potentially commit a gun related crime) has been declining:

 

 

 

Shocking!

 

Fewer people with guns = less gun crime.

 

Is there any evidence that max penalties act as a deterrent or prevent gun crime?

 

I suspect not.  

 

I suspect that (mandatory) max penalties are largely not a deterrent, make rehabilitation across the board more difficult, and therefore actually contribute to the poverty cycle (that person's family has lost a person that could provide economic support and lift the family out of poverty because they are in jail for a long time, not getting rehabilitated and when they do get out they can't find a good legal job and are just a drain on the families economic situation).

 

Poverty is an issue we should try and do things about, but it isn't an easy nut to crack.

 

There are studies that show certain gun laws have decreased gun violence.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/study-claims-violence-surges-repeal-gun-control-laws/

 

All laws don't seem to reduce gun violence (e.g. the Brady Bill), but there are others that do.

 

Maybe we should start looking at those laws more closely?

[Larry]

Peter,

Yes, I've read, elsewhere, that knew of the things that makes the US different from mist other places isn't the number of people who own guns, it's the number of guns per gun owner.

However, just my impression, but I do think that's a problem.

Again, just my impression, but it seems to me that a lot of the school shootings have been done by teens who were able to obtain a dozen or more guns, from a relative or friend who had a dozen or more guns.

That's why one of the laws I'd LIKE to see, would be a requirement that, if you want to own more than, say, four guns in a house, then you have to have a safe. And all but four of the guns have to be in it. (Can't afford the safe? Then you can't afford the guns.).

(Now, though. I'm also smart enough to know that ENFORCING a law like that is just plain impossible, unless you have draconian enforcement procedures that I'd consider unconstitutional. Which then leaves me wondering how much good a law you can't enforce, will do. Sometimes reality is hard, isn't it?)

[Kosher Ham]

Do we really want another civil war ?

 

Certainly some people would turn in their firearms.

 

Others would indeed not.

 

I don't know if this can be fixed. I just know that it will not be easy.

 

I saw a show about some guy that was robbing banks and had firearms hidden all over the place...outside of his house.  

 

Does no one think that is a situation that has already been realized many times ? Realized, in the sense that...hmm...

 

Again, no easy fix.

[Kosher Ham]

ADD ON:

 

I completely agree with Burgold and others that responsible training should be required. I do not see that as unreasonable at all.

 

I do think that is the best answer suggested. People need a fishing license in some places. That is a money grab and absurd. Seemingly most people do not mind...yet it does not stop people from doing it without one.

 

Would you rather someone hungry steal a fish from the grocery store ?

 

There are other options that I consider...but...

[mistertim]

Do we really want another civil war ?

 

Certainly some people would turn in their firearms.

 

Others would indeed not.

 

I don't know if this can be fixed. I just know that it will not be easy.

 

I saw a show about some guy that was robbing banks and had firearms hidden all over the place...outside of his house.  

 

Does no one think that is a situation that has already been realized many times ? Realized, in the sense that...hmm...

 

Again, no easy fix.

Civil war? What are you talking about? The chances of another meaningful Civil War in the USA are, for all intents and purposes, zero. (Despite what some gun nuts and sovereign citizens might have you believe).

 

Or maybe that was a joke and it's too early for me to be trying to interpret such...always a possibility.

[Kosher Ham]

Not Civil war to that type of level. I should have used a better example.

 

I simply do not see most gun owners giving up their firearms.

 

I would more likely see a situation where gun owners would live illegally with their firearms intact.

 

The police and government can't stop illegal firearms now.

How in the heck would they be able to do it then ?

 

More money ? Nope. Criminals buy off elected officials and law enforcement now.

 

Just a mess.

[Burgold]

I kind of think KH may be right.  There's a lot of Charles Heston posturing and rhetoric when it comes to guns.  Most call this a left leaning board, but even here people go nearly apocolyptic to defend guns no matter the circumstance. You practically even hear people defending the rights of Al Qaeda in America to purchase and use guns.  No restrictions is no restrictions, after all.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Yes, I've read, elsewhere, that knew of the things that makes the US different from mist other places isn't the number of people who own guns, it's the number of guns per gun owner.

However, just my impression, but I do think that's a problem.

Again, just my impression, but it seems to me that a lot of the school shootings have been done by teens who were able to obtain a dozen or more guns, from a relative or friend who had a dozen or more guns.

 

Which ones?

 

In Columbine between them, they had 4 guns the actual day of the shooting (two each):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

 

"On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67Hpump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.

Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times."

 

Lanza had 4 guns (one was left in the trunk of his car so only 3 in the actual school).  He used one to kill everybody, but himself, and then a different hand gun to kill himself.

 

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/11/analysis_of_weapons_in_sandy_h.html

 

so at the school he effectively only used one weapon.

 

I don't know of a single case where it is the guy walking into the building with 10 guns strapped to himself and effectively using them to kill people.

 

I might have missed one, but I don't think it is much of a concern.

[PokerPacker]

I don't know of a single case where it is the guy walking into the building with 10 guns strapped to himself and effectively using them to kill people.

Haven't you seen The Matrix?

[Larry]

I simply do not see most gun owners giving up their firearms.

I suspect that you forgot to include the phrase " . . . in the completely impossible scenario in which all guns are banned."

----------

However, as to more broad, and more believable, restrictions?

Yes, I certainly think it's reasonable to suspect that, if some major new restriction comes down the pike, supposedly applicable to all firearms, that a large number of owners will violate the law.

 

Should I insert a reference to the oft-repeated claim that gun owners aren't dangerous, because they're all people who respect and obey the law?

Even if it weren't for what appears to be a fact, that all the gun nuts are paranoid loons who think that their guns are the only thing keeping the government from kidnapping them.

However, is that really a valid reason to oppose all restrictions?

Do I really need to point out the parallels between that argument, and the one about illegal immigration?

[Burgold]

So, I'm watching the news and everyone seems deeply concerned with the Ebola virus outbreak and it's potential here as well as the effects we're seeing over there.  Then, they bring out the number.

 

Over 700 have fallen to the disease world wide... and it immediately made me reflect on this thread.  700 is less than 1% of the number of people murdered by firearms in the United States.  By this threads logic no one should give a damn about Ebola.

 

It just points out how political the gun argument has become. 11,000 American lives snuffed out is statistically meaningless. White noise not worthy of concern.  700 world wide is call for galvanization of resources and protocols alerting every doctor in every state about isolation and other treatment options should symptoms manifest.

[twa]

guns are not the vector though ......humanity is

 

the gun control crowd reminds me of the anti-tobacco crowd

[Burgold]

guns are not the vector though ......humanity is

 

the gun control crowd reminds me of the anti-tobacco crowd

Probably guilty as charged.  I am one of those people who believe that smoking causes cancer just as I believe that guns kill.

 

Despite the ads... Guns do kill as do cigarettes.