U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

What's not libertarian about it?

If the quantity of guns in circulation DOES NOT have an impact on violent crime rates then it stands to reason that fewer guns won't have an impact. But, of course, it depends on how that "fewer guns" thingy came to be.
Fewer guns as in a decline in interest in them?
-or-
Fewer guns as a result of draconian gun laws that, as always, disarm *several law abiding citizens and have little to no effect on the ones the law abiding need to protect themselves from?

* Several; as in I don't intend to comply, should it come to that.


Suicide: Yeah, like a gun is the only tool suitable for taking one's life.
Drug crimes: Duh, the drugs themselves are a felony under current law.
Domestic violence and murder: Helps to have the means to shoot back. Just ask anybody that's had to defend themselves in such a way. A helluva lot fewer guys are going to beat up their old lady if they know she'll shoot him for it.
Really, this is all common sense.


Coming from you, I guess either Dox or myself could take that as an insult or a compliment.

while it is true that some people would buy more guns due to that its also true many already planned to buy them anyways. What is more important is the mass of non gun owners buying guns , be it for A. no one tells me i can't, B. plans to resell if ban went through and make money, or C. shooting as a sport/friends who shoot/ decreasing police forces(so need to protect themselves

there are tons of local news and cnn news stories of people being interviewed buying new guns. (moms, grandmas, college students)
Gun shops are having to deal with people who know nothing about guns coming in to buy them and asking a bunch of questions( a good thing, but annoying when you have lines of them packing the store)
then there's the increase in cww permits as someone else mentioned, this number is probably a low part of the new gun buyers as a lot of them will load the gun put it in a safe next to their bed and never shoot it until they need too.

i know one person who went gotta stock up on rifles and hid them , but i knew alot of people who never had guns who went out and bought them, people i wouldn't have thought were into guns, as evident by their misunderstanding of the gun laws in my state.
my cww class had a bunch of people who either just bought a gun or rented one(as they don't own one yet)

as for the poll, if someone who's not my friend(even some friends) asked me if i owned guns i'd say no or refuse to answer. I imagine/know there's lots of people who'd do the same.

my reasons are 1. none of their business 2. fear of judgment or reprisal( i live in a blue all be it more gun loving state) but my area is more liberal so the wrong people knowing you own guns could end jobs, or friendships.

as for polls recently a anti gun group stated polls in my state said that something like 90% of state wants UBC but then when a liberal newspaper decided to run a poll(clearly hoping for similar results) the poll came up 73% against UBC only 23% for. this poll also had more people polled then the other anti gun run poll.

so yeah, gun ownership is on a rise, though how many of the people who bought for resell who now have rifles that they paid 3k for that are worth 1k , that will keep them who knows, some might just cause to sell now would be a big loss.

The same question begging again. This really just assumes the law have no effect on how criminals get their guns. For example, a national registry and requirement for gun owns to account for their guns from time to time will make the life of a straw buyer much harder.


So the victim carries 7/24 and the aggressor never has a gun?

Oh, I'm sure it's been answered over and over, just not what you wanted to hear.


Yes, if it's anywhere near as effective as the war on drugs then no criminal will ever be able to obtain a gun.


Yeah, it worked so well in Canada. I'm sure us lawless American hooligans will rush to the gun registration lines.



Yeah, that would sure fix their little red wagon, wouldn't it.....

State interference in parenting.

State program

state intervention in family and community

State programs

state or national interference with local issues

state programs

state indoctrination

either state education or state-mandated regulations for private education.

Don't get me wrong: I think that these are all great ideas... but I'm a socialist.

Ok, yeah, you don't understand the difference. Here's a hint: there's a big difference in weapons access between 99 unarmed people and one guy with 100 guns, or 100 people with one gun each. Capisce?

Yeah, your solution to gun violence is to add more guns. Got it.
[/quote]
I'll leave it to Dox as to whether he's glad to have you 'on his side' or not.

Nothing i listed needs to be a state program. Many of these types of things are already community organized.

A form of Psychobabble?


Ummm, there's really no such thing as "gun violence". There are only violent people performing violent acts using guns as a tool. It's apparent to me that you and your kind will never understand that guns will never effectively be controlled and that it shouldn't even be attempted further than it is already. That's why I go to less and less trouble trying to explain what you refuse to understand.


Am I starting to sense some butthurt?
Yes? Yes?!

No, darling. What you're sensing is "contempt."

Nothing new there......

Flawed answer is not really an answer.


Corrected for you.


1) To begin with a straw buyer is not able to buy any new guns, and they normally don't have stock.
2) Base on what you assert the Canadian registry does not stop straw buying?
3) The same systems works for explosives, and substances that can be used as chemical weapons (I am not claiming the system is perfect, but evidently have effect). Just because some so called 'law abiding citizens' don't want to register their guns doesn't invalidate the soundness of the concept.


Another good-guy-with-a-gun fairy tale debunked.


The same stupid word game again. "Gun violence" is by definition people performing violent acts using guns as a tool.

Although I disagree with the idea that we are responsible for stopping violence, I'm curious why the focus is on guns rather than the causes of violence. Why put so many resources into attempts to limit weapons rather than addressing the motivations for violence? Isn't it undisputed that violent behavior is bad, while the proliferation of guns as a cause of violent behavior is heavily disputed?

I've been asking that question myself for years, I've yet to get a straight answer to it. My personal opinion is that the desire for gun control isn't really a rationally thought out position for most people that hold it and that it is really based in emotions, namely fear of and hate for guns and the people who own them, but they try and cloak it in this concern for violence to make it seem reasonable. This theory is born out by the fact that the people I argue with are uniformly uninformed about firearms, firearms laws, actual crime studies, etc, all things you'd think someone with a genuine interest in preventing violence would have educated themselves about.

It's not really just about "guns," though; I completely accept the point that addressing mental health and poverty, etc, will go further to end 'gun violence' (as well as other forms of violence) than, say, drawing a line at 10 bullets per magazine instead of 30 (or wherever else). I'm also interested in "ordnance" and other forms of destructive capability; basically, I don't want some suicidal twat to be able to take a crowd of innocent people with him in his glorious end, which means limiting the amount of destructive power than any single citizen can get their hands on.

Given how easy it is to make hugely destructive things with common items, though (soon to include plastic guns via 3D printers), it's probably a lost cause. Maybe we'll all have to go about our lives with gas masks and bullet-proof vests.

Let's just hope one of these does not fall into the wrong hands.