Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 67 by AgnosticBoy]

So agnostic boy posts a scene from Death Wish 3 as part of his argument.

And Clownboat finds that any emotion about the extremely high rate of gun deaths in the US makes argument unsound. We must gaze dispassionately at the slaughter of humans, and such detachment will demonstrate the superiority of our argument. He does not address the argument, he does not address me, he addresses the crowd.

This is because most get their ideas of violence and its causes and how to deal with it from TV and movies. They have never seen a real gunshot wound. They haven't seen that even the "flesh wound" is usually a permanent maiming scar. They think the world is neatly divided between "good guys" and "bad guys". They don't see human beings.

The title of this thread is Gun Fanaticism. Draw your own conclusions.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 69 by TSGracchus]
In one of your earlier post, you said I was "rationalizing" when I stated that "bad guys" (as in those with felonies on their record) commit the vast majority of gun crime. Since you are against my point, I assume you then think that my claim is false.

So can you please substantiate your claim with evidence showing gun crime committed by BAD guys vs. good guys? If you do not have that evidence, then please discontinue making unsubstantiated claims. That's only fair given the FACT that I've presented evidence from government sources to support my claim. It's also part of the forum rules.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 69 by TSGracchus]
In one of your earlier post, you said I was "rationalizing" when I stated that "bad guys" (as in those with felonies on their record) commit the vast majority of gun crime. Since you are against my point, I assume you then think that my claim is false.

So can you please substantiate your claim with evidence showing gun crime committed by BAD guys vs. good guys? If you do not have that evidence, then please discontinue making unsubstantiated claims. That's only fair given the FACT that I've presented evidence from government sources to support my claim. It's also part of the forum rules.

I said you were rationalizing because you were cherry picking statistics. You ignored completely the world statistics on gun deaths. You ignored completely the obvious fact that if there were no guns there would be no shooting deaths.
How many school shooters were convicted felons? Was the three year old who shot and killed his mother with her own gun a really evil person?
What is an acceptable body count?
Getting rid of guns won't stop all violence. It will stop some.

[TSGracchus]

This just in: [font=Courier New]"Mexico - where firearms are legal - but heavily regulated - has just one legal gun shop, on a heavily guarded military base. Each day the army gun store sells an average of just 38 firearms to civilians, while an estimated 580 weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the US." [/font]-- LA Times as reported in [font=Serif]The Week[/font] June 8, 2018, Volume 18, Issue 876.

In short, the US is supplying guns to the Mexican drug cartels. Arms dealing has always been good business. Perhaps we should add Mexico's crime statistics to ours? Reality is sometimes not reflected in cherry picked statistics. You have to look at the whole picture.

[Clownboat]

This just in: [font=Courier New]"Mexico - where firearms are legal - but heavily regulated - has just one legal gun shop, on a heavily guarded military base. Each day the army gun store sells an average of just 38 firearms to civilians, while an estimated 580 weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the US." [/font]-- LA Times as reported in [font=Serif]The Week[/font] June 8, 2018, Volume 18, Issue 876.

In short, the US is supplying guns to the Mexican drug cartels. Arms dealing has always been good business. Perhaps we should add Mexico's crime statistics to ours? Reality is sometimes not reflected in cherry picked statistics. You have to look at the whole picture.

This is just further evidence that getting rid of guns is a pipe dream.

You are unable to address why taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a good thing, when criminals will still have them. Further more, you then document for all of us, criminals obtaining guns.

You further my point, so I do thank you for that. Why strive to only have criminals and the government with guns? Taking them from a law abiding citizen will not stop criminals from getting them. They will get them from other countries if they have to. You know this, yet it seems you are pretending not to.

I'm all for magically poofing guns away. However, if we are invoking magic, then let's just magic away all killings. Guns would therefore not be a problem.

Until we can do that, I'm trying to understand the logic of removing guns from law abiding citizens.

Call me names, claim I'm a wanna be killer if it makes you feel better. I would only ask that if you are going to resort to such things, at least attempt to address the logic (or lack there of IMO) of removing guns from law abiding citizens.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 73 by Clownboat]

The US gun industry is supplying, perhaps indirectly, the Mexican drug cartels, as well as those of Central and South America, and certainly the US gangs. You get rid of guns not by a magical poof, but as we got rid of slavery: Buying them back, or seizing the property of criminals. And you stop manufacturing or importing them. We might not be able to get rid of all guns. But any substantial decrease in availability would certainly have an impact on the level of gun violence. And with out the constant (perceived) threat even the most paranoid might see less "need" for such a deadly form of "self-defense".

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 73 by Clownboat]

The US gun industry is supplying, perhaps indirectly, the Mexican drug cartels, as well as those of Central and South America, and certainly the US gangs. You get rid of guns not by a magical poof, but as we got rid of slavery: Buying them back, or seizing the property of criminals. And you stop manufacturing or importing them. We might not be able to get rid of all guns. But any substantial decrease in availability would certainly have an impact on the level of gun violence. And with out the constant (perceived) threat even the most paranoid might see less "need" for such a deadly form of "self-defense".

You think we got rid of slavery in this country by outlawing it? To the extent that slavery has been reduced in this country, it was not do to it being outlawed. It was due to the reduction of government support for slavery and increased market alternatives. As long as there is demand for something, laws can not stop it. All laws do is determine how much of the market is open market and how much is black market. If one wishes to reduce the number of guns, making them illegal will not do that. It will only increase the price to cover the cost of avoiding the laws. The only way to reduce the number of guns is to introduce better and/or less expensive alternatives into the market. That is how we got pepper spray, tasers and home security systems. All of those were free market solutions.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 75 by bluethread]

Bluethread: �You think we got rid of slavery in this country by outlawing it?�

It took a while. We started by outlawing the importation of slaves. It was recognized by some that slavery could not endure, but it took a war and a constitutional amendment to formalize emancipation in law, and the struggle still goes on today. If you demand perfect solutions right out of the starting gate, nothing gets done.

Bluethread: � To the extent that slavery has been reduced in this country, it was not do to it being outlawed.�

Laws help. Laws help change public opinion. And public opinion about guns is also changing.

Bluethread: �It was due to the reduction of government support for slavery and increased market alternatives.�

Oh, yes! From Sumter to Appomattox government support for slavery was reduced. It was further weakened by the passage of desegregation and civil rights laws. The struggle continues. It may have to continue as long as there is a human species.

Bluethread: �As long as there is demand for something, laws can not stop it. All laws do is determine how much of the market is open market and how much is black market. If one wishes to reduce the number of guns, making them illegal will not do that. It will only increase the price to cover the cost of avoiding the laws.�

Well if every gun cost two years salary, there would be fewer guns. If a gun cost ten years salary there would be fewer still.
If your job required you to have a gun, it could be kept in an armory when off duty, and over time, as the guns passed out of circulation, there would be fewer jobs requiring a gun.
If being caught with an illegal gun meant a sure, stiff penalty with no excuses accepted, there would be fewer guns. And, fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.

Bluethread: �The only way to reduce the number of guns is to introduce better and/or less expensive alternatives into the market. That is how we got pepper spray, tasers and home security systems. All of those were free market solutions.�

There is more than one way. (Why do conservatives always think there is only one way?!) We could control the manufacture of guns and ammunition. We could require a federal database of guns, gun parts, ammunition and owners to include ballistic information and fingerprints. We could require strict reporting of transfers and thefts.

It is obvious you can't just pass a law and expect change. The law must be strictly and consistently enforced. And as long as there are simpletons who think that we must have perfect solutions before we take action, nothing will be done.

The Center for Disease Control reports gun deaths*. In 2008: 31,593, in 2009: 31,347, in 2010: 31,672, in 2011: 32,351, in 2012: 33,563, in 2013: 33,636, in 2014: 33,594, in 2015: 36,252, in 2016: 38,658, … Dead, dead, dead, dead... men, women and children ... the guns pour death and destruction indifferently. But they are just numbers, right? No need to get emotional. That's just under third of a million people in eight years, but who's counting?

*https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datar ... 493DEDDDE6

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 73 by Clownboat]

The US gun industry is supplying, perhaps indirectly, the Mexican drug cartels, as well as those of Central and South America, and certainly the US gangs.

And if the US were to stop supplying guns, they will get them from elsewhere. I don't see how this helps, besides you get my guns of course.

You get rid of guns not by a magical poof, but as we got rid of slavery: Buying them back, or seizing the property of criminals.

So citizens will need to pay to have their guns bought from them. All countless millions of them.
Sounds expensive, but not necessarily a pipe dream at least.
Government seizing property for anyone labeled criminal is scary, but without more details I have nothing to comment on.

And you stop manufacturing or importing them.

Would the US be justified to use force to stop other countries from manufacturing guns? I ask, because if we stop manufacturing them, criminal will need to get them from other countries and there would be a lot of money incentive's these countries/companies (black market) would have to continue making guns, at least for criminals and governments.

We might not be able to get rid of all guns.

Agreed. It's no more reasonable to get rid of guns then it would be to get rid of swords/spears many, many centuries ago. Look at some of the martial arts weapons out there that came about due to dictatorships outlawing swords or by putting size limits and such on them.
"This isn't a weapon, it's just a farming tool".
- Nunchaku
- Sai
- Tonfa

But any substantial decrease in availability would certainly have an impact on the level of gun violence.

I kinda agree, but again, I see you successfully getting rid of guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals will attempt to keep them. Criminals will attempt to get them from other countries. Criminals would start manufacturing them? I'm sure you would also agree that governments are not going to get rid of their guns. I'm a law abiding citizen though. So pass a law, and you will have my guns. I just don't feel like anything beneficial would be happening if you did. This is a major hang-up for me obviously.

And with out the constant (perceived) threat even the most paranoid might see less "need" for such a deadly form of "self-defense".

You're way to short sited. I'm not the only gun owner out there that owns to hunt. My guns are not for self defense (guns and ammo are not in the same building).

Any burglar that enters my home without a gun is in trouble. However, if they enter with a gun, I admit, myself and my family are at their mercy. It should be obvious that I'm not paranoid though like your caricature attempts to paint. I'm not a wannabe killer like you have claimed either. No gun under my pillow, much less one even readily available.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 75 by bluethread]

Bluethread: �You think we got rid of slavery in this country by outlawing it?�

It took a while. We started by outlawing the importation of slaves. It was recognized by some that slavery could not endure, but it took a war and a constitutional amendment to formalize emancipation in law, and the struggle still goes on today. If you demand perfect solutions right out of the starting gate, nothing gets done.

The reason it took a while is because the industrial revolution took a while and international trade gradually provided competition for the products produced in the South.

Bluethread: � To the extent that slavery has been reduced in this country, it was not do to it being outlawed.�

Laws help. Laws help change public opinion. And public opinion about guns is also changing.

No, in a democratic republic, public opinion changes the laws. When laws are introduced to change public opinion, it usually doesn't help and often slows down social change, as people resist oppressive government. That which is outlawed just moves from the open market to the black market or is done in ways that get around the law.

Bluethread: �It was due to the reduction of government support for slavery and increased market alternatives.�

Oh, yes! From Sumter to Appomattox government support for slavery was reduced. It was further weakened by the passage of desegregation and civil rights laws. The struggle continues. It may have to continue as long as there is a human species.

Jim Crow was government action. Social acceptance of a slave based economy was on the decline before Sumter and Appomattox, as noted by Tocqueville when he observed the Ohio River. The north side was much more prosperous than the south side. The Civil War was as much, if not more, about economic differences and the increase of federal legislation favoring the industrialized North, as it was about slavery.

Bluethread: �As long as there is demand for something, laws can not stop it. All laws do is determine how much of the market is open market and how much is black market. If one wishes to reduce the number of guns, making them illegal will not do that. It will only increase the price to cover the cost of avoiding the laws.�

Well if every gun cost two years salary, there would be fewer guns. If a gun cost ten years salary there would be fewer still.
If your job required you to have a gun, it could be kept in an armory when off duty, and over time, as the guns passed out of circulation, there would be fewer jobs requiring a gun.
If being caught with an illegal gun meant a sure, stiff penalty with no excuses accepted, there would be fewer guns. And, fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths.

Not necessarily. Response to increased costs due to government regulation can increase a resentment that adds value to having a gun, increasing the willingness on the part of the consumer to pay higher prices. Also, there is innovation. The market will devise alternative means of manufacture and distribution, as long a there is demand. So, are you seriously suggesting that the best way to reduce gun deaths is by instituting a police state?

Bluethread: �The only way to reduce the number of guns is to introduce better and/or less expensive alternatives into the market. That is how we got pepper spray, tasers and home security systems. All of those were free market solutions.�

There is more than one way. (Why do conservatives always think there is only one way?!) We could control the manufacture of guns and ammunition. We could require a federal database of guns, gun parts, ammunition and owners to include ballistic information and fingerprints. We could require strict reporting of transfers and thefts.

It is obvious you can't just pass a law and expect change. The law must be strictly and consistently enforced. And as long as there are simpletons who think that we must have perfect solutions before we take action, nothing will be done.

When I say one way, I mean one category of ways, i.e. market based ways. Yes, one can impose a police state, but that is antithetical to a democratic republic. The government could attempt to control the open market manufacture of guns and ammunition, but, short of a fascist state, it is not going to stop black market manufacture. Even that could have the opposite effect, creating an underground resistance movement. That said, I am not saying that nothing should be done. I just think that market based solutions are better than government solutions.

The Center for Disease Control reports gun deaths*. In 2008: 31,593, in 2009: 31,347, in 2010: 31,672, in 2011: 32,351, in 2012: 33,563, in 2013: 33,636, in 2014: 33,594, in 2015: 36,252, in 2016: 38,658, … Dead, dead, dead, dead... men, women and children ... the guns pour death and destruction indifferently. But they are just numbers, right? No need to get emotional. That's just under third of a million people in eight years, but who's counting?

*https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datar ... 493DEDDDE6

Oh yah, when someone disagrees with you, you trot out statistics and dead baby pictures to argue that person is heartless. It is not clear whether gun laws are effective in reducing those deaths. In discussing the states with the highest homocide rates, FactCheck.org reported, "Many of the states also have higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment and perhaps more rural areas that make getting to a hospital in time to save someone’s life difficult." and "Eight of the 10 states with the highest homicide rates and eight of the 10 states with the lowest homicide rates all got “D� or “F� grades from the Brady Campaign analysis." One can find friendlier statistic in other sources regardless of which side one is on. The point is that it is not clear statistically that increased gun legislation has been much real help to those real men, women and children. What is certain about gun laws is that they make it look like the legislators are doing something and wards off accusations of heartlessness like that one. So, if virtue signaling is your goal, gun laws are your solution.