Gun Control Brain Storm

I was not disagreeing with the idea that similar language and assumptions need to be present when engaging in dialogue. That is necessary in any intelligent discourse, as there are certain fundamental parameters that to move any conversation forward. Even if one is challenging a fundamental parameter of a discussion, one must rely upon similar means of displaying such information found throughout other statements of the conversation on said subject matter. I am rather affirming and elaborating upon the fundamental impasse between NYCMitch and Ethereal. That impasse, as I identify, is the result of the relative nature of the social construct known as morality. Ethereal is correct, as are you. I am just chiming in with commentary on how I see the conversation progress, and provide my suggestions to put the conversation back on a logical path. My suggestion is to move to a more objective means if evaluation, such as statistical analysis. The waters of such are, frankly, not as muddied as that of morality.

 

Most moral codes and inclinations, even among those claiming atheism and agnosticism, in the West comes from Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and has become culturally ingrained, therefore it is easy enough to use that as a lingua franca, if you will, upon which to build a rational conversation.

 

That is true, although moral codes and inclinations are as fluid and dynamic as the movements of a shipping boat caught in a storm. They are hardly monolithic, and are susceptible to small changes in the basic framework of the construct, hence my previous comment. Of course, it is possible to frame the debate whereupon moral codes and inclinations of a definite nature guide the conversation, but in many cases, this does not occur.

 

So it's good then, no problem. I'll close the thread now. BTW, Why is it that *I* have to "prove" that guns are a problem. The assumption that the most well armed population and most likely to die by firearms compared to the top 23 nations is somehow status quo. Why don't you show me more data about how great guns are. WHrg considers smallarms an epidemic, it raises conflicts to leathal levels and greatly increases the number of people to be killed in a conflict. I'll dig up the stat, I don't have it right now, honestly I'm not someone who makes up data to win an argument. I'm more about about finding the trurth. If I am wrong I will be the first to admit it.

 

The issue boils down to a question of correlation and causation. The assumption you cite is not indicative of causation, meaning where one variable causes another to occur, but of correlation, where there is simply dependence, or a statistical relationship, between two variables. Even so, that assumption is more complex than I describe it. The basis for it is in regression analysis, which can identify antecedent and intervening variables that form a chain which leads to the conclusion of correlation between two variables. Nevertheless, proving correlation does not imply causation, which is why statistical analyses on matters of gun control rely upon correlation as evidence rather than causation.

 

Funny how every statistic knows our homicide by firearm percentage and no one knows our guns per capita ratio.

 

It's already illegal to buy a guns on the black market.

 

I would tend to agree. In other terms I also understand from say p -> q (p implies q) logic that it's basically like saying "For all big cities" -> "They all must have tall buildings", which we know to to be true. However, you are saying that I'm kind of saying here something like "Tall buildings exist" , therefore "I must be standing in a city". This is false since I could be standing in a town or something else. Hence I would be logically wrong. Which I agree is true for my over arching comments but if you look at the meat of my argument I am asserting that there is a direct causation between access to guns and their usage in a crime. I am really arguing that "Easy gun rules" -> "equates to more uncontrolled outcomes", hence if P therefore Q. Others are arguing that ~Q therefore ~P or ~P -> ~Q I suppose. It's been a while since I've done truth tables lol. In other words, there is a still a debate here, it just may not be on the level I would want it to be. In other words, for some reason I have to prove to people that even the good people of the world create opportunities for the bad people of the world to obtain and use firearms in a crime. I also don't think it's such a bad thing to point out human casual observation, though not fully sound, but statistically viable, that smallarms make conflicts more lethal.

 

My idea is to allow local city governments with high level of criminal gang problems to have the option of banning the ownership of guns to those under 26 years of age. Residents of such a city would be banned from buying guns anywhere else, until they move their primary residence and place of employment to another city for at least 2 years.

This would have the potential to greatly cut down on gun crime, since most gun crime involves criminal youth gangs in just a select few bad inner city neighborhoods. While at the same time not restricting the rights of everyone else. Customers buying a gun would simply be required to show proof of residency (or their age) to the gun store, and the gun owner would quickly check in his computer that the city was not on the prohibited list.

 

Hi! Thanks for responding. That is an interesting idea. I see it as a secondary solution.. I'm afraid that has been tried and I don't think that it can help if there are other places where guns can be bought and moved into areas of demand.

 

If a law were proposed that no one in the United States was allowed to sell a gun to a resident of the city of Chicago who was under the age of 26, I suspect even many pro-gun conservatives would support the idea...



I am not necessarily saying I support this idea, I am just saying that if we are going to ban some people from having guns, this would be the best approach.

Chicago obviously has a gang violence problem, so if they want to ban guns, I say let them. It's just one city. Those who do not like it can move out (and wait their mandatory required two years before they are allowed to buy a gun as a resident of another city).

 

I think that they are actually more feasible than you might think. The real issue as exemplified by others in this thread is getting over the part NRA propaganda that the only way way to be safe is to be armed and that there is a clear line between good gun owners and criminals. The point is not to take away guns but over the long haul, reduce the number of guns that aren't matched up to people.

 

But that there is exactly the problem. I vehemently oppose matching specific guns to specific people. To me, if a central government knows exactly who has which gun, they are already as good as banned.

I might be okay if it was just handguns, however. But again, I do not think there would even be much point trying to match guns with people. It might help solve some crimes, but if a criminal really did not want to be tracked, I am sure he would find some way of stealing the gun. I think I read something about New Zealand having registering guns at one time, and then giving up on it because all the trouble was not worth it, that it did not really help police.

 

Unpopular to some here, I want all guns matched to all people. You have 3 guns, you tell a database that you have them. If one goes missing, YOU have to report where it has gone. The system will flag people who are constantly moving around guns perhaps. It's not perfect but I'm putting it on the owner a little bit. Is it really that hard?

PS> You are posting pictures of black people, FYI, white people commit gun crimes too. In fact, you are more likely to be victimized by whites if I remember that stat correctly..

 

Gun bans do not work, banning specific guns does not work. We cant control illegal drugs, we couldnt control illegal alcohol and we cant control illegal guns. All we ever do is control everyone else but the criminals.
Having said that Im all for Universal Background checks and cooling off periods for gun purchases. I dont see a need for people to have assault rifles we dont need weapons of mass destruction running around the street. However, someone with the mindset to buy one can buy one ban or not.
Theres alot of talk about America being the most violent country in the world, that is patently false and just go to the World health Organization site and read the list of murder rates and you will find the USA closer to the bottom.
Theres also alot of talk about school shootings. I submit thats more an attitude and morality and mental issue than a mere gun issue. The worst school massacre in USA history where the most children were murdered was a bombing there was no gun used.

The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and 6 adults, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.[1]

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


If were gong to approach the issue with common sense fine then im onboard but anyone that believes more gun control or gun bans is going to stop gun violence or murders is just wrong.

 

That's your choice, I guess.

Because you are arguing for a change in our current laws and system based off of statistics that are less than a percentile of the population, ergo you have to argue for why we should have sweeping change to address this extreme minority statistic and not something like auto accidents, etc with much larger statistical proportions.

Moreover, you're saying an inanimate object "does" things, and they don't "do" things without help. So my question to you is why address the gun and not the real problem.

If all guns go away, will murders stop? Yes/No


If "No" then why not?


I would argue that the problem is with people, not guns. People use knives to kill, stones, their hands, clubs, bombs and you want to blame the object, therefore the onus is on you to explain why you believe gun control is the solution when objects don't operate themselves.

 

It is expensive, it is an invasion of privacy and violation of several amendment rights, and therefore you should have some great amounts of proof that this is necessary to address a problem that effects less than a percent of our population.

Do you find it ironic you're talking about black/white crime statistics and refuse to address the fact that gun homicides don't even effect 1% of our population?

 

This is simply asinine.

 

I would like all who utilize the 1A to be registered and have background checks. Since words and free speech has been the root of murders, drugs, spousal abuse, fraud and so on. This would make the world safer.

Animal Farm.

 

Thanks for responding. I've thought about these aspects of the issue over the years and have come to a slightly different conclusions. To you, my thought in addressing the gun "itself" by controlling it is like trying to ban cars to prevent DWIs. This is not what I am saying at all, in this scenario I am saying, lets hold parents responsible for serving minors at their home, bars that don't cut people off, limit who can drink, etc. I think you get the point. In short, similarly to drinking laws, gun laws should be wrapped around encouraging better behavior.

Right, you can't win a war on murder, that is like trying to win a war on "terror" or "jealousy". Obvously never going to happen. We are never going to end DWIs, however, since the 70s we have see tremendous progress despite STILL 1/5 people on the roads after 1AM are at least buzzed (I think I read that somewhere). The point is that guns elevate conflicts.

Lastly, I think you are asserting that the American gun culture is not a problem, I don't see things in such a way in a macro (general outcomes of conflict) or micro (statistical) senses. This is what this thread has really been about.

 

Thank you for being polite.

Not at all. Murder is a great moral villainy, drinking and inebriation is a vice. They are two entirely different entities and motivations.

I don't think either work. I will sound an amazing hypocrite as my entire livelihood is dependent upon the very truth that laws don't work, but I think even should all laws be immediately repealed you wouldn't see a huge increase in malevolent activity. Good people don't do immoral things. Bad people do immoral things regardless of law.

All you would see is a change in how open people are in expressing their vices.

Murder has existed since there were rocks and clubs. Man is a bipedal predator. He will at times become murderous.

Because people want to drink and they don't think about the end results of their behavior.

You would have to prove that. Put a gun in my hand when I am angry and I still won't shoot someone with it.

I am not asserting that at the moment. American culture is a problem. We have created a nation of unhappy, depressed people where broken homes and single parent home are the majority, where "me" is more important than "you", where life has value when there is a price tag associated with it, and not intrinsically of itself.

Value life, children, love, and the softer side of mankind and you'll see a decrease in murder and violence--which I believe is your desire.

 

There is nothing you can respond to because your point of view is incorrect and you cant back it up with facts. Thats why you couldnt bring yourself to type the statistic I asked you to calculate.
Are you refusing to calculate that statistic because it counters your ideology?

 

Yes and having harsher punishnebt for doing so will further act as to deter illegal sales. If a guy got 30 years for getting caught illegally selling guns, hes less inclined to selll them illegally

 

That reminds me of a situation that happened in Texas awhile ago. Some guy was given the death sentence for committing murder. Because he was white and the victim was black the liberals claimed he needed to be convicted of a hate crime instead. The reply, by Perry??? or someone, Killing him isn't good enough we need to hit him with a hate crime then kill him?

Liberals make no sense.


If a guy gets 30 years for illegally selling guns what's to stop him from murdering all the witnesses or doing a more serious crime. After all you already got him for 30 years why not go full out and mass murder if the penalty isn't going to be much more.

 

How many crimes occur annually where a machine gun is involved? It must be a hefty number for you to advocate the implementation of such a heavy preemptive punishment. How many exactly?