Gun control strategy that satisfies both sides

Oh trade your freedom and rights for a little saftey eh? All I have to say to that is this quote ; "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". Benjamin Franklin. Franklin thought this so important he created another variant of it published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin. A variant of this was published as: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Rev A

 

Really?


Did you REALLY think that response through?

 

And you believe, I take it, that Franklin was saying this "essential liberty" is unlimited.

Interesting contrivance, that.

 

Well, to begin with it violates the second amendment as the law you propose has the eventual aim to restricting access through the back door, manufacturing.

Even if it weren't, your proposal would create an immediate skyrocket in the price of illegal weapons. Thus, even if you convince all other nations in the world not to make new guns, as you say the black market would, as you put it, "play a role"....manufacturing and distributing.

None of that works.

 

Whoa.

No, crime is NOT under control, not even close.

One, yes, there has been a decrease in the per 1,000 population crime rate over the last 15 years. But over the last 50 years, it is still up there. And the types of crime have gotten far more violent, even allowing for the 'fear of reporting' factor, crimes against women and children are enormously greater than they were even four decades ago.

Children did not go missing in the 1960's & 70's, not at all like they do today. Bank robberies are a fraction of what they were in the early 80's, but white collar crime like fraud, ATM scams and identity theft have replaced all that in the hundredfold.

And you know what else? What police hate to tell you? The solve rate is way, way, way down and continues to drop.

 

Nonsense low brow attempt. My stance is based on freedom. You don't understand the concept as you ignore the coercion created by personal preferences

 

Children do not go missing often today. The majority of cases are child custody disputes. The few that are not child custody are national news. That wasn't the case in the 1960s or 1970s.

The violent crime rate is down since the 1970s. This is despite the fact that certain types of crimes (domestic violence and rape, etc.) are being reported more than they once were.

 

Not really, They'll ambush police.

 

No rights are absolute. Your rights and freedom exist only to the extent they don't violate the rights of others.

 

Is there a legitimate reason on the part of yourself for choosing to resurrect a discussion that is nearly eight years old? And for responding to a member who has not been around for over five years?

And owning a firearm, even in a manner devoid of background checks, licenses, registration and other such restrictions, poses absolutely no risk to violating the rights of anyone.

 

Is. There a reason you have to answer after five years.

 

Yep, given 'more guns=more crime' is supported by the empirical evidence we know that the hoplophiles aren't really interested in freedom.

 

How is "more guns = more crime" supported by the huge decrease in violent crime in the US since 1993 along with adding about 100 million guns to that owned by civilians?

 

Empirical evidence shows exactly the opposite effect. A simple logical deduction can illustrate:

"More guns" can have only 1 of three possible effects on violent crime:

1) "More guns" can increase violent crime,
2) "More guns" can decrease violent crime, or
3) "More guns" can leave violent crime unaffected.

Right off the bat, we both can agree that "more guns" do not leave violent crime unaffected. So scratch #3 off the list of possibilities.

Since we know that, according to the FBI's UCR data, violent crime has been continually trending lower and lower over the last 30 years from its peak in the 1990s, and we know that there are "more guns" than ever in this country, we can deduce that "more guns" do not INCREASE violent crime.

That leaves only one possibility: "more guns" = "less violent crime".

 

Please reference it. If you have a meta-analysis that would be particularly splendid.

 

"More guns = completely legal". Now what?

 

How do you plan on keeping the current firearm companies in business if they can no longer sell new products?

So what you are saying is, the poor have no right to self defense firearms, only the wealthy can have them.

 

Please don't edit my posts.

I laid out my case, based on logic and the UCR. Everything I said is undisputed common knowledge. Do you have an unbiased meta-analysis supporting your claim?

 

I'll ask again. Please reference this empirical research.

Its a simple request.

 

You're responding to a 7 1/2 year old post to someone who hasn't posted in 7 1/2 years.

 

Oops, why the heck did someone dig this one out of the grave?

 

I'll ask again: Please don't edit my posts.

em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

It is my observation and experience, that since the UCR clearly shows a MAJOR DECLINE in violent crime, and that there are, perhaps, DOUBLE the guns in circulation since its peak in the '90s, and, since it can be easily shown that good people HAVE deterred, or prevented violent crime using their guns, that more guns cannot have been responsible for more crime. "More guns" = "less violent crime".

 

I don't need to reference Kleck or Lott to make a simple logical deduction. I accept your concession.

 

Imagine if you could support your comments? Start by actually knowing the empirical evidence into gun effects. Beat the hoplophiles, know the evidence.

 

Except for the fact that it is not.