Gun "control"

[RB 60]

It isn't clear which of my statements, specifically, you were responding to.

1 through 10 to start with.

[Legion]

It works very well in the UK -- the murder rate in the UK is much, much lower than in the US (less than one-quarter the rate), and this is driven in significant part by there being extremely low firearm murder rates. They also have much lower accidental death rates by firearms, and lower firearms suicide rates, as well as lower rates of maimings by firearms.

As you know, they also have no Second Amendment. Since you seem to think it's a safer place to live, are you going to apply for British citizenship?

[Oneuli]

Its in the constitution. If liberals want to change it, they need to repeal the 2ndA.

Actually, you don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment to greatly expand gun control. Here's the thing: several years back the radical conservatives on the Supreme Court invented a new legal principle that said the 2nd amendment applies equally to states and localities (for all of American history before that, it had been clearly established that it only applied to the federal government). What this change means is that if a gun regulation is compliant with the 2nd amendment at the state or local level, it would also be compliant with the 2nd amendment at the federal level. So, all those gun regulations that have been in place for years without being ruled Constitutionally invalid, in places like California, Chicago, etc., can, absent some new ruling to the contrary, be assumed to be valid options for roll-out at the national level. Thus, without repealing the second amendment, we could implement national gun controls like limits on so-called "assault weapons," we could impose universal background checks, registration, and training requirements, we could impose an age limit of 21 on buying guns, we could impose lifetime bans on gun ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and moratoriums for those with mental illness, we could ban bump-stocks and trigger cranks, we could limit magazine sizes, we could create a waiting period for purchases, we could give local police more authority with regard to the granting of permits, etc. It's possible, of course, that at some point the radical conservatives on the Supreme Court could rule these things out, but they haven't yet, and so at this point they remain potential tools that could be used at the national level, without any amendment of the Constitution.

[Oneuli]

Um, wipe your spooge off your barrel.

Legitimate suggestions. I’d go further. I want to know every fucking trasaction you made with your popgun, including selling to your crazy Uncle Bob. You take care of the background check.

Federalize all gun crimes, not just a myriad of local regulations. All gun crimes become federal and consistent. Including your unregistered possession. Find you in violation? Off to you with Bubba and your industrial size jar of Anal Lube, punk.

It would be relatively easy for the government to create a simple app that would allow person-to-person sales of guns with background checks and registration. Basically, you'd just have a registration of all gun serial numbers, each associated with a particular person's Social Security number. When you want to sell a gun, you just have the person you're selling to enter their info into the app (including taking a quick selfie and maybe a picture of a form of ID like a driver's license), then the app would check it versus a background-check database, and if it passes, you could complete the transaction, and the serial number would then be associated with the new owner in the database. The enforcement would be by way of the risk of being found guilty of a crime if a gun that's registered to you is found in the hands of someone else -- you could offer the defense that it was stolen, but in some cases it would be possible to establish otherwise with other evidence, and regardless it would make it impractical to do straw-man transactions as a matter of course, since someone who repeatedly has guns 'stolen' would quickly rise to the attention of police.

[volsrock]

Only to lock up American gunmen! What is that about?

Where would u be without Americans and Russians?

[Oneuli]

As you know, they also have no Second Amendment.

Yes, but as explained above, there are all sorts of second-amendment-compliant forms of gun control we could roll out nationally in the US, so before we even need to worry about amending the Constitution, there are countless forms of gun control we could test for effectiveness.

Since you seem to think it's a safer place to live...

It's not a question of what I think -- it's simply a demonstrable fact that the UK is a safer place to live. The mortality rate in the UK is measurably lower than in the US, life expectancy is higher, and one's chances of dying violently, in particular, are much lower.

That said, it's not like there aren't fairly safe places to live in the US. In my own case, for example, I currently live in Tribeca, where life expectancy is 85.8 years, which not only blows away the US average of 79.3 years, but also blows away the UK average of 81.2 years.

https://nypost.com/2017/06/04/new-yo...althier-lives/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ife_expectancy

Part of that is due to NYC being such a safe place when it comes to the threat of violence. The murder rate is just 3.39 per 100k. That's significantly lower than the US average, though still not down to the levels seen in the UK.

https://www.amny.com/news/nyc-homici...low-1.15725051

are you going to apply for British citizenship?

No. Part of the reason the US is so great is because liberals traditionally haven't abandoned ship -- we've stuck around and fought to drag the deadweight conservatives into the future, making the country better and better. I'd like to do my part in that process.

[Irish]

You don’t have a clue about the origin, the SCOTUS opinions, or the current status of the 2nd.

Enlighten us oh educated one.

[Irish]

1 month, dumbshit. What a diversionary, lying piece of shit.

Lick balls cuck!

[Irish]

It works very well in the UK -- the murder rate in the UK is much, much lower than in the US (less than one-quarter the rate), and this is driven in significant part by there being extremely low firearm murder rates. They also have much lower accidental death rates by firearms, and lower firearms suicide rates, as well as lower rates of maimings by firearms.

Yes but higher death by knife and more car plowing terrorist events.

[Irish]

Actually, you don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment to greatly expand gun control. Here's the thing: several years back the radical conservatives on the Supreme Court invented a new legal principle that said the 2nd amendment applies equally to states and localities (for all of American history before that, it had been clearly established that it only applied to the federal government). What this change means is that if a gun regulation is compliant with the 2nd amendment at the state or local level, it would also be compliant with the 2nd amendment at the federal level. So, all those gun regulations that have been in place for years without being ruled Constitutionally invalid, in places like California, Chicago, etc., can, absent some new ruling to the contrary, be assumed to be valid options for roll-out at the national level. Thus, without repealing the second amendment, we could implement national gun controls like limits on so-called "assault weapons," we could impose universal background checks, registration, and training requirements, we could impose an age limit of 21 on buying guns, we could impose lifetime bans on gun ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and moratoriums for those with mental illness, we could ban bump-stocks and trigger cranks, we could limit magazine sizes, we could create a waiting period for purchases, we could give local police more authority with regard to the granting of permits, etc. It's possible, of course, that at some point the radical conservatives on the Supreme Court could rule these things out, but they haven't yet, and so at this point they remain potential tools that could be used at the national level, without any amendment of the Constitution.

Wow you think its radical that federal law IE constitution applies to state and local?

[Legion]

Part of the reason the US is so great is because liberals traditionally haven't abandoned ship -- we've stuck around and fought to drag the deadweight conservatives into the future, making the country better and better. I'd like to do my part in that process.

How do you propose to do that?

[Legion]

Where would u be without Americans and Russians?

Welshmen are used to submitting to conquerors.

[Oneuli]

1 through 10 to start with.

OK -- you don't like the idea of any of those gun control ideas. Did you have other ideas for reducing America's unusually serious violent crime problem? Before you answer, I'd preface with the idea that the suggestions that appeal to me are those that are based on real-world results -- for example, actual policies that are in place in real-world locations where societies have achieved low rates of serious violence, despite the challenges of urbanization. One reason gun-control experiments are appealing is there's real-world reason to think they'll succeed -- both in terms of success in other wealthy nations, and in terms of success in the US (e.g., the big drop in the murder rate after the Brady Bill finally passed). Are there other options you see real-world reason to believe would succeed?

[midcan5]

"I would have been a school shooter if I could’ve gotten a gun"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-gotten-a-gun/

"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."

https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-a...mass-shootings


"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]

[Oneuli]

Yes but higher death by knife and more car plowing terrorist events.

It seems reasonable to expect that if you reduce access to one type of weapon, you'll see an increase in attacks by other types of weapons. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a net positive attack. For example, if 40% of those killed with guns were killed by people who had the level of motivation, competence, etc., that would have meant they'd have killed with a knife if the gun weren't available, then you're still saving the lives of 60% of those victims if you deny access to the gun. You'd see an up-tick in knife deaths (the 40% who get killed by knives instead of guns because of the change), but a net improvement.

There's very good reason to think that's how it plays out in real life. For example, other wealthy nations have lower murder rates than the US and MUCH lower gun murder rates. That's exactly the data pattern we'd expect if lowering gun murder rates were dragging down overall murder rates. Plus, it's just common sense. It's easy to think of all sorts of scenarios where someone who would have murdered, with access to a gun, will not murder if only given access to a knife. That would include situations where a person's murderous impulse would fade after a brief period of violence -- long enough to kill someone with the pull of a trigger, but maybe just enough to wound if it's a knife attack. It includes situations where the person is too fearful of squeamish to carry out an up-close-and-personal knife attack, but not to kill from afar with a gun. It includes the greater survivability of a knife attack, given more options for self-defense. It includes less risk of mistaken-identity killings and accidental killings, which are a lot easier with a gun, because life-and-death decisions are made in a split second. It includes fewer mass killings because it's so much harder to take out large groups of people with a knife. Etc.