steve wrote:

rzs wrote:I'm sure that guy wouldn't have murdered someone in front of Wrigley Field a couple of years ago in a traffic dispute if he hadn't been traveling with a gun.

You realize he was already breaking the law by having that gun with him, right? So in addition to the law against killing someone, he was already breaking the law about carrying a weapon, and whatever traffic laws he broke to start the ball rolling. You think adding another law somewhere up the river would have mattered? Really?

I think that if it were more difficult to obtain guns, these type of incidents could be reduced. To what extent, I'm not sure, but if they weren't sold at Wal Mart and at everyday sporting goods stores, many people wouldn't jump through hoops to get them. There would be less chance that so and so who gets involved in a bad situation is armed. We're interested in less people being killed right? You know, as long as we're not using the I'm going to kill to make sure less people get killed style flawed logic of the "War on Terror" and the death penalty.

steve wrote:

rzs wrote:

A total ban isn't necessary. Hunting, etc. is fine. But if guns are harder to obtain, maybe every random idiot won't have them and allow themselves the possiblilty to make terrible heat of the moment decisions.

You think terrible, heat-of-the-moment decisions are what cause gun deaths? Not people choosing to arm themselves and shoot at people? Honestly, you think that's the problem? Or you think that's more of a problem than criminals acting like criminals?

It's just one of many problems associated with this debate. One of the problems that we could possibly do something about.

Steve, I'd like you to clarify your position on a few points here.

Are you against laws prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon? Or are you merely against the suggestion that we should toughen these laws? I ask because, if you're only against toughening them up, I can understand where you're coming from. You make a pretty good case that, in the long run, more stringent regulations won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Also, you rightfully fear that the means whereby these increased restrictions are implemented might lead to government spying and other, unrelated, tyrannical laws.

But if you're also against the existence of the present laws, and are in favor of complete free flow of fire-arms (no questions asked), you need to imagine the results of such a situation:

* Everyone will, sensibly, fear that the number of people who are carrying guns around everyday has risen considerably. Whether this fear is justified or not, remember that most people tend to act on their fears just so they'll be on the safe side. As a result, more and more people will start carrying guns (and driving with them in their cars) as a defensive reaction against the general (perceived) upsurge in others' propensity to carry them.

* As a consequence, more violent deaths will occur. Period. It's just common sense to realize that a massive influx (or even a lesser influx caused by the mass fear of a huge influx) of firearms into a society will result in more deaths somehow or other.

Again, if you're only against hubristic strengthenings of the current laws as they're on the books, then I think we can all understand where you're coming from. But if you are not only (a) against background checks, but (b) against any laws regulating the sale and transportation of firearms whatsoever, then you are advocating an increase in violent deaths. Sorry about that.

Bottom line: if, when you said that the only thing that liberals like me get wrong is gun control, then, presumably, you would be (as per the above argument) in favor of the eradication of gun control and, therefore, in favor of an increase in the number of violent deaths. There's no way you can get around that. You sensibly blame the state for killing its own citizens, so join the liberal consensus and admit that a lack of gun control would kill the states' citizens just as effectively.

Fuck Limbaugh for tainting a great thread.

NerblyBear wrote:Are you against laws prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon?

I think they have no effect on someone who wants to carry a concealed firearm and commit crimes with it. He is presumably the target of the law, and since it doesn't affect him, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter either to him or me. I guess it allows you to send him to jail for longer when he eventually does commit a crime, so okay, whatever. If punishment is your bag, then put that in it. Me, I don't care.

Or are you merely against the suggestion that we should toughen these laws? I ask because, if you're only against toughening them up, I can understand where you're coming from. You make a pretty good case that, in the long run, more stringent regulations won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Also, you rightfully fear that the means whereby these increased restrictions are implemented might lead to government spying and other, unrelated, tyrannical laws.

That is precisely why I think more restrictive regulation will be bad.

But if you're also against the existence of the present laws, and are in favor of complete free flow of fire-arms (no questions asked), you need to imagine the results of such a situation....As a consequence, more violent deaths will occur. Period.

What do you say to the empirical evidence that shows this to be untrue? The NRA, with whom it pains me to agree, touted several academic studies of urban areas with liberal carry laws and those with strict ones, including those who re-liberalized once-restrictive carry laws. Places that have liberalized carry laws have not seen an increase in shootings. Most have seen them decline. In Montana when I was living there, carrying a sidearm was perfectly legal as long as it wasn't concealed, and nobody got shot.

Bottom line: if, when you said that the only thing that liberals like me get wrong is gun control, then, presumably, you would be (as per the above argument) in favor of the eradication of gun control...

Don't jump to retarded conclusions. Most gun contol laws are of little effect, but they are prosecutorial tools I don't mind, so whatever. They don't keep guns away from criminals, but they don't bother me either.

and, therefore, in favor of an increase in the number of violent deaths.

Go fuck yourself.

There's no way you can get around that.

Except by you having no evidence to come to that conclusion, and me having evidence to the contrary. By that I mean by me being right and you being wrong.

NerblyBear wrote:

Everyone will, sensibly, fear that the number of people who are carrying guns around everyday has risen considerably. Whether this fear is justified or not, remember that most people tend to act on their fears just so they'll be on the safe side. As a result, more and more people will start carrying guns (and driving with them in their cars) as a defensive reaction against the general (perceived) upsurge in others' propensity to carry them.

* As a consequence, more violent deaths will occur. Period. It's just common sense to realize that a massive influx (or even a lesser influx caused by the mass fear of a huge influx) of firearms into a society will result in more deaths somehow or other.

Here, in the state of Missouri, it is legal to carry a concealed weapon (you have to be licensed by the state.) It is also legal to carry a legally owned weapon, in your car, without a license. To my knowledge, in the 3 or so years since this law passed, no person with a "conceal carry permit" has used the weapon in the commission of a crime. Your claims that "more violent deaths will occur" hasn't been the case here in Missouri. I don't know of anyone (and I know some crazy gun types) who advocate getting rid gun licensing laws.

Nerbly, I am curious. Is your stance for severe gun control a product of personal experience with firearms or just something you have decided based on your reading?

I think about what you are suggesting and reflect upon personal experiences involving violent crime. One of an classmate and acquaintance in wisconsin who violetly shot his neighbor 12 times while trying to steal her VCR and the other a friend who was violently shot and killed for reasons we do not know. In both situations the firearm (both pistols) were unregistered. Could stricter gun control laws have prevented these deaths from happening? I doubt it.

rzs wrote:

steve wrote:

rzs wrote:I'm sure that guy wouldn't have murdered someone in front of Wrigley Field a couple of years ago in a traffic dispute if he hadn't been traveling with a gun.

You realize he was already breaking the law by having that gun with him, right? So in addition to the law against killing someone, he was already breaking the law about carrying a weapon, and whatever traffic laws he broke to start the ball rolling. You think adding another law somewhere up the river would have mattered? Really?

I think that if it were more difficult to obtain guns, these type of incidents could be reduced. To what extent, I'm not sure, but if they weren't sold at Wal Mart and at everyday sporting goods stores, many people wouldn't jump through hoops to get them.

Guns are already difficult to obtain legally in Chicago so those laws mean nothing to this particular incident. We cannot purchase and own handguns much less carry them if we live in Chicago and there are no gun shops within the city limits. Yes there are one or two just past the limits but they will not sell you a handgun if you live in Chicago.

We can buy and keep rifles and shotguns but even that requires a FOID card and we cannot carry them around legally. You can't even use a firing range without a FOID card.

So this guy at Wrigley Field did in fact jump through hoops to obtain a handgun regardless of our local laws. Keeping them out of Wal Mart and sporting goods stores did nothing to prevent this incident from happening. As was said the guy was already breaking laws by the time he shot someone.

steve wrote:I think they have no effect on someone who wants to carry a concealed firearm and commit crimes with it. He is presumably the target of the law, and since it doesn't affect him, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter either to him or me. I guess it allows you to send him to jail for longer when he eventually does commit a crime, so okay, whatever. If punishment is your bag, then put that in it. Me, I don't care.

The risk of longer sentences wouldn't cause you to hesitate? That's not a desire on my part to punish criminals; it's an attempt to deter them from committing crimes. Doing away with gun laws altogether would take away that deterrent.

What do you say to the empirical evidence that shows this to be untrue? The NRA, with whom it pains me to agree, touted several academic studies of urban areas with liberal carry laws and those with strict ones, including those who re-liberalized once-restrictive carry laws. Places that have liberalized carry laws have not seen an increase in shootings. Most have seen them decline. In Montana when I was living there, carrying a sidearm was perfectly legal as long as it wasn't concealed, and nobody got shot.

Montana's not exactly a hotbed of criminal activity. Your evidence is suggestive, but (a) I'm not inclined to trust the NRA's findings on much of anything, and (b) I'd need to see which areas these liberalizations took place in. If it was only in areas where criminal activity was already very low--and I suspect that this is the case, though I might be wrong--then it doesn't exactly say anything about what would happen on a national scale. Try the same thing in Los Angeles and New York City and then my mind might be changed.

Don't jump to retarded conclusions. Most gun contol laws are of little effect, but they are prosecutorial tools I don't mind, so whatever. They don't keep guns away from criminals, but they don't bother me either.

So we're basically in agreement with each other: the gun laws, as they stand, should stay on the books. You favor them as prosecutorial tools while I tend to think that they serve as a deterrent.

Go fuck yourself.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you personally are in favor of more deaths. I only meant to say that the argument for doing away with gun control logically leads to the conclusion that there will be more deaths. No personal intent to insult was meant.

Except by you having no evidence to come to that conclusion, and me having evidence to the contrary. By that I mean by me being right and you being wrong.

What about this evidence: places like England have enormously restrictive gun laws and they face much less crime than America does.

kenoki wrote:Nerbly, I am curious. Is your stance for severe gun control a product of personal experience with firearms or just something you have decided based on your reading?

I think about what you are suggesting and reflect upon personal experiences involving violent crime. One of an classmate and acquaintance in wisconsin who violetly shot his neighbor 12 times while trying to steal her VCR and the other a friend who was violently shot and killed for reasons we do not know. In both situations the firearm (both pistols) were unregistered. Could stricter gun control laws have prevented these deaths from happening? I doubt it.

No, I don't have personal experience with gun violence, but my argument just seems logically valid. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, however. I'm not as firm on gun control as I am on almost any other issue.

The gun laws didn't prevent those specific deaths from occurring, but, again, I can always reply: Maybe the lack of any gun laws would have led to even more such incidents.