So presuming Biden wins, and Schumer presides over a narrow Dem majority in the Senate, will we see any movement on gun control?
The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
No. Gun control is going nowhere. Plus the Democrats aren't taking the Senate anyway.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Only if there's a truly horrific shooting. I'm talking massive, including minor deaths. That's the only time Dems pretend to give a ****.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
No. Crime correlates to social and economic factors above all else. States with low crime and violence rates can enjoy either strict or non-existent gun control and vice versa.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
There may be a change of heart in the next few years. Republican's 2nd amendment commitment is dependent entirely on who is exercising that right.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
No. Gun control is a courageous policy.
A lot of that is because of coronavirus panic though. Once that dies down, those people are going to go right back to being anti-gun.
How much of it is due to BLM folks telling everyone you can't trust the police, that calling them to protect you could result in you being killed instead of the evildoer?
It's a hell of a variation on the tried-and-true "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I knew immediately what that link was. I’m re-watching Yes, Minister now and it’s easily one of my favorite shows ever. The three main actors are simply brilliant.
Sorry, I had nothing else to contribute. How about gun control in Japan? No handguns, hunting rifles are permitted following background safety training and police registration, and ammunition needs to be kept separate from the firearms themselves in (I think?) a locked cabinet.
Having never been a gun owner, it doesn’t bother me.
I don't think so. First of all, I don't think your presumptions (Biden wins & Schumer presides over a narrow Dem majority in the Senate) will come to pass. Second, while Congress has shown a lot more 'stomach' for gun control in the past few years, I don't think they've forgotten what happened after the AWB of 1994 passed. I wasn't really paying attention to politics back then, but what I've read is that the next election cycle was a political bloodbath, with voters getting rid of AWB supporters. FWIW.
I'm going to partially agree and partially disagree with @Bugfatty300 . I think it is true that states with more gun control have more crime. Illinois and Chicago are the classic example. With that said, it's risky to assume that correlation is the same as causation. States with more gun control also (typically) have large metropolitan areas, and the factors that Bugfatty300 mentions (social and economic factors), will play a big role. There also tend to be more drugs, more gangs, more black market. More gun control may be one factor in the higher crime rates, but there are plenty of others, too.
I don't know how serious the "can't trust the police" crowd can be taken though because they say that, yet still try to turn to the police when they are in trouble. It seems to me like their anti-police sentiment is just the result of lashing out in anger over recent injustices, but once that anger dies down they'll go right back to the classic "who needs a gun when you have the police" arguments.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Given Illinois is a Shall Issue state, the prevalence of unpermitted carry... South Chicago is a function of the economics and social/governmental. Our violence outside Chicago is also mostly economic. With the schools out, Naperville is not the likely site of shootings.
Guns suppress overall violent crime at the cost of making the remaining crime slightly more lethal. The effects don't seem huge, the only real good purchase to be had at prying off the spurious variables is when something like concealed carry goes from illegal to legal. It's been years since I got properly buried in those numbers, but i think they were tiny statistically significant differences based on the guns.
Guns suppress overall violent crime at the cost of making the remaining crime slightly more lethal. The effects don't seem huge, the only real good purchase to be had at prying off the spurious variables is when something like concealed carry goes from illegal to legal. It's been years since I got properly buried in those numbers, but i think they were tiny statistically significant differences based on the guns.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I don't know if it really needs to be said, but "gun control" isn't a single policy or law, or a binary state that you either have or don't. Some things may help reduce violence, some things may be counter-productive.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28 March 2019 - "The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991-2016"
Journal of Urban Health, 7 March 2014 - "Effects of the Repeal of Missouri's Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides"
Of course, whether or not the simple reduction of violence is or should be a societal goal may itself be up for debate. There are those who would claim that an increase in homicide rates includes the ethical or 'proper' use of firearms to protect property or to defend against non-homicide crimes. That is, an attempted burglary that ends with the burglar shot to death, versus a successful burglary in which no one is killed, may be considered a positive outcome. And there's a larger debate about the individual's responsibility to community safety, within which the gun control debate resides, which we're seeing play out in the debate about face masks, vis a vis COVID-19. For those folks who don't believe the individual should be compelled to provide for the safety of others, increases in violence - and, thus, whether or not gun control measures "do" anything - are always going to be beside the point.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28 March 2019 - "The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991-2016"
Journal of Urban Health, 7 March 2014 - "Effects of the Repeal of Missouri's Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides"
Of course, whether or not the simple reduction of violence is or should be a societal goal may itself be up for debate. There are those who would claim that an increase in homicide rates includes the ethical or 'proper' use of firearms to protect property or to defend against non-homicide crimes. That is, an attempted burglary that ends with the burglar shot to death, versus a successful burglary in which no one is killed, may be considered a positive outcome. And there's a larger debate about the individual's responsibility to community safety, within which the gun control debate resides, which we're seeing play out in the debate about face masks, vis a vis COVID-19. For those folks who don't believe the individual should be compelled to provide for the safety of others, increases in violence - and, thus, whether or not gun control measures "do" anything - are always going to be beside the point.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
If I'm reading it correctly, it's the former. It seems to argue against the oft-claimed notion that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. An increase in the legal ownership of guns correlated with more people being shot to death (and, presumably, more people were shot and lived as well, but they didn't go into that). It couldn't have just been people who are disinclined to obey the law, because such people would have bought a gun anyway, legally or otherwise, licensed or not. Either the licensing law limited non-law-abiding citizens' ability to get a gun, or the repeal of the law resulted in law-abiding people shooting someone where they hadn't before (such as in a self-defense scenario: a law-abiding gun owner, who had a permit for their gun while the licensing law was in effect, is suddenly threatened by someone who hadn't qualified for the license but now is allowed to get a gun without a license, and the law-abiding citizen is put in a position to have to shoot someone they didn't have to shoot before).
Obviously you do believe the individual is responsible for the safety of others. I want to hear that logic because I have yet to hear any compelling reasoning as to why I, as an individual, am responsible for the safety of strangers.
For example: If we are both out in public and I have a cold, it's not my responsibility to make sure you don't catch my cold. That's on you. Now obviously I can't actively try to give you my cold by intentionally coughing in your face, as that would be causing you harm intentionally. Same applies for guns. If we live in the same neighborhood, me owning a gun may make you feel less safe, but I shouldn't be forced to either give up my guns or be restricted in what types of guns I can purchase just because it makes you uncomfortable. And just with my cold example, I obviously can't go shooting up your house.
The point of all that being that while you cannot actively and intentionally cause harm to others for obvious reasons, you are not responsible for preserving or ensuring the safety of anyone other than yourself (and your children if you have any). For the state to impose that kind of burden on the individual is unreasonable.
I'll also say that this isn't just a mere belief either. It is an actual legal principle that the individual is absolutely not responsible for protecting the safety of others.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I'll have to think about how to explain it concisely. I don't just want to spew out a tl;dr stream of consciousness. I will say for now, that it's about more than just making other people feel comfortable - although I do think we owe some degree of that to each other - it's also about not putting them in legitimate danger.
I'm curious about your stance on conscription. Do you think that American men (or women, for that matter) should be compelled to fight for the nation's interests and/or defense in a time of war?
Only in the most dire of circumstances. Like we are being invaded and we've already depleted our active military, National Guard and reserve forces and conscription is literally the only option left to defend the nation.
Beyond that, no I don't believe in conscription. While I think the military lifestyle can benefit people greatly, I also believe the vast majority of people aren't cut out to be soldiers and forcing them into service does more harm than good to both the individual and to our military.
Similar threads
