1 1
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Share the FBI Stats on CCW's lowering murder rates by 8.5% and rapes by 5%. Make this more of an intellectual discussion.  

 

Even after that reduction, the US murder rate due to guns significantly exceeds that in every other 1st World nation (all of which have sensible gun safety laws, unlike US).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

I'm not sure why you cherry-picked one memey-looking thing from 2nd Amendment, but the end result is you've set yourself up as a target. Why not expand your point and provide some depth, rather than doing the fuckbooky thing of a single post. 

Why not go into the actual number of crimes prevented each year by CCW's - cause the news won't. Share the FBI Stats on CCW's lowering murder rates by 8.5% and rapes by 5%. Make this more of an intellectual discussion.  

I don't "think" anyone on here fully supports removing the 2nd Amendment  - they're just discussing ways of keeping criminals from having easy access to guns. Feel free to join the discussion - but, it can't be done with a one-liner and some fuckbook meme.   

Obviously you have missed prior posts, but that's OK, no one reads all this stuff.

I've posted FBI and other sources of data and facts. And have made posts about binary triggers, bump stocks, magazine capacities, and the lethality of shotguns and handguns. Have also suggested methods that might be feasible to restrict guns.

The point is simple. Making it more difficult or impossible for a law abiding citizen to own and/or carry self protection is a problem. Criminals will remain armed regardless of the laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Making it more difficult or impossible for a law abiding citizen to own and/or carry self protection is a problem. Criminals will remain armed regardless of the laws. 

That is not the experience in the rest of the world. Criminals who want weapons have to get them from somewhere. Only in some third world countries and in America is it common for criminals to be armed. Which is the reason you have such trigger happy police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Only in some third world countries and in America is it common for criminals to be armed. Which is the reason you have such trigger happy police.

I disagree. The two are separate and distinct issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Criminals will remain armed regardless of the laws. 

You're right, you have contributed additional information, but after a few pages the link to the thought process gets eaten by the Internet. I think that not unlike drivers not having insurance, we can reduce the number of criminals who have guns without shitting on the 2nd amendment. 

When Biden says, "The 2nd amendment is not an absolute;" I cringe. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I disagree. The two are separate and distinct issues. 

I'm going with the fact that police shooting suspects is pretty rare in other countries compared to the US. My belief is that US police must always assume the member of the public they are dealing with is armed. That makes them nervous and leads to errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

That is not the experience in the rest of the world. Criminals who want weapons have to get them from somewhere. Only in some third world countries and in America is it common for criminals to be armed. Which is the reason you have such trigger happy police.

OK. So let's assume that stiff gun ownership laws are enacted. How will guns be removed from the hands of criminals? How will gun importation from Mexico be stopped?

All the current laws haven't stopped drugs and other illegal cross border issues.

I also disagree that police are "trigger happy." The vast majority of police are good at a difficult job. Yes, there are definitely bad cops that use the badge for protection.

From your next post. Yes, the police do have to assume folks are armed, and yes they probably are more nervous because of that. And yes that can lead to errors. Following on your point that there are more police shootings - yes, suspect that is true. When the "suspects" shoot the police fire back.

I'd like to see the stats on: # of police stops, # of shootings of armed suspects and unarmed suspects. It would also be good if the stats had race of the suspect and the cop. I know that where I live there are plenty of bad white folks that use guns.

Edited by billeisele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BIGUN said:

I think that not unlike drivers not having insurance, we can reduce the number of criminals who have guns without shitting on the 2nd amendment. 

I may say you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billeisele said:

Yes, there are definitely bad cops that use the badge for protection.

I also have a theory that the "safety-less" preferred Glock is an issue. I'm a big believer in a slide safety. I wonder if sometimes, in an adrenaline-induced state that gripping the glock too tightly has caused a round to go off resulting in a flurry of following rounds by the cop or fellow cops.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BIGUN said:

I also have a theory that the "safety-less" preferred Glock is an issue. I'm a big believer in a slide safety. I wonder if sometimes, in an adrenaline-induced state that gripping the glock too tightly has caused a round to go off resulting in a flurry of following rounds by the cop or fellow cops.  

You have a bunch of theories. But no willingness to confront that basic problem that in a nation full of more weapons than people some of those people will use the weapons to do exactly what they are built to do. Kill other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billeisele said:

OK. So let's assume that stiff gun ownership laws are enacted. How will guns be removed from the hands of criminals?

By 1) taking them away when they are arrested and 2) making them harder for criminals to get.  That will draw down the number of weapons criminals have.

Quote

All the current laws haven't stopped drugs and other illegal cross border issues.

Well, all the current laws haven't stopped drunk driving, rape or murder either.  Still, they are good to have, and they do reduce the incidence of those crimes, even if they are not 100% effective.

Quote

I also disagree that police are "trigger happy." The vast majority of police are good at a difficult job.

The two sentences above do not contradict each other.  The vast majority of police are good at a difficult job; in addition police, as a whole, rely on weapons too much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Are you kidding? America exports weapons and all the problems they cause to both Mexico and Canada. Mostly illegally.

If guns are highly restricted in the US and criminals have difficulty getting them it seems logical that the cartels and others would find a market in the US for guns. But that could take years to occur. The challenge is the sheer number of guns that are already in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billeisele said:

The challenge is the sheer number of guns that are already in the US.

A challenge; yes, but not unachievable. A database with cradle-to-grave ownership and transference not unlike vehicles would allow for a three-five year process of removing unregistered arms.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billeisele said:

The challenge is the sheer number of guns that are already in the US.

Right.  So have police confiscate guns from criminals as they do now; total number goes down.  Make it hard for criminals to get new guns; total number does not go up again.

It could take five years.  It could take 25 years.  But it's a worthy goal IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billvon said:

By 1) taking them away when they are arrested and 2) making them harder for criminals to get.  That will draw down the number of weapons criminals have.

Well, all the current laws haven't stopped drunk driving, rape or murder either.  Still, they are good to have, and they do reduce the incidence of those crimes, even if they are not 100% effective.

The two sentences above do not contradict each other.  The vast majority of police are good at a difficult job; in addition police, as a whole, rely on weapons too much.

1 & 2) Yes, the number of guns would decrease. Wonder how long it would take for there to be an effective decrease in guns? One thing it would do is remove guns from those that aren't hardened criminals. That would decrease many street shootings. Also wonder how long it will take for the cartels to begin shipping guns into the US. Once guns became less available and criminals shift towards knives or some other weapon, what then?

Yes, laws do decrease crime. There are plenty of laws already on the books and crimes still occur. There must be some other ideas that would work. It seems to be clear that high density poverty areas have high crime rates. There are solutions but it's not easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You have a bunch of theories. But no willingness to confront that basic problem that in a nation full of more weapons than people

That's bullshit, Ken. I've posted a plan on here several times over the past three years. I've sent it to representatives. We've had a fellow skydiver use it for their platform to run for office. Please don't talk about my "willingness." I've had the balls to go against one of my party's biggest platforms. I'm tired of getting a call from the school (as recent as yesterday) that my daughter's school is on lockdown. You have any idea what that makes the soldier in me want to do. I can go to other countries to protect theirs, but I can't even protect my own.  

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

...Why not go into the actual number of crimes prevented each year by CCW's - cause the news won't. Share the FBI Stats on CCW's lowering murder rates by 8.5% and rapes by 5%. Make this more of an intellectual discussion...

Can you supply the source for that? I'm skeptical.

What i would say for a fact about CCW holders is that if guns were only available to them. Primary because of background checks. US gun crimes would fall to the mean of the western world overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

That's bullshit, Ken. I've posted a plan on here several times over the past three years. I've sent it to representatives. We've had a fellow skydiver use it for their platform to run for office. Please don't talk about my "willingness." I've had the balls to go against one of my party's biggest platforms. I'm tired of getting a call from the school (as recent as yesterday) that my daughter's school is on lockdown. You have any idea what that makes the soldier in me want to do. I can go to other countries to protect theirs, but I can't even protect my own.  

I'll go with BIGUN on this one. Sorry Ken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Can you supply the source for that? I'm skeptical.

I cannot, Phil. It's an old stat from the 90's when CCW was entertained by additional states and the stats from Vermont (I think) as a constitutional carry state were being analyzed. I was using it more as an example of sharing information, rather than memes. 

Quote

 What i would say for a fact about CCW holders is that if guns were only available to them. Primary because of background checks. US gun crimes would fall to the mean of the western world overnight.

As long as "illegal" guns were concurrently confiscated and smelted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Once guns became less available and criminals shift towards knives or some other weapon, what then?

Then you'd still have crime - but less of it, since people will be better able to flee.  And you'd end mass shootings.

Quote

Yes, laws do decrease crime. There are plenty of laws already on the books and crimes still occur. There must be some other ideas that would work. It seems to be clear that high density poverty areas have high crime rates. There are solutions but it's not easy.

Of course.  Laws are just one way.  Education is another.  Urban renewal (NOT gentrification) is yet another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

A challenge; yes, but not unachievable. A database with cradle-to-grave ownership and transference not unlike vehicles would allow for a three-five year process of removing unregistered arms.   

Seems that the suggestion is gun registration. The US has somewhere around 400 million citizen-owned guns. Some stats show that 42% of households have a gun and it's 1.2 guns per person.

 A monumental task but possible, to have them registered. The cost would be high if contracted to private industry and 3X higher if done by the government. Regardless, it would be a big number.

A common fear is that registration then leads to confiscation. That fear will cause many (don't know but guessing 20-40%) to not register. That starts a list of issues with the main one being a formally law abiding upstanding citizen is now a criminal for not registering.

Do we register all guns or just non-hunting guns? Suspect the answer is all since some use those scary looking guns to hunt.

To the problem of those that aren't registered. If in the hands of a criminal they may eventually appear. In the hands of the law abiding citizen they may never appear, or as a minimum it would take many years. But since those guns are not used for crime maybe that's not a huge problem. Well, except when it gets stolen or inherited by someone less responsible.

I agree that something needs to be done. The challenge is what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

That's bullshit, Ken. I've posted a plan on here several times over the past three years.

But none of your plans are compatible with the 2nd Amendment that you refuse to contemplate changing. You want it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I'm tired of getting a call from the school (as recent as yesterday) that my daughter's school is on lockdown. You have any idea what that makes the soldier in me want to do. I can go to other countries to protect theirs, but I can't even protect my own.  

That would seem to be a direct result of the 2nd. Make up your mind, which do you want more, the 2nd or safety for your daughter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Seems that the suggestion is gun registration. The US has somewhere around 400 million citizen-owned guns. Some stats show that 42% of households have a gun and it's 1.2 guns per person.

it's one suggestion.

2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

A monumental task but possible, to have them registered. The cost would be high if contracted to private industry and 3X higher if done by the government. Regardless, it would be a big number.

Charge the manufacturers five cents per gun in exchange for a hold-harmless.

4 minutes ago, billeisele said:

A common fear is that registration then leads to confiscation. That fear will cause many (don't know but guessing 20-40%) to not register. That starts a list of issues with the main one being a formally law abiding upstanding citizen is now a criminal for not registering.

I've owned guns  (and am a former FFL) in which all my guns have been registered - not once has anyone knocked on my door and asked for my guns. 

 

5 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Do we register all guns or just non-hunting guns? Suspect the answer is all since some use those scary looking guns to hunt.

All guns. That's one of my issues with our friends across the aisle. Hunting guns can do more damage than the scary looking ones. For me; it's like saying the Ford F-150 should be outlawed because it kills the most people in accidents. Well, it's the most popular truck, not the most lethal. But, yes, all guns.

8 minutes ago, billeisele said:

To the problem of those that aren't registered. If in the hands of a criminal they may eventually appear. In the hands of the law abiding citizen they may never appear, or as a minimum it would take many years.

Incentivize.  

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1