- This topic has 57 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why every time there’s a tradegy is there more people know about the political arguments resulting from the tradegy then the tradegy itself. of course we need discussion on how to prevent it but thats not whats happening, its just politicians labeling other politicians and using tragedies as shield. If it cant be discussed respectfully can politicans at least wait till the mourners stop mourning before turning the mourners loved ones into politicized symbols?
While all politicians do this, it is a Democrat Party specialty.
When the reasoning for similar tragedies to happen over and over again is political, then it’s not “politizing tradegies” (sic). It’s being frank about what needs to change.
Fake and corrupt politicians are always trying to falsely show that they care about everyone and their sad about the current tragedy their speaking about BUT IN TRUTH their just trying to earn political points for themselves and their election votes.
Because democrats never let a tragedy go to waste
Because Republicans are bought and paid for by the NRA, that the only time their cold heartedness is on full display is after a tragedy.
And they call themselves the pro life party.That is as ignorant as saying car dealers support drunk driving. Amazing how tenuous a connection needs to be for you to blast it as political.
Anyone who actually gives a darn about this should be holding the mental health care system to task. The coverage/services/process is an abysmal failure. These shooters have been failed by the mental health excuse for a system. Then there is the inner city shootings resulting from poor management of street kids with no value for life.
If you all were willing to give up your moment to turn everything into anti republican politics and try being honest and useful you would do something about the system that is actually failing us.
I think it would be possible to make better restrictions on gun sales based on age, background checks,etc; make that information available publicly so that locals could protest. If you build an addition to your property, all your neighbors can protest. Why not same with th guns? But the discussion is so politicized that any step in direction of the “other side” will be opposed. I don’t have a good advise here. For the Dems who are righteously worked up here, maybe they can focus on, say, Chicago which I believe has good gun controls, and make sure that it becomes yir shalom. Then, after you figure out all deails of how to do that, other states will copy the experience. When R-s were able to clean up NYC, it definitely affected politics.
@tunaisafish The Maiseh b’Poel is to get stop guns from being so readily available to every criminal and nutjob. That is a political matter so the zach is political from the get go. Unfortunately, there are people screaming and crying about their “rights” to own dangerous weapons that serve no purpose outside of a warzone and unfortunately many people in power in the US listen to them.
Just today I was reading an article on a popular conservative blog about red flag laws. A red flag law is a proposal to allow people to snitch on weapon owners who could be problematic which would allow the police to confiscate their firearms. The blog stated it “would do more harm than good” because it would allow people the power to get their neighbors guns taken away. Let’s absorb that for a second. The good: Less people dying from guns, less mass shootings, less murders. The harm: Some innocent people will loose their firearms.
@SyagLchochma “That is as ignorant as saying car dealers support drunk driving.” If getting a gun was a difficult as getting a car, this would be a apt comparison. As it stands, carrying a gun while drunk isn’t illegal, shooting a gun while under 16 isn’t illegal, shooting a gun without insurance isn’t illegal, you can buy a gun within five minutes of turning 18, you can use a gun for years without it getting checked on etc etc etc. Getting a gun either legally or illegally in the US is terrifyingly simple. No mental health checks are going to stop the black market. The US has to make guns rare and difficult to get and hold on to.
Furthermore, cars serve a very important purpose in most people’s lives. I fail to see what purpose an AR-15 serves in the life of anyone not trying to kill as many people in as little time as possible. You want personal protection? Get a .22 pistol that can fire six bullets before reloading. You want to hunt because you’re a shikkur goy? Get a bolt-action deer rifle.
Mental health?
Like only America has people with mental health issues ?If a weapon is so dangerous that a squad of police with body armor and tactical weapons will waste an hour before saving the lives of children, maybe it should be completely banned.
Yserbius – you took a wrong turn somewhere. I was not comparing cars and guns, I was saying that comparing gun rights to supporters of mass shootings is a false comparison. Period.
And I didn’t say anything about mental health checks. I said that our mental healthcare system is allowing dangerous, ill, and suicidal people to rot without intervention. And that contributes to the gun violence and twisted cries for fame and vengeance on systems they say failed them. Do you think these people were all healthy and well til an hour before the shootings? Do you think nobody noticed they were off, depressed, unstable but had nowhere to turn? It’s a huge problem and we are all suffering on many levels from it.Bring an “AR-15” to a warzone and you’re a dead man. Do you even know what “AR” means?
Yserbius > The good: Less people dying from guns, less mass shootings, less murders. The harm: Some innocent people will loose their firearms.
This all makes sense – in short term. What if some day, USA population would need guns to protect from either external or internal dictators? For external enemy, first thing Ukrainian government started doing when they realized that the attack is coming – started giving guns to population (obviously, untrained). For internal threats – right now half of the country think that Trump is Putin’s buddy and another half that Dems are fixing elections. So, it would seem that 100% should agree that Democracy needs protection. If you rescind 2nd amendment now, you won’t be able to put it back when needed.
Note that USA has an impressive record of democracy in last 200+ years comparing to most other countries. So, why mess with a country of success. Obviously, some changes are required with changes in technology and politics. I would apply a Jewish approach here – that only a court that is wiser than the original can change fundamentals.
And so the conversation of why these conversations turn political turned political even faster.
Of course we shouldn’t argue, you should simply agree with me!
Don’t you get that some people disagree with you, even in topics that you have strong opinions on. They even have opinions that you can’t wrap your head around. Sometimes, you can have a conversation around that very opinion while avoiding getting right back into that futile discussion once again.
Try.
I hear your point but not sure who you are addressing or how it fits here. The thread was about the politics. And why politicians can’t resist jumping in. And why they feel politics would have helped. By listening to jackk I believe its a genuine feeling for some, including some politicians.
And thus the knee jerk cries.
What did I miss?I also disagree with his premise. I know next to nothing about the gun laws/arguments. Its about what people tune in to, not what gets offered
I too Haley to think that the worst time for a balanced discussion is when emotions are high. It’s obvious that the situation can only benefit one side of the argument right now. If all sides would be honest, they’ll agree to put this up for discussion at some later point.
But nobody is honest. Logic is always twisted round and round to fit the current theme.
All that said, it should be possible to discuss just this point without getting sucked into the black hole of strong accusations and name calling.
If you are having a discussion, especially if you’re trying to persuade someone, before attributing trumped up motivations, you might want to try and hear-out their point of view. Then, you can walk them to your side by addressing their points and proving yours. You know you got somewhere when you can both agree that each one has valid points and you just weigh things differently.
I read the first 7 comments. None of them contains any specific, factual examples of what they are talking about. Abstract principles without connections to actual experience are nonsense.
“actual experience” – Why did I use those 2 words? Doesn’t experience have to be actual? How can experience not be actual? Maybe I used “actual” to make it clear what constitutes experience.
@syag-lchochma I think that mental health is too difficult a metric to pin down. It’s really hard to tell the difference between the guy having a bad day and the guy who’s one wrong turn away from cracking. We absolutely must address the mental health crisis in this country, but I doubt it will be more than 25% effective at stopping mass shootings.
@Pekak I’m not sure nor do I care what “AR” stands for. (I think it’s “Armalight”?) It shouldn’t be in civilian hands. Period. I don’t know why gun nuts think that everyone has to know every aspect of deadly weapons before commenting that the situation in the US is out of control. Does it matter if it uses “clips” or “magazines” when it fires two bullets a second for thirty seconds before needing to reload? Should I worry if it’s being loaded with a “bullet” or a “cartridge” that’s strong enough to stop a charging bison? Can I not be upset if I can’t tell you that the gun is “burst fire” or “automatic”?
@always_ask_questions I am far more worried about random shootings by maniacs today than I am about some far off imagined potential revolution.“Itâs really hard to tell the difference between the guy having a bad day and the guy whoâs one wrong turn away from cracking”
Um no. No, it isnt really hard at all. Was that drama, cuz it sure ain’t true.
And considering 100% of the shooters have mental health issues, there is no basis on which to say that an efficient system would only help 25%.
Syag, the 18 year old Texan who shot the school last week had zero known mental health issues.
If I may paraphrase you from another thread:
Ujm: You arenât stupid; but you are socially ignorant.
@tunaisafish Less than 10 people died by George Floyd, including Floyd himself over six months of rioting. This was 20 people in an hour.
The shooting event should be blamed on politicians that have been having their strings pulled by the anti-Semitic NRA since forever.
Yseribus: I’m against the NRA as anyone. But how are they antisemitic?
Maybe they are against religious Jews who don’t believe in having guns. Eisov was the hunter as it says ŚąŚ ŚŚšŚŚ ŚȘŚŚŚ, his support came through the sword. ŚŚ§Ś Ś§ŚŚ ŚŚąŚ§Ś ŚŚŚŚŚŚ ŚŚŚ ŚąŚ©Ś where Yaakov’s job is to use his voice to daven and not guns.
YS > I am far more worried about random shootings by maniacs today than I am about some far off imagined potential revolution.
I understand your emotion. I just think it is wrong and myopic. Maye after you’ll re-read what you said above when in less emotional state, maybe you’ll also think that this is a mistake. Why not look for solutions that do not increase long-term risk.
@ujm I don’t know of any specific anti-Semitism within the NRA, but they are extremely popular amongst the KKK and other Neo Nazi groups in the US.
@always_ask_questions You say “myopic” I say “Incredibly dangerous and stupid”. You say “emotional state” I say “appealing to nationalistic feelings”. You say “increase long term risk” I say “greatly decrease short term risk”. At what point does the clear and present danger of weapons in the wrong hands outweigh the nebulous threat of a revolution?Using your logic, in order for the people to effectively fight against the government, we will need a lot more than some AR-15s and Desert Eagles. Maybe everyone should stockpile RPGs? .50 cal machine guns? Tanks? Nuclear weapons?
Also, why is the US the only developed country in the world where people are expected to be prepared for a violent revolution any day? What about England?
Letâs say you had an automatic weapon with dozens of rounds and you were being chased by a furious mob of BLM rioters wielding baseball bats and screaming for your death.
Would you stand there and say âplease stopâ or would you defend yourself?
@dr-pepper More realistic scenario: Let’s say you had an automatic weapon with dozens of rounds and you were being chased by a furious mob of rioters wielding automatic weapons with dozens of rounds and screaming for your death?
Would you even have a chance?
No more guns. Period.
To quote from a post of yours earlier on “own dangerous weapons that serve no purpose outside of a warzone”.
You’re implying that there’s never a scenario where you’d need an automatic weapon. I mentioned a case where you would greatly benefit from having one.
Can you answer my question first and then we can discuss whether your scenario is more likely and does the benefit outweigh the risks?
@dr-pepper Because your scenario is so unlikely to the point of being ridiculous. Out of the thousands of massive riots that swept the country in 2020, how many times did a mob descend on an innocent person to kill him or her?
You know what else is useful? A .50 cal automatic would be great if a herd of rhinos were charging your house. So maybe we should all set up machine gun nests in our upper floors!
My point is, that no matter how much protection guns offer an individual, a much better protection would be having no guns to begin with.
Let’s say all guns in the USA just disappeared tomorrow. Now let’s take a quick metric a year from now. How many innocent were lost because people didn’t have guns to defend themselves? 10? 20? OK, now let’s look on the flip side. We continue as we are. Now how many innocent lives are lost because some maniac got their hands on a high capacity high caliber firearm. It’s way way WAY more than 10 or 20.
By you not answering my question you’re confirming that, regardless of how unlikely the scenario, there are uses for automatic weapons outside of a warzone.
Aside from my hypothetical scenario there’s other, albeit rare, situations where someone could have benefited from a dangerous weapon. Do you recall the motorcyclists gang assaulting an innocent driver on the West Side Highway a number of years ago? Do you think the Holocaust might have turned out differently if Yidden were armed with automatic weapons back then?
Without doing any research I’m going to agree with you that the number of people who saved themselves from automatic weapons is dwarfed by the number of people killed by automatic weapons.
I still, respectfully, disagree with you that banning automatic weapons is the right way to go.
As unlike as you think my scenario is that you refer to it as “ridiculous” an even more unlikely scenario is that all guns in the USA just disappear by tomorrow. If the US does go ahead and ban all guns- do you honestly think that those who have illegal guns will go ahead and surrender them?
Let’s say they do go ahead with the ban and forcibly confiscate all guns from registered owners- do you think the country would be safer or more dangerous as now the criminals won’t be afraid that the person they’re carjacking or burglarizing is armed? Do you honestly think the death rate would go down?
Even if the government would somehow confiscate every single fire arm and the country would be gun free- do you think that would stop mass murderers? These attacks are carefully planned out- they’re not, in general, caused by someone who woke up on the wrong side of his bed, found an automatic weapon and decided to shoot up a school. They’ll resort to truck ramming attacks or something similar.
How about social media companies change their algorithms from searching for people with conservative views to searching for people with mental health issues making threatening posts. If these people are adequately looked into and put away where they can’t harm others I think the mass killings would drop significantly.
@dr-pepper What you’re saying is that there are some very specific and rare scenarios where an automatic weapon in civilian hands is useful. I disagree. The fact that those scenarios are so specific and rare means that automatic weapons should not be in civilian hands because their only use is in specific and rare scenarios that 99.99% of people never experience. Hence my charging pack of rhinos.
I’m not delusional to think that guns will disappear overnight, but I do believe we have to make a very strong effort to start that process. Perhaps if the effort is strong enough, in another 10-20 years mass murderers won’t find their weapons of choice so easily. So yes. Let’s ban all guns.
Letâs say they do go ahead with the ban and forcibly confiscate all guns from registered owners- do you think the country would be safer or more dangerous
Safer. Much safer. You keep just paraphrasing the NRA line, “If we criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns”. Except that’s not true as evidenced by literally every developed country in the world. The thing is, if guns aren’t criminalized, they become really easy to come by. So if a criminal wants an illegal gun in the USA they have about a thousand different options. Furthermore, if someone without a criminal record wants to commit a crime, they are much more likely to buy a gun if they can just walk into the local Murder-Sticks-R-Us and pick one out.
If someone wants to commit mass murder without a gun, they have very limited options. As evidenced by the fact that gunless mass murderers aren’t common and kill far less people than those with guns.
If these people are adequately looked into and put away where they canât harm others I think the mass killings would drop significantly.
Do you think that mentally ill people will just disappear overnight? It’s really really hard to find the needle in the haystack that is the fellow that’s about to go over the deep end. It’s far easier to simply deny them access to the tools of others destruction.
You’re saying that there aren’t very specific rare scenarios where an automatic weapon in civilian hands is useful? Or are you saying that weapons shouldn’t be legalized for those reasons?
If it’s the former- I believe I mentioned a rare case where an automatic weapon in civilian hands would be very useful. If it’s the latter I’d tend to agree with you to an extent.
I’m glad to hear that youâre not delusional enough to believe that guns could disappear overnight but I think you’re delusional if you think there’s any possibility of getting rid of them in 20 years. You haven’t explained how you’re going to force criminals to hand in their illegally obtained weapons or how to prevent new weapons from being smuggled over an open border.
My thoughts are my own unless I quote someone else. I don’t know too much about the NRA- let alone enough to quote anything they say. I firmly believe that if criminals have less to be afraid of when burglarizing a residence then crime will go up (look what’s going on in the Democratic run cities that have tough gun laws). There has to be something to discourage criminal behavior and without the fear of the homeowner having a firearm there’s less to be afraid of.
You’re entitled to your opinion that we’ll all be safer if guns are outlawed and only criminals have them but please explain how it’ll make society safer.
You can’t just compare the US to other civilized countries- there are way to many parameters to take into account. If you’re going to say that Country X has strict gun controls and is much safer than the US- I’m going to ask you this: does Country X have a prison system that criminals are afraid of? I strongly believe that if criminals here were afraid of the justice system crime would drop dramatically. There’s no incentive to behave here with the no cash bail reforms and extremely light prison sentences when given at all.
If a criminal wants to get a gun in the US they’ll get it one way or another. It may be easier if they’re able to buy it legally but if not there are plenty of other ways to get it- a firearm ban will not stop them.
As I mentioned before- if someone wants to commit mass murder without a gun there are plenty of other options. They may not be as easy to pull off but that won’t stop someone intent on pulling it off.
Finally- No, I don’t think mentally ill people will disappear overnight. It may be hard to find a needle in a haystack but when they post their hate filled rants online along with their intentions to shoot up a school it makes it much easier. Instead of allowing mentally ill people to live amongst the general population at the expense of everyone else- they should be forced to get the help they need and kept away from the general public until then. I disagree with you that it’s easier to deny them access to the tools of others destruction as finding illegal weapons is like finding a needle in a haystack. Additionally there are many everyday items that can be used and misused- how are you going to keep them away from everything they can possibly use to harm someone else?
@dr-pepper Let’s simplify things: The advantages of banning all automatic weapons far outweighs the disadvantages.
To get to your points specifically: Are there situations where a civilian wielding an automatic weapon is useful? Yes. But those situations are extremely rare. The single example you gave is something that literally never happened (Rittenhouse could have used a .22 pistol. Or just no gun to begin with, the reason he was attacked was because he was visibly armed). It’s rare enough to quantify: the number of lives legal automatic weapons save in a decade is probably less than 10. On the other hand, fully legal weapons are used all the time in murders, possibly dozens of deaths annually.
Basically, what I’m saying is that there’s no good reason to have so many big guns.
You say you don’t know much about the NRA, yet you repeat their talking points near-verbatim. I guess that just shows that how much of the pro-gun “culture” is controlled by them and the weapons lobby.
So banning all big guns is by far the best way to go about things.
In 20 years, cigarette smoking went from being the cool thing that every teen and adult does, to something frowned upon and heavily regulated. In 20 years marijuana went from being synonymous with heroin to something you can find at a corner drug store. Maybe in 20 years from now, automatic weapons will be seen as illegal and become rare and difficult to acquire. And maybe in 20 years from then so will semi-automatics. Perhaps another 20 years later we can even rethink the 2nd amendment.
Which means that the disadvantages of banning big guns is that some people won’t feel safe but a whole lot of other people will feel much safer and that’s something I can live with and so should you.
And I can compare the US to other civilized countries. Rates of violence in the US are comparable to Somalia. And gun deaths (excluding suicides) top the list of violent crime-related deaths. No other civilized country even comes close.
The availability of guns makes people who would otherwise not commit gun violence, be more prone to committing gun violence. It’s simple logic. The more guns there are, the easier they are to acquire. How much armed robbery or mass shootings are there in places with strict gun control laws? Furthermore, someone willing to commit mass murder without a gun will have to carefully plan things out, like the Boston Bombers. But if they have a gun, there’s barely any planning at all required, just head to a crowded area and open fire. Which is probably why out of all the mass murders in the last 20 years, only one or two were committed without guns. The rest? You got it! High capacity high caliber high rate firearms!
What I’m trying to say is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument why the USA needs so many guns.
On the subject of mental illness. You seem to vastly underestimate the sheer amount of invasive power it would take to find dangerously mentally ill people before they commit crimes. The systems you describe are already in place. Just try opening up a Facebook or YouTube page with pictures of guns and hints that you plan on using them. You’ll have police at your door within the day. But that doesn’t cover everyone. Most mass shooters didn’t really have any major red flags. It’s basically impossible to get everyone the help they need, and to force someone to get help will only work if you’re absolutely certain that said individual is violent. You know what’s not impossible? Banning big guns so that mentally ill people are much more limited in potential for violence.
In conclusion: No guns. OK, maybe some guns. But only small ones.
Yserbius123, I applaud you. It could not have been expressed better.
Sorry it’s taking so long to reply- I’m really busy before Shavuos. I know you took the time to respond and I appreciate that.
I’m not trying to offend you but I’m getting the impression that your making your opinions sound like facts. It may be your opinion that the advantages of banning all automatic weapons far outweighs the disadvantages but there are strong opinions to the contrary.
There are numerous situations where one could use (or could have used) automatic weapons- thankfully as you said they are extremely rare. You can’t just look at one situation- you need to look at the sum of all situations. You may very well be correct that the number of lives that have been saved (or that could have been saved) is less than the amount of lives lost but it is something that needs to be taken into account.
In your opinion there’s no good reason to have so many big guns. Do you think the Yidden in Europe would have benefited from having lots of big guns? How about the Yidden who lived in the Old City during the siege in 1948?
I’m not sure what I wrote that’s near-verbatim to the talking points of the NRA. I simply stated that if law abiding citizens need to give up their legally purchased firearms then criminals will have less fear breaking into their homes. It’s something I realized on my own, it makes logical sense to me and you haven’t explained why you feel that it’s incorrect.
Smoking may have gone down significantly over the past 20 years (luckily I live in a community where smoking is virtually nonexistent) but I’m not sure what your point is. (Are you trying to say that things change from one generation to the next?) Did the smokers all die early and the next generation not want to suffer? Did they switch to cigars or e-cigs? As I stated before- if automatic weapons become illegal it’ll be harder to obtain one illegaly but it’ll still be possible for those who really want one. You haven’t explained how banning them will force anyone who already has one illegaly to surrender it or prevent additional ones from being smuggled through the open border.
You can not compare the US to other civilized countries without comparing all relevant parameters. In my opinion the judicial system here is a joke and violent criminals have nothing to fear. If you’re going to compare the US rates of violence to Somalia- let’s see what they have in common. If I had to guess I don’t think the people there have to fear any repercussions for being violent- similar to the US. If the US had strict gun rules and anyone caught with an illegal weapon was sent to prison for 25 years- no questions asked- then maybe the violence would go down, a typical homeowner would have no reason to have a weapon and I’d side with you on banning them.
You imply that the cities with strict gun controls are safer- I’m going to disagree with you on that based on what’s going on in Chicago, New York and many other Democratic run cities. And again- if someone was intent on carrying out a mass murder there are plenty of other ways to go about it- it may not be as easy but they will get it done anyway.
At this point- if you still not convinced of the validity of my opinion (not that you agree- just admit that there is a different side) I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
On the subject of mental illness- it will take a huge investment to try and find the dangerous ones but having the social media giants look for them as opposed to Conservatives may be a good start. Many mass shooters do post their intentions online beforehand and could have been stopped had they been reported, investigated and locked up.
In conclusion- In my opinion, the world would be a better place without dangerous weapons but banning guns is not the correct way to go about it. The place to start is to make criminals fear breaking the law (e.g. stiff prison sentences) and keeping an eye on those with a mental illness. Until then guns are a necessary evil.
I just have one question (and a sub question)
Were there all these mass shootings 60-80 years ago? If no, what changed?
some interesting numbers:
2/3 of firearm-related deaths in US are suicides, very low in other countries – but total suicide rates are same as in Canada, UK, France …. So, firearms here is just a tool … slowly increasing thru Obama years thoughhomicide rates in US are 3x times more than in West Europe. It increased 2x from 1960 to 1975, stayed flat till 1994 and then starting decreasing 2.5x till 2010 (welfare reform, good economy?), with a slight bump in 2014-16 and then back, 2019 (latest I see) is the lowest point. So, it is a problem, but not really an increasing one.
Rates very significantly by state: NE and NW are mostly 2-3 per 100K per year, south and MidWest is 6-8. New Hampshire is lowest 0.9 as in Europe. Some looked at gun-friendly states, they include both highest (MS) and lowest (NH) by murder rate (of course, which causes what is not clear). Strictest states have mostly low murder rate (NY,NJ, but also some higher than average (MD, DE,IL)
So, it is possible that strict laws prevent worst murder rates, but it is quite possible to have low murder rate while being gun-friendly (
@dr-pepper I’m basing my opinions on actual statistics. Like how the USA is most comparable to Somalia in terms of gun deaths per person. You can’t just say “Well you can’t compare…” when literally every developed country not at war does so much better than the US in terms of violence. If you say it’s because of the easiness of the US prison system, then you have to bring some really really good stats and professional opinions to back that up. Like how does that explain Scandanavian countries whose prisons are basically hotels and barely have any gun violence? Because the US is so atrociously bad at not letting people die from bullets, that can’t be all. The simplest reason is probably because there are too many guns.
The fact that you cannot even think of a single situation that actually happened where a person was saved because they were holding an automatic weapon means that such situations are too rare to warrant allowing everyone to carry automatics. That’s an opinion, sure. But one that I cannot think of a logical reason to disagree with.
Different cities and states having different gun control laws is pointless when a quick jaunt over the border will allow someone better access. Or send a shaliach. Or a gun show. Facts remain that most mass murders in the US happened with guns that were acquired legally.
Im Yirtzah Hashem, just like average people figured out that cigarettes are bad for you and smoking dropped dramatically, so to should guns and gun ownership.
Yserbius, look at my stats: there are a number of states that have relaxed gun laws and number of deaths are comparable to Europe. Looks like these are Northern rural states, maybe with older population and less urban crime areas.
Note also that the murder problem while bad is not getting worse (except maybe last 2 years due to society upheaval in general). Some of the stats may be mildly misleading – you need to look at murder rate rather than gun-murder rate: less and less people axing each other and switching to guns does not affect the crime rate!
But, again, even reasonable reform will be seen as “attack” of anti-gun to pro-gun, especially when using biased arguments. hopefully, someone can come up with measures that have both restrictions and giveaway to gun owners? could you come up with a list of things you can include that gun owners will like? say, a federal law allowing most reliable gun owners (by time of use, test results, psychological testing, military training) to have a federal license that they can use in other states? and, if it works, continue expanding this program in return for restrictions on the most dangerous groups?
Like most things in life statistics can be used and abused (kind of like guns). As an actuary I’ve seen my share of statistics that are collected and / or interpreted to further ones agenda and intentionally mislead others. I’m fairly confident the statistics your basing your opinions on would fall into that category. As far as I’m concerned the way a statistic is interpreted is an opinion and not a fact. Can you please logically (not statistically) explain why an illegally armed criminal who up until now refrained from breaking into someone’s house because they were afraid that the homeowner may have a legally purchased weapon will not go ahead and break into the persons home if their gun was turned in?
To reiterate again- you CAN NOT compare two countries based on one parameter- it’s like comparing an apple to an orange because they’re both fruits. Just because another country has a lower murder rate doesn’t mean it’s because guns are less rampant. There are other things that cause crime- lack of family structure, being taught at a young age that crime does pay, not having to fear punishment… All these parameters need to be compared. I don’t know what goes on in Scandinavia but let’s say from a young age the schools emphasize proper respect for others and following the law instead of using proper pronouns. I would hope that when they get older they’re afraid of jail because of social stigmas and prefer to stay far away from prison regardless of how comfortable it is. In places in the US where a criminal knows that if they’re arrested for armed carjacking they’ll be released with no bail- there’s no fear in committing the crime. Can you please explain what a life long criminal has to fear if they never faced any consequences?
You mentioned earlier that there’s no valid reason to have an automatic weapon. The case that I mentioned originally was just to poke a hole in your statement by choosing a rare scenario where there would be a valid reason to have an automatic weapon. I believe that I mentioned other situations where it would have been beneficial to have automatic weapons but you chose to not to acknowledge them (i.e. Yidden in Europe during the late 1930’s and residents of the Old City in 1948). Do you mind responding to that? Can you also let me know what I was paraphrasing from the NRA- I honestly have no idea?
You’re probably correct that most mass murders in the US happened with guns purchased legally- you still haven’t explained how banning them will remove the illegally obtained ones. Again- it may may them harder to get but they will still be available to those that have them and obtainable from those who smuggle them across an open border.
I don’t know what cigarettes have to do with guns. They both may be dangerous but they are different. Before there were any known dangers with cigarettes many people got addicted to them and it was going to take some time for the smoking rates to go down. If we’re at that point- great! Guns were known from the start to be dangerous and people either obtained them as a weapon to help their criminal lifestyle or as a necessary evil to protect themselves.
Dr. Pepper:
Yidden in Europe having guns, big or small, in the 1930s would NOT have helped one iota. Do you seriously think we could have outgunned the Nazis ym’s?! Who are you kidding. If we were to shoot our enemies they’d have come with 100 truckloads of Gestapo and SS men to simply gun down every Yid within 100 miles of the gunfight. It would have been counterproductive and resulted in far more Jewish deaths.
I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with @UJM
I thought I was clear that my comment about the use of an automatic weapon implies that it’s a situation that an individual can reasonable expect to encounter. Such a situation simply doesn’t exist in the US. So you’re example of a wild gun-wielding mob is simply ridiculous and doesn’t answer the question.
Regarding “stopping the Holocaust” I also thought I was clear in my comments about a revolution in the US. Namely, that not only will guns be ineffective against a military armed with attack planes and nuclear weapons, but also that guns present a very real danger today which you’re weighing against a potential unlikely danger in the future.
Again, the US ranks exceedingly high in terms of violent crime related deaths per 1000 people. Gun violence being one of the leading causes of violent crime-related death. It’s more likely for someone in the US to die of a gunshot than someone in Ukraine. If the violent death rate were only slightly below countries like UK and Japan, I would agree with you that you can’t compare. But the fact that gun violence is so bad in the US compared to every other country with similar socio-economic makeups, you have to find the one factor that’s so different than other countries. What do you think that factor is?
If we ban certain guns and confiscate said guns there will be less guns. Period. People won’t be able to sneak them across the border in nearly the quantity needed to make them as readily available as they are now. There are right now more civilian owned guns in the US than people. It’s relatively easy for criminals to get their hands on one or two. If there were one one hundredth as many guns, it would be much more difficult for criminals to commit gun crimes.
In 1994, a Chabad Mitzvah Tank was shot up by a machine pistol on the Brooklyn Bridge and a bachur, Ari Halberstam, was murdered. In response, the government put much stricter restrictions on automatic machine pistol sales and use which caused their use in crimes to drop dramatically.
You understand that smoking is dangerous and the benefits to nutrition and digestion are negligible compared to the very real dangers of lung cancer and emphysema. That’s because you live in 2022 and not 1922. Hopefully one day people and people like you will also realize that guns are dangerous and the benefits of personal safety and hunting are negligible compared to the very real dangers of gun violence. And someday soon guns will be looked at like cigarettes’ are: a danger to one’s self and to those around them.
You’re making a logical error which I’ve heard called the “People Live in Cities Fallacy”. The biggest cities have the biggest number of crimes because there are more people there. So yes, more people are murdered by guns in New York City than in Yehupitzville, Iowa. But the rate of gun crimes (per 1000 individuals) is actually highest in places with lax gun laws, like New Orleans and Jackson, Mississippi.
I think the problem with gun laws is that almost anytime Congress tries to impose better restrictions, like wait periods, better background checks, gun show loophole closures, better registration, etc. the NRA and all of its unwitting goons jump all over it “The Democrats are taking our freedoms!”.
Yeserbius > âPeople Live in Cities Fallacyâ
I don’t think so. I was reviewing murder rates per 100K of population. I was indeed neglecting that most safe states are less urban, but I don’t think this affects the conclusion: there are some places in USA where it is possible to have European-level murder rates even with American gun laws.
there is also a size – we often compare US, a large and heterogenous country, with relatively compact select countries. At minimum, we should compare with EU (including Greece, Serbia, etc), or even better “former Spanish empire” (both Spain and South America).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.