Author Topic: New Zealand reforming gun laws/US gun debate after another shooting  (Read 15918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2019, 08:06:29 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6429
  • Tommy Points: 118
I don't want to debate but just state my views.

I think gun ownership is important to society in America. There are so many more responsible people than criminals that use guns I feel it's not right to take them away. I do think ownership does benefit the people far more than it hurts the people. I feel the amendment does imply everyone not just an active militia because a door to door militia can be formed in an emergency. I do think sales of guns and gun related items do help the economy.

-I am not for gun ban but for gun ownership restrictions.
-I am for gun permits and licensing following safety course and gun law review completions. Permits being automatic renewal unless a person is flagged for a criminal act.
-I am for gun registration.
-I would be for a law that asked every 5 years (from date of permit or license issued) proof of ownership of any gun be made by a registered owner. Failure to do so being subject to penalty. Goal being to reduce illegal sales.
-I am for background checks.
-I am for 2 week waiting periods for assault weapons.
-I am for mandatory investment into better gun safety features development by gun makers.
-I am for proven effective safety features for guns be mandatory if cost is within 25% of the guns cost to make and doesn't compromise the guns design.

Just some of my views on gun ownership. Understand if not yours.
Trade deadline mock team: Celtics,
Irving, Rozier, Wanna
Smart, Robinson, Dozier
Tatum, Morris, Semi
Griffin, Theis, Yab
Horford, Baynes, Williams

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2019, 08:13:59 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

But is protecting yourself justification? Maybe. People have every right to protect themselves and to be just as “armed” as the criminals. But Just like there are other ways to kill people, not just from guns, there are other ways to protect yourself. Take martial arts class, carry mace. It’s a case of of one-upism. You gotta a knife? I’m gonna get a gun! What?!? You got a gun? I’m gonna get a bigger gun! That’s not a solution, that’s adding to a problem. You want and even playing(or killing) field? Fine. Put the field at karate and knives or at the least hand guns. Why does the field have to be at autamic weapons? Maybe we should make the field be at rocket launchers.... :o


Can you reconcile the two bolded portions? If a criminal owns an illegal gun, should it be legal for other people to own that gun? If yes, that accomplishes what we have now, without the useless law. If not, than you don't really believe that people have a right to be just as armed as the criminal.

Hmmm.... if a criminal gets a gun illegally then an everyday citizen has the same “right” to get an illegal gun. Obviously, my position is to limit getting guns legally and to make getting illegal guns harder. The “right” for any person,criminal or not, would be the same, however they obtain them. Not really sure the hairs your splitting add up to much or maybe I don’t get what we are calling a right. Thanks for making me think tho, TP.

To me, It’s simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.
You are mistaken if you think there is a correlation between the ability to get a legal or an illegal firearm. The only thing that would happen, if you limited legal guns, is higher prices on the black market. Hell, I think the market for illegal guns would blossom. Think about it - drugs are illegal, but you can literally get any type of drug in any city in a matter of hours. You think it wouldnt be the same with guns? And that's another problem that would be solved by actually enforcing your border - less drugs and illegal guns.
You could get them but if you just put an automatic 10 year jail sentence for owning a gun, no one would want to own one.  Seen with a gun lose freedom for 10 years even if you commit no other crime and the desire to own a gun is just about zero.

And yet there are thousands of murders every year, where the punishment is much higher than ten years.  I think many criminals ignore the consequences of being a criminal.
Sure and lots of people commit crimes and never get caught, but they also don't have automatic 10 year sentences for having a gun.  I don't think that is practical, but it would be pretty easy to eliminate the desire to have guns if you knew just owning one put you away for 10 years irrespective of whether you were doing anything with the gun. 
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2019, 08:40:01 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

But is protecting yourself justification? Maybe. People have every right to protect themselves and to be just as “armed” as the criminals. But Just like there are other ways to kill people, not just from guns, there are other ways to protect yourself. Take martial arts class, carry mace. It’s a case of of one-upism. You gotta a knife? I’m gonna get a gun! What?!? You got a gun? I’m gonna get a bigger gun! That’s not a solution, that’s adding to a problem. You want and even playing(or killing) field? Fine. Put the field at karate and knives or at the least hand guns. Why does the field have to be at autamic weapons? Maybe we should make the field be at rocket launchers.... :o


Can you reconcile the two bolded portions? If a criminal owns an illegal gun, should it be legal for other people to own that gun? If yes, that accomplishes what we have now, without the useless law. If not, than you don't really believe that people have a right to be just as armed as the criminal.

Hmmm.... if a criminal gets a gun illegally then an everyday citizen has the same “right” to get an illegal gun. Obviously, my position is to limit getting guns legally and to make getting illegal guns harder. The “right” for any person,criminal or not, would be the same, however they obtain them. Not really sure the hairs your splitting add up to much or maybe I don’t get what we are calling a right. Thanks for making me think tho, TP.

To me, It’s simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.
You are mistaken if you think there is a correlation between the ability to get a legal or an illegal firearm. The only thing that would happen, if you limited legal guns, is higher prices on the black market. Hell, I think the market for illegal guns would blossom. Think about it - drugs are illegal, but you can literally get any type of drug in any city in a matter of hours. You think it wouldnt be the same with guns? And that's another problem that would be solved by actually enforcing your border - less drugs and illegal guns.
You could get them but if you just put an automatic 10 year jail sentence for owning a gun, no one would want to own one.  Seen with a gun lose freedom for 10 years even if you commit no other crime and the desire to own a gun is just about zero.

And yet there are thousands of murders every year, where the punishment is much higher than ten years.  I think many criminals ignore the consequences of being a criminal.
Sure and lots of people commit crimes and never get caught, but they also don't have automatic 10 year sentences for having a gun.  I don't think that is practical, but it would be pretty easy to eliminate the desire to have guns if you knew just owning one put you away for 10 years irrespective of whether you were doing anything with the gun.

I just don't think criminals operate this way.  Look at the history of "3 strikes" sentencing laws.  A lot of people are looking at 25 years if they commit even minor crimes.  Criminals are unable to help themselves.  Possessing child p0rnography has some really severe sentencing guidelines.  Creeps still possess it.  People violate probation every day, despite knowing that if they get caught they'll be serving lengthy sentences.  It's a minimal deterrent.

Logically, passing severe laws might seem to be an answer.  I suspect, though, that you'd only be removing the guns from the law-abiding folks, and maybe some low-level criminals.  The hardened ones, though, would still take the risk I think.  If somebody has no problem pulling a trigger 20+ times and murdering somebody, I can't imagine that they'd be deterred by the worry of getting caught with a gun.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2019, 09:36:32 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1992
  • Tommy Points: 182
Wanna keep your guns, can you really justify it?

I mean, are you talking to potential mass shooters or murderers? Asking them to justify owning their guns? Or are you posing the question to the millions of people owning guns that will never harm anyone? I don't think there's much justification necessary for those people.


Hehe...yeah... mass murders! Stand up! Justify yourselves!

People feel strongly about their guns and strongly about having them taken away. Maybe they are hunters or farmers or scared of other people. I’d like to hear how they justify their needs to have a gun above the needs of others needs not to get shot by a gun. Slippery slope... I know. But Just like those folks don’t wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I don’t wanna have my right NOT to own gun trampled bc everyone else has one. Make sense?

I mean, I understand what you are trying to say. But I think you're conflating some completely independent things.

No one who does not use a gun to cause harm needs to justify their gun ownership against the consequence of someone using a gun to harm. I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would not be responsible for a single gun shot wound, murder, mass shooting by virtue of my gun ownership. My gun ownership is completely independent of someone else committing those acts.

I am not a gun owner and I don't feel like I need one because everyone else has one. I moved two months ago and I don't know my neighbors well yet. But in the house I lived for the previous 4 and half years, I was surrounded by houses with multiple guns in each one. I would even hear gun shots on a semi-regular basis. My right not to own a gun was still intact. So was my right to own one. There was no trampling in any direction.

Ok! That’s exactly what I want to hear. TP. Why did your neighbors have and want guns? Is that want important enough to offset creation of stricter gun laws?

Imagine some law comes into effect with the purpose of getting guns out of the hands of people with the intent to do harm. But it has the side effect of also limiting guns for the people with out evil intentions. Do those people have a reasonable justification to oppose such a law?

I’m sure some do, as some have stated in this thread; protecting farms, hunting, maybe self preservation(debatable in my eyes). What other justifications might someone have? What would your neighbors justifications be? I had a housemate in college 25 years ago that had a pistol of some kind, a shotgun and an AK-47. He wasn’t a farmer or a hunter. We went and blew up a TV, a vcr and some other crap at an unofficial gun range. It was a rush but I never did it again. Is that it for some people? The power trip? So for instance.... Sam, from college, if you’re on here, I’d love to hear why you feel you have the right to have a people killing machine over the idea of keeping children safe at school and people safe at their places of worship.

Edit: I want to add that I recognize “my right not to own a gun being trampled” was hyperbole on my part. I’ll own that. But are we that far off? My kids practice mass shooting drills at their school, some kids go through metal detectors to get to school and some schools have armed officers. Are we that far off? Should churches, synagogues and mosques start practicing drills or have an armed guard atop the bell tower? When does the escalation stop so people don’t have to continually protect themselves and live in fear?

And I guess I already gave you a TP so couldn’t give another... I owe u one ;)

Some of my old neighbors owned livestock and some did target shooting. However, I suspect they would tend to have guns in any case. It's really a culture thing. Just like having a patio outside your house or a fishing pole in your garage. I do think some people like to own guns just because they can.

The problem I have with issuing justification, is that there is no justification needed for those people. They are doing something that is harming no one. When you are asking them to justify their weapons in light of someone else's actions, you are asking them to justify their choices given the very different choices of another person. It's not for them to justify.

Rather it is for someone else to justify the connection between one person's rights and another person's actions.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2019, 12:37:47 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1992
  • Tommy Points: 182
Quote
Shouldn’t those responsible millions be willing to sacrifice their guni ownership for the safety of children, women...everyone?

Can you give me a list of rights that you'd be willing to sacrifice in the name of safety?

Should we give up the 4th Amendment?  The 5th?  What about the 1st?  Certainly the world would be safer without habeas corpus and due process.  Those too?

I have a hard time telling people that they can't protect themselves from burglars, rapists, etc.  Self-defense is a right.  If it was feasible to disarm all of the criminals, maybe disarming law-abiding citizens would be possible.  However, that's simply not a practical solution.

But is protecting yourself justification? Maybe. People have every right to protect themselves and to be just as “armed” as the criminals. But Just like there are other ways to kill people, not just from guns, there are other ways to protect yourself. Take martial arts class, carry mace. It’s a case of of one-upism. You gotta a knife? I’m gonna get a gun! What?!? You got a gun? I’m gonna get a bigger gun! That’s not a solution, that’s adding to a problem. You want and even playing(or killing) field? Fine. Put the field at karate and knives or at the least hand guns. Why does the field have to be at autamic weapons? Maybe we should make the field be at rocket launchers.... :o


Can you reconcile the two bolded portions? If a criminal owns an illegal gun, should it be legal for other people to own that gun? If yes, that accomplishes what we have now, without the useless law. If not, than you don't really believe that people have a right to be just as armed as the criminal.

Hmmm.... if a criminal gets a gun illegally then an everyday citizen has the same “right” to get an illegal gun. Obviously, my position is to limit getting guns legally and to make getting illegal guns harder. The “right” for any person,criminal or not, would be the same, however they obtain them. Not really sure the hairs your splitting add up to much or maybe I don’t get what we are calling a right. Thanks for making me think tho, TP.

To me, It’s simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.

There's a lot going on here. First, I would pose that fewer guns do not equal fewer killings. There have been debates on here in the past about that. I'll be generous and say there's no conclusive evidence in either direction.

As to the statements I asked you to reconcile, I believe it is more than splitting hairs. But we might need to clarify terms further. When you say criminal, do you mean "bad guy" generally, or just anyone who owns an illegal firearm? Because anyone who owns an illegal firearm would be a criminal technically.

I assumed you meant "bad guy" (someone who shouldn't have a gun). So let's say we have laws to keep the bad guy from having a gun. But being a bad guy, he finds a way to have a gun anyway (easy crime, prohibition tends not to eliminate the prohibited items, see history). So according to you, the regular citizen should have a right to be just as armed as the bad guy who has illegally obtained a weapon. But if the regular citizen obtains an illegal weapon to be equally armed, they are now a criminal and "part of the problem".

So if the regular citizen has that right, to be equally armed, that very right is part of the problem. So either the prohibition of the firearm is wrong for infringing the right, or the right to be equally armed is not actually a right you believe in.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2019, 01:25:41 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42246
  • Tommy Points: 2709
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
To me, It’s simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.

I would pose that fewer guns do not equal fewer killings. There have been debates on here in the past about that. I'll be generous and say there's no conclusive evidence in either direction.

That's an incredible oversimplification, but I'd say the real problem was in the framing of the statement.

Fewer guns means fewer gun related deaths and gun-related homicides.

That statement is easily corroborated.


"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #51 on: March 22, 2019, 01:44:18 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37995
  • Tommy Points: 6188
Not that it would happen, but I think if the 2nd was repealed while allowing those that show absolute need to keep their firearms and the government instituted a very fair buyback program, that with proper policing of the law and holding arms and ammunition manufacturers accountable to ensure their products are not sold illegally in America, that in 50-75 years you could get most guns out of America, and that the number of people who die in America every year will be reduce from that of a small city, 40,000, to something more reasonable, like less than a 1000 or so.

Every year a small city's worth of people die by gun in America. Guns kill more children every year in America than cancer does. Our rate of death by guns for children is ridiculously high as compared to other first world countries.

Yet, no action, just thoughts and prayers. Can we at least try to do something so that we just do not accept that it's okay for 40,000 people every year to die by guns, that it's not okay for 3000 children to die every year by guns? Are that many dead Americans the price we are content to pay every year just so we can own guns?

If a foreign country did something to kill that many Americans in one year, we would be at war. Close to 4000 people died on 9/11/01 and we went to war for 16 years over it sacrificing hundreds of thousands of foreign lives and thousands more American lives to make sure countries understand you can not attack America. But we allow 40,000 Americans to die every year, let our kids live in fear, over guns?

For the love of everything we know, we as a country have to do something. 350,000 American deaths in 10 years due to guns is just not acceptable. Imagine a city the size of Anaheim or Tampa. That's what we are wiping out every ten years due to guns, enough people to populate a city the size of Tampa, or Anaheim, or St Paul, or Honolulu, or Cleveland.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2019, 02:36:46 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2616
  • Tommy Points: 663
Muzzle loaders (essentially Bill of Rights-era weaponry) - no check

Hunting rifles, shotguns - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period.

Pistols - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period, and mandatory mental health and social media screenings

Assault rifles and large magazines - banned

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2019, 02:59:42 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Muzzle loaders (essentially Bill of Rights-era weaponry) - no check

Hunting rifles, shotguns - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period.

Pistols - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period, and mandatory mental health and social media screenings

Assault rifles and large magazines - banned

I think this brings us back to a glossed-over point: the number of deaths by “assault” rifles is a drop in the bucket compared to handguns. They’re more high profile, but I he preferred weapon of choice of most murderers is the pistol.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #54 on: March 22, 2019, 03:08:41 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Muzzle loaders (essentially Bill of Rights-era weaponry) - no check

Hunting rifles, shotguns - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period.

Pistols - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period, and mandatory mental health and social media screenings

Assault rifles and large magazines - banned

I think this brings us back to a glossed-over point: the number of deaths by “assault” rifles is a drop in the bucket compared to handguns. They’re more high profile, but I he preferred weapon of choice of most murderers is the pistol.
Sure, but I think the mass killings of essentially strangers is a bigger problem and one that is more easily preventable.  That is why it should be the focus.  I mean most murders are committed by people that know each other.  Whether it is a spouse, neighbor, etc.  In many instances, banning guns won't prevent that type of murder, so that shouldn't be the focus.  The focus should be on the events like the one in New Zealand last week or the Synagogue in Pittsburgh, or the concert in Las Vegas, etc.  And in those circumstances if the shooters didn't have assault weapons the death toll would have almost certainly been much lower.  That is where the focus should lie. 
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #55 on: March 22, 2019, 03:19:00 PM »

Offline feckless

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1081
  • Tommy Points: 88
Muzzle loaders (essentially Bill of Rights-era weaponry) - no check

Hunting rifles, shotguns - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period.

Pistols - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period, and mandatory mental health and social media screenings

Assault rifles and large magazines - banned

Makes sense to me, probably to the founding fathers and maybe even Scalia.
Days up and down they come, like rain on a conga drum, forget most, remember some, don't turn none away.   Townes Van Zandt

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #56 on: March 22, 2019, 03:19:19 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37995
  • Tommy Points: 6188
Muzzle loaders (essentially Bill of Rights-era weaponry) - no check

Hunting rifles, shotguns - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period.

Pistols - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period, and mandatory mental health and social media screenings

Assault rifles and large magazines - banned

I think this brings us back to a glossed-over point: the number of deaths by “assault” rifles is a drop in the bucket compared to handguns. They’re more high profile, but I he preferred weapon of choice of most murderers is the pistol.
Sure, but I think the mass killings of essentially strangers is a bigger problem and one that is more easily preventable.  That is why it should be the focus.  I mean most murders are committed by people that know each other.  Whether it is a spouse, neighbor, etc.  In many instances, banning guns won't prevent that type of murder, so that shouldn't be the focus.  The focus should be on the events like the one in New Zealand last week or the Synagogue in Pittsburgh, or the concert in Las Vegas, etc.  And in those circumstances if the shooters didn't have assault weapons the death toll would have almost certainly been much lower.  That is where the focus should lie.
I see no reason not to address both. It's not like this is a do this or that type situation. You can do both.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #57 on: March 22, 2019, 03:21:46 PM »

Offline feckless

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1081
  • Tommy Points: 88
Muzzle loaders (essentially Bill of Rights-era weaponry) - no check

Hunting rifles, shotguns - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period.

Pistols - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period, and mandatory mental health and social media screenings

Assault rifles and large magazines - banned

I think this brings us back to a glossed-over point: the number of deaths by “assault” rifles is a drop in the bucket compared to handguns. They’re more high profile, but I he preferred weapon of choice of most murderers is the pistol.

That does not answer the question.  Why not ban assault rifles and set strict rules for handguns?
Days up and down they come, like rain on a conga drum, forget most, remember some, don't turn none away.   Townes Van Zandt

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #58 on: March 22, 2019, 03:31:57 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Muzzle loaders (essentially Bill of Rights-era weaponry) - no check

Hunting rifles, shotguns - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period.

Pistols - mandatory background check, safety course, and waiting period, and mandatory mental health and social media screenings

Assault rifles and large magazines - banned

I think this brings us back to a glossed-over point: the number of deaths by “assault” rifles is a drop in the bucket compared to handguns. They’re more high profile, but I he preferred weapon of choice of most murderers is the pistol.

That does not answer the question.  Why not ban assault rifles and set strict rules for handguns?

Why ban the non-problem?  Most "assault rifles" are just "rifles", with some threatening looking modifications that don't really have a lot to do with how lethal they are.  People get scared by the term "semi-automatic", which really should be "not automatic at all", since they require a separate trigger pull.

The overwhelming majority of gun homicides stem from gang activity. 

Quote
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.

Why focus on the guns, rather than the gangs, if we really care about limiting deaths? 

While I'm fine with certain gun control measures, they're really not addressing the problem at all.  Cities like Chicago have some of the toughest gun-control measures in the United States, and yet that's where the murder problem continues to be the biggest problem.

Quote
I mean most murders are committed by people that know each other.  Whether it is a spouse, neighbor, etc.  In many instances, banning guns won't prevent that type of murder, so that shouldn't be the focus. 

The majority of gun murders aren't of spouses or neighbors, except in perhaps a very broad sense of "neighbor".  They're gang-related, and that type of violence can be addressed.  Nobody really wants to, though.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 03:40:32 PM by Roy H. »
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #59 on: March 22, 2019, 03:47:18 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1992
  • Tommy Points: 182
To me, It’s simple math. Less guns. Less easy killings.

I would pose that fewer guns do not equal fewer killings. There have been debates on here in the past about that. I'll be generous and say there's no conclusive evidence in either direction.

That's an incredible oversimplification, but I'd say the real problem was in the framing of the statement.

Fewer guns means fewer gun related deaths and gun-related homicides.

That statement is easily corroborated.

The answer to that is, of course...sort of. If you eliminated every gun in existence, you couldn't have a gun death. There's widely variable analysis of the correlation between gun ownership rates and and gun homicides, given other variables.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required