Let's give Gun Control it's own thread

[lawpoke87]

Thought the topic deserved it's own thread since it's brought up so much...even in foreign policy discussions. I'm on record as not a gun guy and even don't allow them in my place of business. However, I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest that higher the gun ownership percentage equates to more gun deaths.

Neither side is capable of an honest discussion on guns. We have a school shooting and it's used as an opportunity to push an anti-gun agenda. Nevermind that such shootings account for less than 1/10 of 1% of gun deaths....but let's use that as the example. How about this.....let's look at the thousands upon thousands of murders each year in our inner cities and the role not only guns play but social and economic factors. Instead we cover and protest a black man being shot by a cop when a over a thousand black males will be shot by other black males this month alone. Do guns play a role...absolutely. Are they the deciding factor in gun violence...no. If they were you would see a direct correlation in gun ownership % and gun deaths. To my knowledge poverty, race and location play a much more significant role.

Thoughts?

 

[rabidTU]

Thanks for doing this. I'm going to go off track a little at first, bare with me.

Let me start out this way.

Ken Burns has a new documentary on PBS entitled "Prohibition" about the history of that attempt to stop public drinking culminating in 18th amendment. So what does that have to do with gun control? More later when I have time.

 

[lawpoke87]

As I've stated I'm not a "gun guy". If someone can make a compelling argument that current gun laws are the primary factor of the plague of violence in our inner cities then I'm all ears and willing to throw my support behind the cause. However, I seldom see this argument. Instead, the anti-gun people take incidents (ie...school shootings, terrorism, etc..) to make the argument despite the fact that these deaths account for far less than 1% of total gun deaths. Making policy decisions based on the exception rather the norm rarely solves the problem (the norm) and more often than not results in bad policy.

I'm all ears.

 

[aTUfan]

As I've stated I'm not a "gun guy". If someone can make a compelling argument that current gun laws are the primary factor of the plague of violence in our inner cities then I'm all ears and willing to throw my support behind the cause. However, I seldom see this argument. Instead, the anti-gun people take incidents (ie...school shootings, terrorism, etc..) to make the argument despite the fact that these deaths account for far less than 1% of total gun deaths. Making policy decisions based on the exception rather the norm rarely solves the problem (the norm) and more often than not results in bad policy.

I'm all ears.

 

[aTUfan]

If congress modifies the 2nd ammendment, there are other ammendments and laws that also need their attention. modify the 14th back to its original intent; not an avenue for illegals and anchor babies. The administration should enforce current imigration laws and eliminate sanctury cities, . . .

 

[TUMe]

No Amendment ever passes without massive support. The last one passed 26 years ago. It changes when Congressional raises take effect and had been first proposed more than 200 years before. As much trouble as it is to pass a budget, it seems very unlikely that Congress would reach a level of support need to advance it and then for it to be ratified by the States. Anyone who says "I favor an Amendment to the Constitution to..." is playing to the peanut gallery.

 

[aTUfan]

Then how are there many different regulation on gun ownership, if the 2nd amendant is cut and dry?

 

[rabidTU]

Thanks for doing this. I'm going to go off track a little at first, bare with me.

Let me start out this way.

Ken Burns has a new documentary on PBS entitled "Prohibition" about the history of that attempt to stop public drinking culminating in 18th amendment. So what does that have to do with gun control? More later when I have time.

This (gun control) has been attempted before by people that had the best of reasons and intent. The analogy of the Volstead Act is the test case for any gun control measure and Ken Burns agrees - with it concerning Prohibition. The ramifications of Prohibition were enormous and changed the nation forever when the govt got involved in over-regulating a previous lawful activity that forced/encouraged normally law abiding people to break the law. The 10 years or so it was in force created an entire class of people of previously law loving folks who turned against the govt, snubbed their noses at it and openly defied it - so much so that the amendment had to be repealed. But we still live with the organized crime it created and the open lawbreaking in some of our major cities like Chicago which IMO never recovered. Defying the law was then and is now open season in some cities.

If you force law abiding people (imo the most law loving folks in the nation) to become lawbreakers or those good folks to just ignore those laws altogether, there would be an upheaval in society similar to Prohibition or greater. People who have never spent a night in jail, who come from families of folks who staunchly support the laws in place, would instantly become not only law breakers, but law haters. None of that would be constructive in such a diverse society. Disarming the good guys isn't a solution to anything. And make no mistake, that would be the result. An army of bad guys mixing with a diminishing group of good guys would equate to chaos. And the well meaning idiots that advocate this would be at fault.

IMO - But take it to the bank!

 

[lawpoke87]

A list of the most heavily armed states:

1). Wyoming
2). Arkansas
3). New Mexico
4). Va
5). Idaho
6). Alabama
7). Nevada
8). Alaska

 

[WATU2]

If one is serious about this topic, explain why has the Republican controlled House specifically cut all funding into scientific research into this topic?

 

[lawpoke87]

Scientific research? Can't we look at a map where gun violence occurs then look at the demographics of that area and arrive at some conclusions based on that? We can also look at gun ownership in those areas as well as gun laws. Like I said above...I propose there are common themes in those areas with the highest gun violence.

 

[noble cane]

If one is serious about this topic, explain why has the Republican controlled House specifically cut all funding into scientific research into this topic?

Congress is specifically forbidden by the constitution from infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms... Therefore studies of the matter whether they match your agenda or the NRA's would be a waste of money as the congress could not use them for legislative purposes.

If the states wish to fund it regarding the violence in their own borders then have at it. But, this is not a federal matter.

 

[rabidTU]

Congress is specifically forbidden by the constitution from infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms... Therefore studies of the matter whether they match your agenda or the NRA's would be a waste of money as the congress could not use them for legislative purposes.

If the states wish to fund it regarding the violence in their own borders then have at it. But, this is not a federal matter.

Correct. The amendment says its the "people's right to keep and bare (carry) those arms". But lets face it, the thing that the lieberals hate the most is that the 2nd amendment is another limit on government, not a limitation of our freedoms which imo they obviously want at some future point. As long as the Bill of Rights exist and is written the way it is, it limits big govt and gives some powers to the individual person as a barrier to their Big Brother approach.

"Congress SHALL make no law . . . ". That is the way the B of R begins. Nuff Said!

 

[aTUfan]

The problem with the left is, they think the Constitution is out dated.

 

[aTUfan]

Is gun control anti 2nd amendment?

Is speach control anti 1st amendment?

are anchor babies anti 14th amendment.

 

[TUMe]

Here's my opinion. The 14th Amendment was well intended. It meant that if you were a native born American you were a citizen. This was meant to protect former slaves from grandfather laws. Whether you were born free or a slave and whether your grandfather could vote would not keep you from voting and being a full citizen. It was not intend to say that someone could come across the border and have a baby and they were a citizen. The people who wrote that amendment right after they civil war never imagined that would be an issue.

 

[rabidTU]

The problem with the 14th is that there is basically no penalty for breaking the border laws in the first place. So "bingo!" - the anchor baby! If a person were to go to jail for being here illegally then they wouldn't be here to have that baby.

But again, that is a huge reason to have a fence. Pregnant illegals won't attempt to climb it if its high enough.

 

[aTUfan]

We dont have to GIVE them birth certificates

 

[JesseTU]

I heard on Fox this morning that Obama is coming for our guns!

Then I read an article on the actual executive action and saw that people who sell more than ~20 guns a year will be classified as "in the business of selling firearms" and have to follow ATF guidelines for people in the business of selling firearms; including taking steps to not sell guns to terrorists, felons, or people with known mental health issues.

That is more lax than the requirement to register as a car dealer, which I think is 6 cars in Oklahoma.

Someone explain to me why people are freaking out. Even the Republican presidential candidates who are speaking out against this executive order were in favor of "enforcing existing laws" before they were against it. Is there more to it that I'm missing?

 

[aTUfan]

The details of his edict are not my concern; it's his method. The congress is responsible for writing law, not the president. it puts too much power in the hands of one person. Scarry results down the road if we elect the wrong person.

It is the presidents responsibility, and obligation to work with congress. yes congress balks, but bho is not used to having to negotiate.

 

[JesseTU]

I understand your concern, but this Executive Order is perfectly founded on authority existing in the presidency going back more than 150 years. The chief executive, in charge of enforcing laws, has ordered an executive agency to enforce a law. Unless you want to do away with executive orders all together (3 equal branches of government and all), this Order would be difficult to challenge.

Plus, with executive Orders there is almost always a Congressional remedy.

Congress is free to define what it means to be "in the business of selling firearms" and set that number at 40, 50, 100... whatever number they want. But they didn't and they won't, because of politics (even the NRA won't come out and say that someone selling dozens of firearms annually shouldn't be classified as in the business). Hell, most of the people whining about this new action are on record stating they want stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, including background checks.

I'm with you on being leery of executive actions. I think we have too much concentrated power all around - each Congressmen represents 780,000 people. When we were founded, that number was 1:27,000. When Lincoln sat in the Whitehouse the number was 1:120,000. By the time my son votes, it will be near 1:1,000,000. The founders had many great discussions on the topic, arguing about the proper balance between representing people, preventing an oligarchy, and still having a functioning government. There were only 2 million free people in the USA in 1776, so we stick 3 guys in Congress and call it good?

If you double their numbers, you halve their power.

 

[noble cane]

I understand your concern, but this Executive Order is perfectly founded on authority existing in the presidency going back more than 150 years. The chief executive, in charge of enforcing laws, has ordered an executive agency to enforce a law. Unless you want to do away with executive orders all together (3 equal branches of government and all), this Order would be difficult to challenge.

Plus, with executive Orders there is almost always a Congressional remedy.

Congress is free to define what it means to be "in the business of selling firearms" and set that number at 40, 50, 100... whatever number they want. But they didn't and they won't, because of politics (even the NRA won't come out and say that someone selling dozens of firearms annually shouldn't be classified as in the business). Hell, most of the people whining about this new action are on record stating they want stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, including background checks.

I'm with you on being leery of executive actions. I think we have too much concentrated power all around - each Congressmen represents 780,000 people. When we were founded, that number was 1:27,000. When Lincoln sat in the Whitehouse the number was 1:120,000. By the time my son votes, it will be near 1:1,000,000. The founders had many great discussions on the topic, arguing about the proper balance between representing people, preventing an oligarchy, and still having a functioning government. There were only 2 million free people in the USA in 1776, so we stick 3 guys in Congress and call it good?

If you double their numbers, you halve their power.

I Agree with your proposal in principal; but, I would prefer to see the Union dissolved and the independent states allowed to determine their own destinies. Increasing the numbers of representatives will do little to solve the divisiveness. It would more than likely further Balkanize the situation and increase corruption.

 

[JesseTU]

Interesting proposition, but prior to the civil war we had strong states. And in that situation we were generally a weak country, neither our commerce or national interest was able to compete on a global scale against centralized powers. Add to that the problem that the issue of "states rights" was settled with blood - States are not greater than the constitution. My final concern is the disparity, we in Oklahoma love to talk about big pesky Uncle Sam all keeping us down... when in reality we dis-proportionally receive funds for medicaid, snap, disability, etc. Even Texas just got into the "black" as far as the federal government is concerned. The system has been politically balance so the halves (more often the liberal states) subsidies the have nots (more often rural conservative states). Disrupting that balance threatens any union.

I believe ore disburse representation reduces the risk of corruption. Currently, if 25% of Congress is in favor of my proposition, I only need to bribe ~120 additional people to get it passed. Bribing 240 is harder and more expensive.

 

[aTUfan]

I know, the constitution just gets in the way

 

[WATU2]

Scientific research? Can't we look at a map where gun violence occurs then look at the demographics of that area and arrive at some conclusions based on that? We can also look at gun ownership in those areas as well as gun laws. Like I said above...I propose there are common themes in those areas with the highest gun violence.

There is a difference between correlation and causality. Confusing the two is a common fallacy, and one of the reasons we study problems. Some studies that have delved deeper into this issue do not support your simplistic correlation. If we are to understand a problem we cannot shy away from examining it. OTOH if further examination confirms your view then we have learned something and can act with more confidence.

 

[TUMe]

There is a difference between correlation and causality. Confusing the two is a common fallacy, and one of the reasons we study problems.

Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY! So let me get this straight, if there is a correlation between CO2 in the air and global temperature, that may not be the only cause of temperature rise?

 

[rabidTU]

Darn it! I come on here to read a thread on Obama's illegal attempts at gun control and it morphs into Global Warming - - - - - - - - - - again and again and again and . . . .

Here we sit in our homes in Tulsa, Oklahoma afraid to go out on the slick streets with a snow covered winter wonderland outside and a gun control conversation ends up about how the world is heating up and there will forever be summertime in January. Puuuullllleeeeese!

 

[WATU2]

Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY! So let me get this straight, if there is a correlation between CO2 in the air and global temperature, that may not be the only cause of temperature rise?

Surely you are not equating Poke's simplistic correlation with the results of decades of research by the worldwide scientific community? Even Exxon's own scientists figured out the casaul relationship CO2 and climate decades ago.

 

[TUMe]

Surely you are not equating Poke's simplistic correlation with the results of decades of research by the worldwide scientific community? Even Exxon's own scientists figured out the casaul relationship CO2 and climate decades ago.

You continue to use the term "simplistic" to describe Lawpoke's post. Not long ago, you wormed an apology out of him for his contradicting a post of yours. Now you have twice referred to his post as simplistic.

One has to wonder why the government spends so much money on demographic studies, why we see them everywhere, and of what use they are if nothing can be learned from them. Certainly, Democrats will quote demographics when it is to their advantage.

But I will get even more simplistic. Sometimes the truth can be simple. There is a lot of blame given to guns, to Congress, to the NRA, to gun companies. It seems we leave out one group. The main cause of gun deaths is people who kill people. Put the blame where it belongs. Whether people are killed with guns, knifes, or strangled with brute strength of hands, the cause of murders, manslaughters, and others injuries is the person who does them.

 

[JesseTU]

All this talk about research...

But the "pro-gun" lobby is so terrified of what the facts will show that they do all they can to ban research on firearms as they relate to society, public health, or crime.

Why do you think one side of an argument would want to ban research, hmmm, lets think. Maybe we can find historic reasons:

- The Catholic Church banned astronomers from researching a heliocentric model of the solar system
- Slave owners refused to allow research into the intelligence of black people in the south
- Tobacco companies fought research on health risks of smoking
- Oil and gas companies fought climate research
- Mary Falin fights research on earthquakes

Oh yeah. In each of those history lessons the people trying to stop research knew what the answer was, but didn't like it. It's easier to face the truth if you can just keep what that is hidden a little longer...

 

[TUMe]

I see why this is called Crossfire.

Lawpoke talks about demographics and WATU says it's simplistic.
Jesse wants more research. Research would have to include demographics.
WATU says correlation doesn't equal cause which is technically true.
But research would be about correlation.

The question is why do people kill people. Why do they use knives, why do they beat people to death, why do they bludgeon people to death. People drove through crowds at Stillwater and Vegas, but the United Auto Workers is against outlawing autos. Liberals say guns should be registered like cars. But there is no background check for buying a car [I'm not against background checks for guns] and no waiting period. Maybe there would be less cars reprocessed with a waiting period.

Whatever we do, let's not blame the killers.

 

[noble cane]

Interesting proposition, but prior to the civil war we had strong states. And in that situation we were generally a weak country, neither our commerce or national interest was able to compete on a global scale against centralized powers. Add to that the problem that the issue of "states rights" was settled with blood - States are not greater than the constitution.

States are greater than the constitution... Otherwise the constitution would not limit the power of the federal govt and reserve the powers not given to the federal govt for the states or the people.

Yes the federal govt assumed its power through blood. The tyrant Lincoln chose to fight a war rather than work out political differences in congress. Lincoln staged the greatest bloody revolution in history. And burned the constitution in the process.

And yes without a central govt we might not be the power we are... But given the founders desire to be free of a central strong government because of the problems they create, wouldn't it stand to reason that they never intended the united States to be the power it has become, with all of its inherent meddling?

 

[JesseTU]

Whatever we do, let's not blame the killers.

I'm fine blaming the killers, first and foremost. It is their responsibility above anyone else.

However, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and takes out Israel - it is on Iran first and foremost, but I would also have some significant questions about the actions of Russia and the United States that either contributed to, or failed to stop that action. I would want to know what we plan on doing to stop Iran from doing that again and stop other States from having the ability to do it.

A firearm is a tool, one that needs a person to operate it and needs a person to make that tool fatal to someone else. But without that tool, said person would not be nearly as lethal, would be less likely to act, would be easier to defend against, and (statistically) would even be less likely to harm them-self. Pretending that it is just "people killing people" is not looking at the entire picture: people kill people with guns.

Also, you mentioned cars. Large, fast moving, and while not designed to kill, they are dangerous objects. That we required insurance and a license to drive. So...

States are greater than the constitution... Otherwise the constitution would not limit the power of the federal govt and reserve the powers not given to the federal govt for the states or the people.

You are correct, in that the States have powered reserved to them and the States create the constitution. However, the notion that the State truly operate as independent little nations died with the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. They didn't work. They didn't give the central government enough power to actually govern, so they were scrapped and replaced.

Even when the Confederate States tried to bring back a similar document, internally it was disregarded faster than the Union disregarding the Constitution.

More practically, US jurisprudence predating the civil war made it clear that the Constitution was not "optional" as it applied to the States. The States ceded power to the Federal Government when they ratified the Constitution. To what extent and could that be revoked? Well, that was a serious question - one that the reconstruction Amendments put to bed 150 years ago.

Yes the federal govt assumed its power through blood. The tyrant Lincoln chose to fight a war rather than work out political differences in congress. Lincoln staged the greatest bloody revolution in history. And burned the constitution in the process.

Yes and no. There was no political solution that could be reached to maintain a Union, by 1860 it was painfully clear that such a thing simply wasn't going to happen. The question was whether or not States could choose to leave the Union. That was being debated as cannon balls landed at Ft. Sumtner - at which point, further discussion was moot.

And yes, Lincoln absolutely burned the constitution during the Civil War. He rounded up "dissidents" with no due process, suspended habeas corpus, did plenty of taking (even of Union property) without just compensation, he boarded US soldiers in American homes, he instituted a draft, and on and on and on. Was it better or worse than previous or subsequent wars? Certainly a larger scale than most, but our history of adhering to the Constitution during wartime is dubious at best.

And yes without a central govt we might not be the power we are... But given the founders desire to be free of a central strong government because of the problems they create, wouldn't it stand to reason that they never intended the united States to be the power it has become, with all of its inherent meddling?

I haven't researched nor considered this proposition enough to make an informed discussion. My gut reaction is that they intended for there to be a strong nation, as the founders were the ones who solidified the new, stronger constitution and had a say in deciding to stand up to Great Britain in 1812. I'd have to do a lot of reading with an eye on the subject to formulate a decent discussion.

 

[TUMe]

Also, you mentioned cars. Large, fast moving, and while not designed to kill, they are dangerous objects. That we required insurance and a license to drive. So...

A license is a bit different. However, in the case of concealed carry there is a license. Pretty basic on safety and operation of the gun. Armed security requires a two week course and final shooting test. The military requires much more training. The more trained you are the safer you are in terms of accidents and the more lethal you are if you wish to be.

A drivers license seeks safety and reasonable skill. There is no background check, other than traffic violations. A felon can own a car and there is no waiting period unless you buy a car on Saturday and they are busy. I can sell you my car. I could even turn cars...not like Don Thorton with several dealerships...but a few here and there from time to time. No thanks.

Las Vegas and oSu homecoming show that under the right circumstances a car can be as deadly as two gunners at San Bernardino. At one time, I had some good hands on experience with fire arms. I had guns and ammo. But I was only lacking one thing. That was the desire to kill anyone.

 

[noble cane]

It's is always interesting that people celebrate our secession from the crown but deny the right of the states to secede when it comes to the war of northern aggression.

They celebrate the independence of the various states of the former Soviet Union, but, talk of the independence of the states and their rights to organize into their own chosen political and geographic boundaries is denied or dismissed. The union was not an entity to maintain. There was no internal insurgency. These were independent states that formed their own confederation through votes of duly elected legislatures under the framework of their own constitutions which in many cases predated the federal one.

Lincoln removed the right of political self determination from a whole nation at the point of a gun and in the process changed the nation from a representative republic to an empire. He fought a war driven not on the feigned morality or high ground of preserving the union (although that was the supplied reason) but rather a war driven on economics, jealousies, and political bickering dating back to the founding.

 

[WATU2]

Scientific research? Can't we look at a map where gun violence occurs then look at the demographics of that area and arrive at some conclusions based on that?

Research because there is a difference between correlation and causation. Take this chart for example. Here's a chart mapping red vs. blue states with gun deaths. What else do we need to know?

 

[lawpoke87]

Are we talking gun violence or deaths including suicide? Where in those states are these murders concentrated? Do those high violence areas have common characteristics? The graph attempts to imply that gun violence is greatest in conservative/Republican areas. I assert that simply isn't true and a further breakdown of the actual locations of the greatest gun violence would show that predominantly liberal/Democratic areas in those states in fact have the greatest incidents of violence. For instance .....There have been over 100 people shot in Chicago alone the first ten days of 2016 including 19 killed. That is a staggering number looking at the locations of those shootings show a vast majority occurring in the poor areas on the south side.

 

[TUMe]

The plot is screwy. The highest state is Alaska which is shown as mildly liberal.

NE, SD, and TX are lower than ME, OR, NM. NM borders TX.
Your own state of WA is on a par with NE and SD and above IA which is mildly red.
DE,CO, PA, MI, DC are higher or equal to about 8 red states. 12 red states are lower than MI.

Honesty would be plotting the states where they fall and the colors where they fall. OK and NM would fall side by side, just like the do on they map.

The goofy grouping exaggerates. Also note that mildly liberal Alaska and mildly conservative Montana are both states that have bears. Bears make people want to have guns.

 

[aTUfan]

Where would you feel safer at 3:00 am? chicago or juno alaska.

 

[WATU2]

Are we talking gun violence or deaths including suicide? Where in those states are these murders concentrated? Do those high violence areas have common characteristics? The graph attempts to imply that gun violence is greatest in conservative/Republican areas. I assert that simply isn't true and a further breakdown of the actual locations of the greatest gun violence would show that predominantly liberal/Democratic areas in those states in fact have the greatest incidents of violence. For instance .....There have been over 100 people shot in Chicago alone the first ten days of 2016 including 19 killed. That is a staggering number looking at the locations of those shootings show a vast majority occurring in the poor areas on the south side.

Hmmmm. Why does the correlation in this graph raise a host (of good) questions but the correlation you posted demonstrate that no further research or questions are needed?