Questions the left won't discuss about gun control

[dutch508]

EdwardBernays (47 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178571

Questions the left won't discuss about gun control, but should - and soon.


I have been having the gun control debate with people on the left for decades now and there's a few questions no one will discuss rationally... by that I mean any attempt to have a discussion turns into an argument ... or worse...

I'd like to try again here, and see if we can have a reasonable discussion, with the aim of better understanding the issues at hand and potentially demand more meaningful things from our politicians - and ourselves.

Who's game?

Question 1: Bearing in mind that no one ACTUALLY believes we can reduce gun violence to zero, and bearing in mind the sacrifices that would be needed to reduce violence past a certain point, what is the percentage of current gun violence you could "live with" as an American?

A few examples of how you might think of this question:

- We have lost more people to guns than we lost in WW2, in the last 15 years. That's a lot of people. Would you be willing to accept a 20% reduction in that, if it meant that the fundamental "right" to guns is basically left intact.

- Handguns account for between 65-75% of gun violence in America. Would you be willing to remove them - by force if need be - to get the gun violence rate down by 40-50%?

So - what percentage can you live with, or if you like, what percentage can America sustain long-term?

I ask THIS question, partially, because no politician will dare predict the lives their policies would save, if they were passed, largely because - IMO - the numbers would be so insignificant that they dare not admit it publicly. For example, Hillary's suggestions - at best - would only reduce gun violence by 10%, and probably more like 2-3%... which means she'd have to admit that her plan would at best mean that 2700 children would still be shot every year in America. Hardly a vote getter.

Straw Man (3,449 posts)
43. New York has had that ...

I think registration of all handguns would be low cost for a 20% reduction in gun crimes.

... since 1911. It doesn't seem to have had much of an effect on gun crime stats, which have swung back and forth from truly dire to relatively benign in response to various other stimuli.

Registration will not stop all criminals, but will make it harder and more dangerous for convicted criminals to own or carry one. Criminals don't legally purchase firearms to begin with.

It doesn't seem to have posed much of an obstacle to criminals in New York. It is certainly not a deterrent, and doesn't even have much impact after the fact, since the gun charges are often plea-bargained away.

Also it would give us a better handle on where the handguns are and make easier to trace and return stolen and illegal transfers.

Again, this doesn't seem to be the case in New York, where the police aren't particularly motivated to restore stolen guns to their original owners or aggressively pursue the chain of ownership in cases of illegal possession. "Getting the gun off the street" seems to be sufficient for them.

safeinOhio (9,421 posts)
47. In that case a ban on all handguns might be the only way.

Star Member Straw Man (3,449 posts)
56. It will never happen.

Calling for a complete ban on handguns would be political suicide for the Democratic Party. Surely you must realize that political expediency requires an incremental approach. That is why I have to laugh every time I hear a politician or propagandist call for "reasonable" gun control measures and deny the existence of the slippery slope. It's one of the most transparent lies in contemporary politics.

If a ban could be achieved politically, there would still be a huge logistical problem, and the concomitant massive police action would make Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the Patriot Act look like picnics in the park.

Effectively ban handguns and you will see a surge in the criminal use of sawed-off shotguns. Human nature abhors a vacuum. Thinking that you can solve the social ills of contemporary American society by disarming the public is both naive and potentially dangerous.

jeff47 (20,844 posts)
62. Somehow, it works for every other industrialized nation. since they have far fewer gun deaths. But hey, that's inconvenient. So it's just like banning something you can literally make in a bucket in your garage.[talking about alcohol and the ban on it in the 1920s]

EdwardBernays (47 posts)
21. the thing is other countries HAVE done this... they HAVE successfully removed guns off the streets... and your meme fails because it assumes that people are addicted to guns... which is of course false....

Laws largely work, believe it or not, except when they're not fit for purpose... trying to treat a medical illness like addiction with the criminal justice system doesn't work, and you can look at places that take a different approach and see there are indeed way to lower drug addiction figures that don't involve jails...

IF it had never been done successfully, or if countries with no guns had as much gun violence as countries with excessive numbers of guns, you might have a point, but as neither of those things are true, and no one is addicted to guns... #memefail

gejohnston (16,139 posts)
24. no they haven't

England's murder rate was actually lower when there was no gun control laws. Countries passed their laws because of the Red Scare, because their murder rates were actually lower than they are now. Partly because many of their 17-25 year old men were dead because of the first world war. IOW, they "solved" a problem they never had. Japan is, quite frankly, a police state. They had two decades of when their murder rates approached ours, but gun laws were the same. That probably had to do with social upheaval like the Tokyo stock market crash in 1924 and crop failures, and after being bombed back to the stone age.
Guns are not that hard to make, even without CNC or 3D printing. The one shot zip gun is the easiest home made gun to make, the second easiest is an open bolt machine gun. Resistance groups in occupied Europe and biker gangs in Australia do just that. All you need are the tools found in a 1940s bicycle repair shop.
My meme is very correct. This one is even more spot on.

Maedhros (7,742 posts)
27. I would restrict concealed carry permits to trained professionals with a demonstrated need. Proliferation of CCPs fosters a 'wild west' mentality that I think is unhealthy for society.

^ The last time our government tried to take out guns.

[thundley4]

Outright confiscation would never be allowed or even voted on by congress, nor would it be allowed by the SCOTUS unless a large majority of Americans supported it, maybe not then.

OTOH, a massive byback plan might work if compensation were involved, but just paying people for the legitimate value of their guns would cost the taxpayer dearly and solve nothing.

[98ZJUSMC]

IOW, they "solved" a problem they never had.

How the hell did you last 16k plus posts and do you understand the definition of a LIbEral?

Maedhros (7,742 posts)
27. I would restrict concealed carry permits to trained professionals with a demonstrated need. Proliferation of CCPs fosters a 'wild west' mentality that I think is unhealthy for society.

1994 called and wants their anti-Concealed Carry talking points back since they never materialized.

[Chris_]

The only thing that resembles the wild West are the urban ghettos, and they aren't registering their firearms or applying for concealed carry permits.

[franksolich]

The only thing that resembles the wild West are the urban ghettos, and they aren't registering their firearms or applying for concealed carry permits.

Uh huh.  They won't say so, but privately, secretly, the Democrats, liberals, and primitives want certain politically-correct minorities to have guns, and the more the better.  They just don't want us to have them.

[thundley4]

Uh huh.  They won't say so, but privately, secretly, the Democrats, liberals, and primitives want certain politically-correct minorities to have guns, and the more the better.  They just don't want us to have them.

That is why none of their proposals are aimed at taking the guns away from criminals or harsher sentences for those that use guns during a crime. No, all of their proposals target legal gun owners, and making it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

[Skul]

Hmm, a fair value buy-back, might be a good thing.
The liberals will sell, the Conservativesame won't.
I like it.

[thundley4]

Hmm, a fair value buy-back, might be a good thing.
The liberals will sell, the Conservativesame won't.
I like it.

And the criminals will keep theirs and continue killing each other and unarmed liberals. It's all good.

[Ptarmigan]

If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
-Joseph Stalin

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
-Joseph Stalin