Guns. I'm just throwing my point of view out there. If I'm wrong then explain it to me.

[2aguy]

Except, that you should consider incorporating the Constitutional aspect and the historical aspects into your reasoning as well.

The left has very little loyalty to the constitution as written. When you tell the left wing "but the constitution says..." I honestly believe most of them roll their eyes. I think most conservatives know that. That's why I made my argument elsewhere.

The right cherry picks the constitution as well. Also, it can be amended. If it becomes clear that the over supply of guns and the childish way with which the less responsible or less honest gun users is a problem then this can change. Pointing to the 2nd amendment isn't a silver bullet argument. There are very few of those.

There is no oversupply of guns.......and not only has crime gone down, gun accident rates have gone down as well...nothing you just posted is even remotely true or accurate...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period.

The real problem is crime, and the people that commit violent crimes and "gun crimes". Most of the time they are repeat offenders, and people that have shown a history of violence. Our real problem is the "thug culture", and a justice system that lets them off the hook all too often and puts thugs right back on the streets. The solution is much stricter sentencing for violent crimes, we need to keep them locked up most of their adult lives. We need to build bigger prisons and keep them all locked up. We also need to keep mentally ill that have a tendency towards violence closely monitored and the dangerous ones in mental hospitals. Also crack down on illegal immigration since many gang bangers are illegals.

I think you are missing a HUGE part of the "problem" as well. And that is:

"Why are there so many turning to crime in the first place?"

Locking them up, will do nothing to solve that. It will only serve to put more people in jail. Figure out the "why" and solve that, the rest becomes much easier to manage, if not "solve" all together.

The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime. As I said the real problem is the "thug culture", which includes TV and music, etc. sensationalizing such violence. Some people may just be too dumb to separate fiction from real life.

But the answer is most definitely to increase prison sentences. Keeping thugs off the streets prevents them from committing more crime. We also need the death penalty for crimes like murder and rape standard.

You say that the "real problem is the "thug culture"" and that "The majority of violent crime perps are blacks and Latinos. You may want to look there and ask them why they turn to crime." I have looked into this, have you? I know, at least intellectually, why many of these people turn to crime. Do you? Have you bothered to do the research to support and understand your position? Have you bothered to find out the "why"?

No, I'm not going to waste my time investigating "why" thugs are thugs. The government should not waste its time either. We are a nation of laws, and people that break them should be held accountable. Giving them a pass because you'd rather look at the reasons they commit crimes is dangerous to society. It's exactly why we have repeat offenders and countless victims that should had never become victims.

So, are you saying that you don't care that these people don't see any other options? Most of them are just trying to survive and provide for themselves and their families. Are you saying that matters nothing to you? If so, then there is nothing that I, or anyone else can say. THAT would be a very cold and unfeeling way to look at the world. I pity those who do.

The issue stems from single teenage girls having children from multiple males, and then having fatherless homes....find the solution to that problem and our crime problem disappears......

If you don't want to be poor....

--graduate from high school

--don't get a criminal record

--don't have children till you get married..

Those 3 things are the best way to keep from being poor....

 

[iceberg]

-own your own actions and be responsible for them and you'll be surprised at the leeway you can get.

blame someone else, don't give a shit what happens to you.

 

[Pogo]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

No...we aren't .....we have close to 600 million guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72% from the 1990s when we had 200 million guns in private hands to now when we have close to 600 million guns in private hands.

We have a criminal justice system problem where judges and prosecutors are not locking up actual, violent criminals who use guns repeatedly...they let them out over and over again...

Law abiding gun owners are not out shooting people.....we have a tiny segment of the population of 320 million people who will not obey the law....

Unfortunately "law" is irrelevant in all this. Criminals, by definition, have no "law". Law keeps honest people honest. Those outside the law require something of greater scope.

This has always been my whole point --- you can't create the world you want just by passing "laws". That's not all there is to it. Never has been.

 

[2aguy]

Except, that you should consider incorporating the Constitutional aspect and the historical aspects into your reasoning as well.

The left has very little loyalty to the constitution as written. When you tell the left wing..."but the constitution says..." I honestly believe most of them roll their eyes. I think most conservatives know that. That's why I made my argument elsewhere.

The left hate the Constitution, it limits their ability to control people. Liberalism is so popular it has to be forced onto the people via threats, fines, and bans.

More specifically it limits the POWER of the Government.

See, most, if not all, "liberals" look to Government to "fix" problems, while "conservatives" (the real ones) look to the INDIVIDUAL. That is part of the trouble with reconciling the differences between the two "sides".

When you're an average American hovering the poverty line, you need something on your side to protect against the tyranny of big or unethical business as much as the government it self. Sometimes it is the constitution, but business finds a way to carry out grey area or legal assaults on people and communities that cant fight back. Are you aware of the injustices which plague and hold down lower class people that are just trying to make it in life? It happens and because of the few resources and poor education it sometimes just doesn't get coverage. The people may not even know it's happening or that it's a serious transgression.

What holds down people.....getting a criminal record, failing to graduate from highschool....having multiple children as an unwed parent....that you can't afford.....

That holds down people...and they all have to do with parents and the destruction of the family by government welfare policies...

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

on one hand, I believe in harsh sentences for crimes against persons and property, on the other I believe once the punishment is over, it should be OVER, meaning once you have paid your debt, there should be no restrictions on you whatsoever. If someone has committed a crime so heinous that it justifies taking their riights away for life, then that person has committed a crime so heinous that they should be locked away for life or executed.

 

[TheDude]

Correct. I will never understand the left's position that guns should be illegal and drugs legal. Especially when you consider drugs kill FAR more people. It works the other way around as well, however, the 2nd amendment, which was written by wiser people than us protects gun rights. There's no mention of drugs.

 

[BluesLegend]

Except, that you should consider incorporating the Constitutional aspect and the historical aspects into your reasoning as well.

The left has very little loyalty to the constitution as written. When you tell the left wing..."but the constitution says..." I honestly believe most of them roll their eyes. I think most conservatives know that. That's why I made my argument elsewhere.

The left hate the Constitution, it limits their ability to control people. Liberalism is so popular it has to be forced onto the people via threats, fines, and bans.

Incorrect. Stop making up bullshit. We are allowed to be critical of interpretations of it or the language itself. "The left are evil gay commie baby killers." You soung like a fucking idiot.

Lib please you people loath the Constitution and view it as an outdated document. Thank Christ we have it and use it to keep you freaks from running amok.

 

[westwall]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

 

[2aguy]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

those are the mass public shooters....and then you have the Catch and Release justice system for violent gun offenders...that covers the rest of the gun violence

Crime Under Illinois' "Catch and Release" Justice System - The Truth About Guns

Twenty-year-old Lavontay Chavis makes a good poster boy for Illinois’ broken justice system. In a little over two years, since turning 18, Mr. Chavis has racked up 13 arrests and spent 18-months in prison for a felony gun charge.

In May, police say he and a 17-year-old accomplice committed a string of armed robberies and then carjacked a ride at gunpoint before leading police on a high-speed chase.

Here’s a gallery of some of Mr. Chavis’ mug shots.



How come Lavontay Chavis remained on the streets of Chicago victimizing innocent people after so many repeated arrests? Because of soft-on-crime Cook County prosecutor Kim Foxx.



Chicago’s “Social Justice” prosecutor Foxx (above from her profile in Elle magazine) gave another hoodlum, Jwan Farley, two years’ probation for a pair of armed robberies. Other armed robbers like DeAngelo Dixon and Leandrew Wallace also negotiated sweetheart probation plea deals from Kim Foxx’s office.

Meanwhile she sentenced a guy who stole 41 jars of Oil of Olay to 27 months in prison. Priorities, you know.



Carjackers also benefit from Kim Foxx’s largesse. Nineteen-year-old Jimmell Cannon of Lawndale like to “bump” into unsuspecting drivers. When the victims step out to inspect the damage, he hijacks their vehicles. Police caught him for a May 27th incident.

In any sane world, Cannon would have been in jail from a nearly identical February incident where police caught him in a similarly ‘jacked VW Passat.

Did Kim Foxx’s office throw the book at this offender on the earlier case? Hardly. Kim Foxx dropped all charges days before cops caught Cannon on his latest gig.

Jimmell Cannon now sits in jail, but he’s no stranger to incarceration. At the tender age of 13, he pointed a BB gun at cops. Cops promptly shot him eight times. His family described little Jimmell as just an “innocent child just having fun in the park.”

 

[Pogo]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

 

[westwall]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

You love throwing out fallacy this and fallacy that and it is clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're babbling about. You claim it is a gun problem and I just laid out chapter and verse how it is a GOVERNMENT oversight problem. ALL of these people were KNOWN to government entities WHO DID NOTHING.

THAT is the problem. The guns were merely the tool. Live with that fact mr i can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[2aguy]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

You love throwing out fallacy this and fallacy that and it is clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're babbling about. You claim it is a gun problem and I just laid out chapter and verse how it is a GOVERNMENT oversight problem. ALL of these people were KNOWN to government entities WHO DID NOTHING.

THAT is the problem. The guns were merely the tool. Live with that fact mr i can't see the forest for the trees.

The Orlando Shooter.....not only was he known to the FBI, they sent trained investigators to interview him 3 times, they initiated an under cover contact with him, and they did a 10 month check on his background and activity.......and he also underwent a background check for his security job, and for everytime he bought a gun......

And they cleared him.....then he murdered 49 people in a government created gun free zone.....the only people who weren't allowed to have a gun by the government were the people in the nightclub......

As you pointe out...this is a Government problem at every level...not a gun problem...

 

[westwall]

You are wrong.

Number one, there is no "gun problem", so it's a waste to compare it to drugs.

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

You love throwing out fallacy this and fallacy that and it is clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're babbling about. You claim it is a gun problem and I just laid out chapter and verse how it is a GOVERNMENT oversight problem. ALL of these people were KNOWN to government entities WHO DID NOTHING.

THAT is the problem. The guns were merely the tool. Live with that fact mr i can't see the forest for the trees.

The Orlando Shooter.....not only was he known to the FBI, they sent trained investigators to interview him 3 times, they initiated an under cover contact with him, and they did a 10 month check on his background and activity.......and he also underwent a background check for his security job, and for everytime he bought a gun......

And they cleared him.....then he murdered 49 people in a government created gun free zone.....the only people who weren't allowed to have a gun by the government were the people in the nightclub......

As you pointe out...this is a Government problem at every level...not a gun problem...

Yep, the one common denominator in all of these active shooter situations is a massive government failure to do their jobs.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

You love throwing out fallacy this and fallacy that and it is clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're babbling about. You claim it is a gun problem and I just laid out chapter and verse how it is a GOVERNMENT oversight problem. ALL of these people were KNOWN to government entities WHO DID NOTHING.

THAT is the problem. The guns were merely the tool. Live with that fact mr i can't see the forest for the trees.

The Orlando Shooter.....not only was he known to the FBI, they sent trained investigators to interview him 3 times, they initiated an under cover contact with him, and they did a 10 month check on his background and activity.......and he also underwent a background check for his security job, and for everytime he bought a gun......

And they cleared him.....then he murdered 49 people in a government created gun free zone.....the only people who weren't allowed to have a gun by the government were the people in the nightclub......

As you pointe out...this is a Government problem at every level...not a gun problem...

Yep, the one common denominator in all of these active shooter situations is a massive government failure to do their jobs.

The Fort Hood shooter, another mass shooter on the government radar.....they looked the other way to prevent being called islamophobic......The Boston bombers were on the radar too........maybe we should make pressure cooker bombs illegal?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so.

On the supply side, drugs and guns are similar. In terms of use, however, they are dissimilar in that the direct consequences of drug abuse are suffered only by the drug using buyer whereas the direct consequences of gun abuse most often adversely affect someone other than the gun using buyer. (The exception to the latter being when the buyer/owner mistakenly shoots themselves.) Another aspect of the usage difference is that guns continue to exist after being used whereas drugs do not.

Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it.

There will most certainly be supply regardless of what the law says. The government assigning illicitness to the object curtails demand, but it won't eliminate demand. The economics of it are that the government making an item illegal results in a downward shift in supply and a correlated reduction in the quantity demanded and a higher "new" equilibrium price.

(Do not confuse a "shift" in supply or demand with a "change in quantity demanded/supplied. The image above depicts a downward shift in supply and the resulting change in quantity demanded.)
​

When supply shifts and latent (rather than effective) demand remains the same, the result is still a change in the quantity demanded. That is because economically speaking, "demand" means (unless otherwise indicated) means "effective demand," which is synonymous with "goods/services actually sought and purchased." Similarly, "supply" means "goods actually produced and sold to demanders." Latent demand refers to goods/services consumers may intend to buy, but that they haven't bought or don't indeed buy, regardless of why they don't demand the good/service.

You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns.

Nobody with any sense thinks the supply and demand will be stopped; paring of it is the goal. Therein lies the problem with the outcome-oriented gun-rights arguments I've seen; they're but sophistry predicated speciously on the notion that would-be implementers of "this or that" gun-control policy expect to stop rather than reduce the incidence of gun unlawful deaths and unintended gun-related injuries.

Why is absolute cessation not the goal of reasonable and intelligent people, policymakers? Because intelligent people don't set and strive for literally unattainable goals.

It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control.

There's nothing intelligent about focusing on the legality or illegality of guns; the focus needs to be on human behavior. The behavior that must be managed is that of gun owners, gun buyers and gun users, recognizing that the three states of being need not exist in one individual. Gun owners need to be spurred to behave such that they maintain sufficient control over their own gun that it is cannot be readily obtained [1] by unauthorized would-be users and/or thieves.

Economics informs us that by making guns illegal, fewer guns will be purchased. Fewer guns purchased will surely do something to interdict gun acquisitions, thus their unlawful use, by some people, namely they who will not steal a gun from someone whom they know has one and who has no other way to obtain one. I don't know how many people that will be, but it's sure to be more than zero people. (It is not logical to presume that a lawbreaker of "type A" is or will necessarily be also a lawbreaker of "type B." A thief is not necessarily a murderer. A pimp is not necessarily a murderer or thief.)

A plausible example of such an individual is the guy who recently shot Congressman Scalise and others; there's no reason to think that man would have unlawfully obtained a gun and then hauled his ass hundreds of miles to VA to shoot people. [2] Another example is myself. If guns were illegal as are certain drugs, I'd have no idea where to get one and I'm not going to put myself at risk asking around to find out how to obtain one illegally. It's not as though illegal gun sellers are standing on the street corner as are drug sellers. That said, were guns illegal, there's no denying that some ne'er do wells would nonetheless find a way to get a gun, but some of them will have no way to do so; thus they will not get one and unlawfully use it.

In looking at behavior and the gun use process, one observes the following:

1. Producers make guns and sell them to lawful retailers. Finished goods not sent to retailers are the property of the producer. Finished goods in transit to a retailer may be the property of the retailer or the producer, depending on the terms of the sales contract.
2. Lawful retailers sell them to lawful buyers.
3. Lawful buyers either:
   • Lawfully use and adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but fail to adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but unlawfully sell them, or
   • Unlawfully use their guns.

Given that process, what I think we should pursue as a policy to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries is to enact a "strict liability" statute that makes the last registered lawful owner culpable, in equal or greater measure to the unauthorized gun user, for harm caused using the gun they lawfully purchased. [3] From there, one leaves it up to lawful owners to take whatever precautions align with the level of risk they are willing to assume should someone obtain their gun and use it unlawfully.



Notes:

1. "Readily obtained" --> Keeping one's gun secured on one's person or locked in a safe keeps it from being readily obtained. Stowing it under the seat or in the glove box of one's locked car does not keep it from being readily obtained.
2. Edit: I checked to see if there is scholarly research of which I was unaware and that shows thievery/robbery and other violent crimes are correlated such that it'd be rational to say that if one is a thief one is also likely to be a shooter of some sort, or vice versa. I couldn't find any.
   -- Correlation between thievery and assault (1)
   -- Correlation between thievery and assault (2)
   
   There's no question that people who commit one type of violent crime may well commit another. What's not been established -- and probably isn't extant given the learnings of choice theory -- is that say the guy who wants to shoot someone is also willing to steal the gun he'd use to do so. The matter of stealing a gun is germane because no law is going to interdict a person who lawfully buys a gun and later uses it unlawfully. That said, if we can get to a point whereby the vast majority of unlawful gun uses are performed by lawful gun owners using the guns they lawfully purchased, we'll be in a far better position than we are now.
   
   James Hodgkinson's past offenses:
   • Hodgkinson has a varied arrest record in St. Clair County, for offenses such as failing to obtain electrical permits, damaging a motor vehicle, resisting a peace officer, eluding police, criminal damage to property, driving under the influence and assorted traffic offenses.
     
   • In March, a neighbor of Hodgkinson’s called the police on him after he shot a gun 15 times near his home. William Schaumleffel told the Daily Beast that Hodgkinson was firing across a field, into pine trees.
     
   • Hodgkinson was also “observed throwing” an unnamed minor “around the bedroom,” the police report said. Police identified the girl as his daughter. After the girl broke free, Hodgkinson followed and “started hitting her arms, pulling her hair, and started grabbing her off the bed.”
   • When a woman tried escaping with Hodgkinson’s daughter in a vehicle, Hodgkinson reached inside and “turned off the ignition,” the report said. “James then pulled out a possible pocket knife and cut [her] seatbelt.”
   
   
3. The "greater" measure aspect would come into play when someone obtains a lawful owner's gun and accidentally does harm. That is what happens, for example, when a child gets hold of a gun and hurts someone.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah there's no "gun problem". We don't have James Holmses and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas at all. These are all staged in New Mexico.

What a self-delusional asshole. We are a gun-OBSESSED nation. We're a culture of violence and death and with it paramiliary cops. It's on every TV, in every movie theater (sometimes even live) and in every other medium. But we have "no gun problem". What a dipshit.

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs. Nobody takes a bag of coke into a movie theater and overdoses a bunch of strangers. So there's that.

Loghner is a left wing loon with a long police history who should have never been allowed to own a firearm. LEGAL AND GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION PROBLEM. Adam lanza STOLE his firearm from his mom, who was a loon and thought that she could bond with the loon through his love of firearms. She also tried to have him committed and was denied A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT PROBLEM. And then of course there is the troubling case of james holmes, a person who was KNOWN to be suffering from severe mental illness so, yet again GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO ADDRESS A WELL KNOWN INDIVIDUAL.

Notice the only thing common to all of them other than your so called "gun" problem? Yeppers, GOVERNMENT! Face it pogy, GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPETENT. Thus they are not to be trusted with anything as important as the ability to defend ones self from violent individuals that the government doesn't want to deal with.

Nothing I posted was about "government". It was about the quoted poster's self-delusion. Go learn how to read. And once you do that try to square what you just oozed with what's in, say, post 44. Ooopsie.

And oh yeah, nice Composition Fallacy. How original.

You love throwing out fallacy this and fallacy that and it is clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're babbling about. You claim it is a gun problem and I just laid out chapter and verse how it is a GOVERNMENT oversight problem. ALL of these people were KNOWN to government entities WHO DID NOTHING.

THAT is the problem. The guns were merely the tool. Live with that fact mr i can't see the forest for the trees.

The Orlando Shooter.....not only was he known to the FBI, they sent trained investigators to interview him 3 times, they initiated an under cover contact with him, and they did a 10 month check on his background and activity.......and he also underwent a background check for his security job, and for everytime he bought a gun......

And they cleared him.....then he murdered 49 people in a government created gun free zone.....the only people who weren't allowed to have a gun by the government were the people in the nightclub......

As you pointe out...this is a Government problem at every level...not a gun problem...

Yep, the one common denominator in all of these active shooter situations is a massive government failure to do their jobs.

The Sorority House mass shooter....also on the police radar...they even interviewed him and knew he had creepy facebook postings......lucky for the Sorority they had a locked door, too bad for the unarmed people in the area where he just started shooting...he also targeted a gun free zone..


.http://nypost.com/2014/05/25/virgin-gunman-vowed-sorority-sluts-must-die-before-rampage/

The father and other family members had warned cops after seeing some of ********* creepy, suicide-and-murder-referencing videos online weeks before the spree, the family’s lawyer said.

But Santa Barbara sheriff’s deputies interviewed ******* and found him to be no threat.

******* was a “perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human” without a history of guns, said family lawyer Alan Shifman.

 

[2aguy]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so.

On the supply side, drugs and guns are similar. In terms of use, however, they are dissimilar in that the direct consequences of drug abuse are suffered only by the drug using buyer whereas the direct consequences of gun abuse most often adversely affect someone other than the gun using buyer. (The exception to the latter being when the buyer/owner mistakenly shoots themselves.) Another aspect of the usage difference is that guns continue to exist after being used whereas drugs do not.

Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it.

There will most certainly be supply regardless of what the law says. The government assigning illicitness to the object curtails demand, but it won't eliminate demand. The economics of it are that the government making an item illegal results in a downward shift in supply and a correlated reduction in the quantity demanded and a higher "new" equilibrium price.

(Do not confuse a "shift" in supply or demand with a "change in quantity demanded/supplied. The image above depicts a downward shift in supply and the resulting change in quantity demanded.)
​

When supply shifts and latent (rather than effective) demand remains the same the result is still a change in the quantity demanded. That is because economically speaking, "demand" means (unless otherwise indicated) means "effective demand," which is synonymous with "goods/services actually sought and purchased." Similarly, "supply" means "goods actually produced and sold to demanders." Latent demand refers to goods/services consumers may intend to buy, but that they haven't bought or don't indeed buy, regardless of why they don't demand the good/service.

You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns.

Nobody with any sense thinks the supply and demand will be stopped; paring of it is the goal. Therein lies the problem with the outcome-oriented gun-rights arguments I've seen; they're but sophistry predicated speciously on the notion that would-be implementers of "this or that" gun-control policy expect to stop rather than reduce the incidence of gun unlawful deaths and unintended gun-related injuries.

Why is absolute cessation not the goal of reasonable and intelligent people, policymakers? Because intelligent people don't set and strive for literally unattainable goals.

It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control.

There's nothing intelligent about focusing on the legality or illegality of guns; the focus needs to be on human behavior. The behavior that must be managed is that of gun owners, gun buyers and gun users, recognizing that the three states of being need not exist in one individual. Gun owners need to be spurred to behave such that they maintain sufficient control over their own gun that it is cannot be readily obtained [1] by unauthorized would-be users and/or thieves.

Economics informs us that by making guns illegal, fewer guns will be purchased. Fewer guns purchased will surely do something to interdict gun acquisitions, thus their unlawful use, by some people, namely they who will not steal a gun from someone whom they know has one and who has no other way to obtain one. I don't know how many people that will be, but it's sure to be more than zero people. (It is not logical to presume that a lawbreaker of "type A" is or will necessarily be also a lawbreaker of "type B." A thief is not necessarily a murderer. A pimp is not necessarily a murderer or thief.)

A plausible example of such an individual is the guy who recently shot Congressman Scalise and others; there's no reason to think that man would have unlawfully obtained a gun and then hauled his ass hundreds of miles to VA to shoot people. Another example is myself. If guns were illegal as are certain drugs, I'd have no idea where to get one and I'm not going to put myself at risk asking around to find out how to obtain one illegally. It's not as though illegal gun sellers are standing on the street corner as are drug sellers. That said, were guns illegal, there's no denying that some ne'er do wells would nonetheless find a way to get a gun, but some of them will have no way to do so; thus they will not get one and unlawfully use it.

In looking at behavior and the gun use process, one observes the following:

1. Producers make guns and sell them to lawful retailers. Finished goods not sent to retailers are the property of the producer. Finished goods in transit to a retailer may be the property of the retailer or the producer, depending on the terms of the sales contract.
2. Lawful retailers sell them to lawful buyers.
3. Lawful buyers either:
   • Lawfully use and adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but fail to adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but unlawfully sell them, or
   • Unlawfully use their guns.

Given that process, what I think we should pursue as a policy to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries is to enact a "strict liability" statute that makes the last registered lawful owner culpable, in equal or greater measure to the unauthorized gun user, for harm caused using the gun they lawfully purchased. [2] From there, one leaves it up to lawful owners to take whatever precautions align with the level of risk they are willing to assume should someone obtain their gun and use it unlawfully.



Notes:

1. "Readily obtained" --> Keeping one's gun secured on one's person or locked in a safe keeps it from being readily obtained. Stowing it under the seat or in the glove box of one's locked car does not keep it from being readily obtained.
2. The "greater" measure aspect would come into play when someone obtains a lawful owner's gun and accidentally does harm. That is what happens, for example, when a child gets hold of a gun and hurts someone.

Why is absolute cessation not the goal of reasonable and intelligent people, policymakers? Because intelligent people don't set and strive for literally unattainable goals.

You fail in your analysis.....you don't add in the fact that those opposed to gun ownership impose these laws in order to make buying, owning and carrying a gun more difficult, and legally perilous for law abiding gun owners...

Nothing they have put forward impacts the violence in our inner cities...let alone reduces it.....since law breakers do not register guns, they don't have to register guns per the Haynes v. United States decision, and they can't license their guns or pass current or universal background checks....all of those are intended to incrementally limit the Right of law abiding people to own and carry guns......nothing more...

 

[2aguy]

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so. Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it. If the consumer wants something bad enough and is willing to pay the price, somebody is willing to break the law to make money from that demand. You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns. All the law can decide is who will make money off that demand. It's either going to be legitimate businesses that employ people and pay taxes, or dangerous and unregulated black market dealers. It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control. That comes with its own set of issues to overcome, but I adamantly believe that it's a clear cut greater good kind of situation.

I've always viewed the gun problem similarly to the way I view the drug problem. It's an unfortunate situation that is only made more unfortunate when you make the people that want to use these things criminals for doing so.

On the supply side, drugs and guns are similar. In terms of use, however, they are dissimilar in that the direct consequences of drug abuse are suffered only by the drug using buyer whereas the direct consequences of gun abuse most often adversely affect someone other than the gun using buyer. (The exception to the latter being when the buyer/owner mistakenly shoots themselves.) Another aspect of the usage difference is that guns continue to exist after being used whereas drugs do not.

Supply and demand exists regardless of what the law has to say about it.

There will most certainly be supply regardless of what the law says. The government assigning illicitness to the object curtails demand, but it won't eliminate demand. The economics of it are that the government making an item illegal results in a downward shift in supply and a correlated reduction in the quantity demanded and a higher "new" equilibrium price.

(Do not confuse a "shift" in supply or demand with a "change in quantity demanded/supplied. The image above depicts a downward shift in supply and the resulting change in quantity demanded.)
​

When supply shifts and latent (rather than effective) demand remains the same the result is still a change in the quantity demanded. That is because economically speaking, "demand" means (unless otherwise indicated) means "effective demand," which is synonymous with "goods/services actually sought and purchased." Similarly, "supply" means "goods actually produced and sold to demanders." Latent demand refers to goods/services consumers may intend to buy, but that they haven't bought or don't indeed buy, regardless of why they don't demand the good/service.

You will never stop the movement and sale of drugs and guns.

Nobody with any sense thinks the supply and demand will be stopped; paring of it is the goal. Therein lies the problem with the outcome-oriented gun-rights arguments I've seen; they're but sophistry predicated speciously on the notion that would-be implementers of "this or that" gun-control policy expect to stop rather than reduce the incidence of gun unlawful deaths and unintended gun-related injuries.

Why is absolute cessation not the goal of reasonable and intelligent people, policymakers? Because intelligent people don't set and strive for literally unattainable goals.

It seems to me that the only intelligent thing to do is to not make these things illegal so we can at least maintain some control.

There's nothing intelligent about focusing on the legality or illegality of guns; the focus needs to be on human behavior. The behavior that must be managed is that of gun owners, gun buyers and gun users, recognizing that the three states of being need not exist in one individual. Gun owners need to be spurred to behave such that they maintain sufficient control over their own gun that it is cannot be readily obtained [1] by unauthorized would-be users and/or thieves.

Economics informs us that by making guns illegal, fewer guns will be purchased. Fewer guns purchased will surely do something to interdict gun acquisitions, thus their unlawful use, by some people, namely they who will not steal a gun from someone whom they know has one and who has no other way to obtain one. I don't know how many people that will be, but it's sure to be more than zero people. (It is not logical to presume that a lawbreaker of "type A" is or will necessarily be also a lawbreaker of "type B." A thief is not necessarily a murderer. A pimp is not necessarily a murderer or thief.)

A plausible example of such an individual is the guy who recently shot Congressman Scalise and others; there's no reason to think that man would have unlawfully obtained a gun and then hauled his ass hundreds of miles to VA to shoot people. Another example is myself. If guns were illegal as are certain drugs, I'd have no idea where to get one and I'm not going to put myself at risk asking around to find out how to obtain one illegally. It's not as though illegal gun sellers are standing on the street corner as are drug sellers. That said, were guns illegal, there's no denying that some ne'er do wells would nonetheless find a way to get a gun, but some of them will have no way to do so; thus they will not get one and unlawfully use it.

In looking at behavior and the gun use process, one observes the following:

1. Producers make guns and sell them to lawful retailers. Finished goods not sent to retailers are the property of the producer. Finished goods in transit to a retailer may be the property of the retailer or the producer, depending on the terms of the sales contract.
2. Lawful retailers sell them to lawful buyers.
3. Lawful buyers either:
   • Lawfully use and adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but fail to adequately secure their guns, or
   • Lawfully use but unlawfully sell them, or
   • Unlawfully use their guns.

Given that process, what I think we should pursue as a policy to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries is to enact a "strict liability" statute that makes the last registered lawful owner culpable, in equal or greater measure to the unauthorized gun user, for harm caused using the gun they lawfully purchased. [2] From there, one leaves it up to lawful owners to take whatever precautions align with the level of risk they are willing to assume should someone obtain their gun and use it unlawfully.



Notes:

1. "Readily obtained" --> Keeping one's gun secured on one's person or locked in a safe keeps it from being readily obtained. Stowing it under the seat or in the glove box of one's locked car does not keep it from being readily obtained.
2. The "greater" measure aspect would come into play when someone obtains a lawful owner's gun and accidentally does harm. That is what happens, for example, when a child gets hold of a gun and hurts someone.

Given that process, what I think we should pursue as a policy to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries is to enact a "strict liability" statute that makes the last registered lawful owner culpable, in equal or greater measure to the unauthorized gun user, for harm caused using the gun they lawfully purchased. [2] From there, one leaves it up to lawful owners to take whatever precautions align with the level of risk they are willing to assume should someone obtain their gun and use it unlawfully.



Notes:

1. "Readily obtained" --> Keeping one's gun secured on one's person or locked in a safe keeps it from being readily obtained. Stowing it under the seat or in the glove box of one's locked car does not keep it from being readily obtained.
2. The "greater" measure aspect would come into play when someone obtains a lawful owner's gun and accidentally does harm. That is what happens, for example, when a child gets hold of a gun and hurts someone.

So.....you haven't thought this through....obviously....but you think you are very clever....

Someone steals your property..takes it without permission and commits a crime...so you are criminally responsible? That is what you believe.....?

So if your car is stolen...and the criminal kills a pedestrian as they try to get away from police...you get arrested for negligent homicide because your car was used by the guy who stole it to kill that pedestrian? Really? That is what you believe?

And you think that is smart and clever?

Read Heller.....

 

[OldLady]

You do have a point that it's not comparable to drugs.

It's comparable to drugs because in both situations it's completely ineffective to make them illegal for a very similar reason. It's not about how we feel about it, or what would be ideal. It's about what works and what is practical. It's about reality.

The majority of illegal guns used to commit crimes were originally purchased legally by someone else. They get stolen, or traded/sold without a required background check, and end up in criminal hands.
The idea behind strictly cutting back on gun ownership is that the criminals aren't going to have access to guns as easily either, because the guns aren't available to steal. Over time, as possession of an illegal weapon is enforced, criminals will have to do what they do in England, and carry a knife. Even the terrorists there have trouble getting their hands on guns. Using machetes and vans. So it definitely works.
Getting stabbed sucks, but it's a lot harder work for the killer and it doesn't usually result in as many deaths as a shooting. It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.