Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?

[Dan H]

“As long as you can go in some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it is easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable, as long as that’s the case, we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence.”

- Barack Obama, March 6, 2015

Anyone know where the Amazon for guns is?

[Dan H]

Not to mention his other glaring misstatement.

[carey]

Not to mention his other glaring misstatement.

[ Image ]

Does that really matter to you? I didn't know the difference. Does that mean I can't have an opinion on assault rifles being available to just about anyone?

[Dan H]

Well, by definition, an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, so no, they aren't readily available to everyone. I don't think it's too much to ask to have a good understanding of something you're trying to ban, particularly when ownership of said items is outlined in the Constitution.

[Mori Chu]

I don't like guns and would prefer tighter regulations on them. I also don't think this is the most compelling reason to look forward to 2017 if you're a Republican.

[Ghost]

Good job trolling, Dan. I think the new board's Politics forum has done a pretty good job of keeping things sane and level. I don't see what your post, which seems entirely geared at riling people up, does to support my theory. I think it's beneath you, that you have far better ideas to contribute, and must be bored.

You even managed to bring up a couple of points that are actually salient to a discussion about politics, but you did it well after your troll bait, so I will opt out of talking about them with you. Maybe another time.

[Dan H]

Title may have been troll bait, but it was probably due to the fact that I was so gobsmacked by the vegetables versus guns statement.

Title changed to be more accurate.

[Nodack]

Obama's statement and the reaction from his enemies is all political BS. It means nothing.

The real issue is where we set the bar as far as what weapons are legal and what isn't.

As a world/nation we deal with this grey area. We don't want other countries getting their hands on nuclear weapons or chemical weapons because that could be a danger to the rest of us. We decided that Iraq, Iran and NK aren't going to get them. It wasn't in our Constitution, we just decided that we couldn't trust them.

In the US we set our own bar as to what domestic weapons are legal and which ones aren't. I am right in the middle of this argument and don't think it should be this difficult. Political BS makes it a bigger issue than it needs to be. We aren't going to allow regular citizens to drive around in M1 Abrahms tanks loaded with Sabot rounds. We aren't about to let people mine their front yards and set up mortars in their back yards. We all can't drive around with fully automatic .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of our PU trucks because society has decided that that might be too dangerous to the rest of us.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere between freedom and the safety of Americans. Right now the line is drawn at fully automatic assault weapons. The left and the right are always fighting to move the bar one way or the other. I think you won't be able to take away everybody's guns because it is written into the Constitution. I have never owned a gun and so far haven't needed one. There are always going to be people that lose it for some reason or another and decide to go out on a killing spree. Maybe you can catch some of them before it happens and get them help, but sometimes you never see it coming. Maybe they use an assault weapon and maybe they use a car.

I used to do a little hunting and target practicing in my day with friends. It was fun. I stopped hunting because I didn't like shooting things that are alive. I haven't shot a weapon in decades, but I understand that some people are into them and they aren't people ready to go on a killing spree or anything. I know people who are against any guns being allowed too that are sane people that just care that people are killed by gun men bent on killing as many people as they can.

As a society we have to decide where the line is drawn. It would be nice if we could do it acting civilized without having to demonize each other.

I am for background checks and registering guns. If you own a gun you should be responsible for it. How large a "magazine" is can be a factor in a murder spree sometimes imo. If he has to reload more often there is a better chance of getting away or taking him out.

Anyway back in the real world it's a big political circus with lots of clowns. I am OK with where the line is drawn right now. It's right at the edge of what should be acceptable as domestic weapons with the AR-15 being legal and it's big brother the M-16 not.

[Dan H]

In the US we set our own bar as to what domestic weapons are legal and which ones aren't. I am right in the middle of this argument and don't think it should be this difficult. Political BS makes it a bigger issue than it needs to be. We aren't going to allow regular citizens to drive around in M1 Abrahms tanks loaded with Sabot rounds. We aren't about to let people mine their front yards and set up mortars in their back yards. We all can't drive around with fully automatic .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the beds of our PU trucks because society has decided that that might be too dangerous to the rest of us.

Oddly enough, that sort of thing is codified in the Constitution and in the various militia acts that came about to cover the 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear "arms" is just that; weapons that are capable of being borne by an individual. Nuclear weapons and Abrams tanks, thus, need not apply.

I am for background checks and registering guns. If you own a gun you should be responsible for it. How large a "magazine" is can be a factor in a murder spree sometimes imo. If he has to reload more often there is a better chance of getting away or taking him out.

The only problem with that is, historically, registration = confiscation. The German Jews pre-WW2, the Armenian genocide, the non-Stalinists, China, Uganda, the Rwandan Tutsis. In our own country, the first gun control laws were used to ensure freed slaves remained disarmed and incapable of self defense.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/15/t ... vorite-law

As far as having to reload more often, well . . . give this a read.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/ ... n-control/

[Dan H]

Oh, wow I'm just now seeing the full text of Obama's quote.

It's, if anything, worse!

“Our homicide rates are so much larger than other industrialized countries, by like a mile. Most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns . . . As long as you can go in some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it is easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable, as long as that’s the case, we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence.'

Yeah, that's a bunch of hooey, too.

[Indy]

Dan, do you doubt there are neighborhoods where it is easier to get a gun than a book?

I am not saying this is the reason our country is so violent, but do you doubt that statement?

[Dan H]

It's a silly way to phrase it, Indy.

Can I go down to some South Phoenix neighborhood (is that still 'it'?) and buy a Saturday night special?

Sure, and there are already laws on the books about felons possessing handguns, etc.

It's all stated in such a way though that the layman assumes that there aren't already very strict controls on the legal ownership, possession, and purchase of firearms. There absolutely are. And like Larry Correia pointed out in one of the links I posted, criminals don't care how many charges you pile on.

I mean, okay, let's look at Australia. They confiscated the large majority of private held weapons and destroyed them. That should make it harder for criminals to get guns, right?

Eh, not so much.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... drug-raid/

You can literally make a submachine gun with plumbing parts from Lowe's. Access to any decent sort of metalworking tools makes it even easier.

The violence inherent in our country is largely limited to the large metropolitan areas. And yet certain areas with similar demographics, population, and size, don't have the same problems. Why is that, I wonder?

[Indy]

Dan, I am sure you know that comparing Houston to Chicago is silly.

[Dan H]

Why is that, exactly? Population and demographics are similar, as seen.

Also, interestingly enough:

http://www.illinoismirror.com/one-year- ... -year-low/

[LazarusLong]

Growing up in Phoenix, I was around guns at an early age. At any one time, we had eight rifles in the house. We learned how to shoot and clean them at an early age. We all took the NRA's gun safety course as soon as we were old enough (I think age 10). A rifle was a tool to be respected, like a chainsaw.

My guess the fading (old) cowboy culture in Texas may have something to do with the difference in statistics. Guns are treated with more respect in the West than in a long-established urban center such as Chicago.

It's not that we need more laws. Probably need better, more uniform enforcement of the laws already on the books. And a better understanding of firearms.

[Dan H]

Thumbs up, Laz.

<----

[OE32]

Laz, if a series of studies came out showing that lives would very likely be saved by the passage of a new law, while having only a minimal impact on the vast majority of gun owners, would you be inclined to pass such a law?

Also, while I don't have any reason to disagree with your conclusion, it's not really clear what you mean. Would closing the gun show loophole be a "new law" or more uniform enforcement? If the federal government passed a law that put similar requirements on all states, would that be more uniform enforcement, or a new law? If a new regulation was passed rather than legislation, is that a new law? What if one law was scrapped and a new one devised to replace it - new law? **Or does it actually matter more which party does it, and what the news station says about it?**

It seems what you're expressing is more of a feeling than anything else. And it seems that's how most people vote, and how most candidates run - based on feeling. If a candidate were to respond to a question with the litany I just trotted out, undoubtedly, most voters would not feel very good about that candidate, and that candidate would lose. People would call it dodging, or being a pinheaded intellectual, when really, it's just engaging honestly with the topic. But that's just it - every policy is complicated. And the world gets more complicated all the time. But our politics has stalled. Rhetoric is simple, and public thoughtfulness is political suicide.

I'm down for whatever solution saves the most lives that doesn't put onerous restrictions on lawful gun owners. Protection and security are extremely valuable, as are lives. I think this is another area where empiricism can and should guide us to the most sensible solution.

[Dan H]

OE, couple of things . . .

if a series of studies came out showing that lives would very likely be saved by the passage of a new law, while having only a minimal impact on the vast majority of gun owners, would you be inclined to pass such a law?

Studies have in fact shown the opposite. See John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime


Would closing the gun show loophole be a "new law" or more uniform enforcement

Please define the 'gun show loophole' to your understanding. In point of fact there is no such loophole unless you count sales between private individuals. Do you wish to give the Federal government authority on regulating what you can and cannot sell or give to members of your family? Do we need "yard sale police"?

It seems what you're expressing is more of a feeling than anything else.

Interestingly, many 2A supporters feel the same way about the antis. I posted the link earlier, I don't know if you read it or passed over, but I really encourage you to read Larry Correia's excellent editorial on the subject. http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/ ... n-control/

I'm down for whatever solution saves the most lives that doesn't put onerous restrictions on lawful gun owners.

There are an estimated 253 million cars in America. There are an estimated 310 million guns.

On average, 33,000 Americans die each year in traffic accidents. 11,000 die as a result of gun violence (said number also includes suicides, but that's not germane to the point). Thus, on a per device basis you're more than 4 times more likely to die in a car accident than you are to be shot. Are you calling for the same sensible solutions for vehicles as well as firearms? Considering that firearms are, as we're so often told, 'designed to kill', it seems odd to me that cars, which are not, are far more lethal. Perhaps our guns aren't being designed very well.

[OE32]

OE, couple of things . . .

if a series of studies came out showing that lives would very likely be saved by the passage of a new law, while having only a minimal impact on the vast majority of gun owners, would you be inclined to pass such a law?

Studies have in fact shown the opposite. See John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

Cool. We could do a comprehensive review of the literature in this area and figure something out. I'm not asking Laz (or you) to solve the riddle. I'm asking, if the studies suggesting that new laws (notice I didn't say loss restricting access to guns) would reduce deaths, would you be in favor of them? If the literature concludes that more guns would save lives, I'd be in favor of more guns! If the opposite is true, would you be in favor of fewer guns? I asked Laz, now I ask you.... because this is what I'm talking about with disagreements being so profound that we can't move toward common ground.

Would closing the gun show loophole be a "new law" or more uniform enforcement

Please define the 'gun show loophole' to your understanding. In point of fact there is no such loophole unless you count sales between private individuals. Do you wish to give the Federal government authority on regulating what you can and cannot sell or give to members of your family? Do we need "yard sale police"?

I haven't studied this issue intensely (economics is my issue; I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to discuss in the future), but I'm willing to bet that the sales between private individuals is precisely what's referred to by that colloquial phrase. There is no "Obamacare" but I won't ask you to define it if you mention it.

Do we need yard sale police? Well, we have them, they're called police. Common law fraud is illegal in your yard, in a tree, in a house, with a mouse... You also can't sell poison on your yard. What's so absurd about applying laws to yard sales?

It seems what you're expressing is more of a feeling than anything else.

Interestingly, many 2A supporters feel the same way about the antis. I posted the link earlier, I don't know if you read it or passed over, but I really encourage you to read Larry Correia's excellent editorial on the subject. http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/ ... n-control/

I will read it. I don't know what "antis" means, but as far as I can tell, 2A "supporters" are people who interpret the 2A much more broadly than does the Supreme Court.

Edit: Oh, I get it. "Anti-2A" people. I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere in the US, ever in my life, call for a repeal of the second amendment. So I'm guessing you have a particular impression of what the second amendment means. Okay. I'll go with what the Supreme Court says. Given recent developments, I actually think the Supreme Court has already adopted a fairly liberal interpretation of the second amendment. So I don't see what the issue is.

I'm down for whatever solution saves the most lives that doesn't put onerous restrictions on lawful gun owners.

There are an estimated 253 million cars in America. There are an estimated 310 million guns.

On average, 33,000 Americans die each year in traffic accidents. 11,000 die as a result of gun violence (said number also includes suicides, but that's not germane to the point). Thus, on a per device basis you're more than 4 times more likely to die in a car accident than you are to be shot. Are you calling for the same sensible solutions for vehicles as well as firearms? Considering that firearms are, as we're so often told, 'designed to kill', it seems odd to me that cars, which are not, are far more lethal. Perhaps our guns aren't being designed very well.

Well, there are tons of regulations on cars. Cars also save lives by getting people to the hospital, by moving police, etc... they also move food, clothing and other goods, and encourage enormous economic development by getting people to work every day, not to mention they lead to the innumerable joys resulting from liberty of movement. You know, the auto industry vigorously opposed seat belt and then airbags regulations, complaining of cost? Well, such regulations turned out to cost dramatically less than industry had anticipated, they saved many lives, and led to booms in the sale of automobiles in the US. So... yes, I suppose I do endorse sensible solutions. But I'm not actually sure whether, after all that, you do.

[LazarusLong]

OE: When it comes to laws in general, I am quasi-libertarian. Meaning, either enforce the laws you have, or sunset them and pass a (hopefully) better comprehensive law to replace ineffective ones. For example, when people push for better immigration laws, I question if the ones already in place have been enforced effectively. Too many times Congress and state legislatures enact measures without fully regarding historical context as well as a current socio-demographic trends. When it comes to lawmaking, it's unfortunately more a matter of grandstanding for constituents ("see what I did for you") instead of serving the greater good. But I'm probably too idealistic in that regard.

"if a series of studies came out showing that lives would very likely be saved by the passage of a new law, while having only a minimal impact on the vast majority of gun owners, would you be inclined to pass such a law?"

In principle, I would be open to that. Again, I would either like to see the law as an update or amendment to existing law, or that similar statutes be sunsetted once the new one is enacted.

"It seems what you're expressing is more of a feeling than anything else."

Probably right. My quibble is with people who get hysterical, i.e. irrational when it comes to the subject of guns. They tend to take a broad-brush approach to gun legislation -- all guns are bad. The same has been true, in general, about drugs, although some states are starting to differentiate how to control/treat certain drugs (marijuana).