Gun legislation?

HillsboroMom

Active member
These questions are primarily aimed at people who are pro-gun and/or anti-gun-legislation. (And this only pertains to the U.S.)

Which of the following measures, if any, would you support as a means to curb gun violence in the U.S.?
  • Require a government-issued picture ID in order to purchase a gun
  • Ban gun sales outside of normal business hours (after 5PM or on weekends)
  • Ban advertising gimmicks such as "free amo with the purchase of a gun" that would incentivize gun purchases, or the purchase of one gun over another
  • Require a person to apply for a gun 30 days in advance of purchasing, to allow for a thorough background check.
Any other suggestions?

(For the record, I am not saying I agree with any of these. In fact, I think I would disagree with all but the first.)
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
These questions are primarily aimed at people who are pro-gun and/or anti-gun-legislation. (And this only pertains to the U.S.)

Which of the following measures, if any, would you support as a means to curb gun violence in the U.S.?
  • Require a government-issued picture ID in order to purchase a gun
  • Ban gun sales outside of normal business hours (after 5PM or on weekends)
  • Ban advertising gimmicks such as "free amo with the purchase of a gun" that would incentivize gun purchases, or the purchase of one gun over another
  • Require a person to apply for a gun 30 days in advance of purchasing, to allow for a thorough background check.
Any other suggestions?

(For the record, I am not saying I agree with any of these. In fact, I think I would disagree with all but the first.)
1 326 million guns in America. Tell me which of those guns are violent.
2 Mexico has very strict laws on gun sales. Tell us how that quelled gun violence in Juarez. One store in Mexico City sells guns 1,132 miles on a burro to Mexico City.
3 How should Hunter Biden be punished for breaking the law when he recently bought a gun?
4 It is against the law to kill someone. How well will the next killer obey the next law?


If someone goes back to school
If that someone takes accounting
If that person passes with grades
If that person takes and flunks the CPA exam

Is that a case of pencil violence?
 
I have a suggestion for the Mom from Hillsboro. Why don't you do a study of the statistical relationship between gun violence and gun legislation. This has been discussed endlessly for decades and decades. Read the literature.

The real science on the statistical relationship between gun violence and gun legislation is like the real science on wearing masks for covid19.
 
Last edited:

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I have a suggestion for the Mom from Hillsboro. Why don't you do a study of the statistical relationship between gun violence and gun legislation. This has been discussed endlessly for decades and decades. Read the literature.
Since you seem to know something about it, why don't YOU tell us, instead of just telling someone else do do the work?


The real science on the statistical relationship between gun violence and gun legislation is like the real science on wearing masks for covid19.
In what sense?
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
None of those measures...

There is no "gun violence", there is only human violence.
That is true.

There is human violence which is meted out with guns, and there is human violence which is meted out with less effective instruments (i.e. fists), and there is human violence which is meted out with more effective instruments (i.e. bombs).

This thread is about the human violence that is meted out with guns, and how to prevent it.

Yes, it is a reasonable goal to try to reduce all human violence, in general.

I would argue that, to that end, and looking at the 3 categories listed above, concentrating on human violence meted out with guns is a good place to start, for two reasons:

(1) Human violence meted out with less effective instruments is significantly less deadly than that meted out with guns. Yes, it is possible to kill someone with knives, ropes, blunt objects, and everything else you can find in your Clue game. But the gun is what is causing the MOST death in the U.S. When most Americans under 40 were dying in car crashes, we instituted seatbelt laws and car makers built safer cars, and now a much higher percentage of Americans walk away from accidents that would have claimed lives just a few years ago. Why wouldn't Christians want to save lives?

(2) Human violence meted out with more effective instruments are usually limited to governments. The idea that a government can drop a bomb and kill hundreds, or even thousands, of people, including non-military citizens and innocent children, is indeed horrific and should be addressed. I welcome ideas to stop foreign and domestic violence of that magnitude. I also recognize that the influence US law may have on such actions is negligible, whereas US law CAN influence human violence with regard to guns.

Now, whether such actions are reasonable is the question. Should we limit US rights to reduce human violence? Why or why not? That is the question at hand.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
These questions are primarily aimed at people who are pro-gun and/or anti-gun-legislation. (And this only pertains to the U.S.)

Which of the following measures, if any, would you support as a means to curb gun violence in the U.S.?
You're assuming criminals are interested in your "measures". That's cute.
  • Require a government-issued picture ID in order to purchase a gun
Why should somebody have to show an ID to exercise a right?
  • Ban gun sales outside of normal business hours (after 5PM or on weekends)
And this would do...what, exactly?
  • Ban advertising gimmicks such as "free amo with the purchase of a gun" that would incentivize gun purchases, or the purchase of one gun over another
Again, what would this do, except put constraints on the free exercise of a right, while being completely ignored by criminals?
  • Require a person to apply for a gun 30 days in advance of purchasing, to allow for a thorough background check.
Sure. Just as soon as you're willing to accept a background check and a thirty day waiting period for your abortions.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
I have a suggestion for the Mom from Hillsboro. Why don't you do a study of the statistical relationship between gun violence and gun legislation. This has been discussed endlessly for decades and decades. Read the literature.

The real science on the statistical relationship between gun violence and gun legislation is like the real science on wearing masks for covid19.
I have a few questions for Stirling Bartholomew:
  1. Why do you think I haven't studied the statistical relationship between gun violence and gun legislation?
  2. Why do you assume I am in favor of limiting guns, or in any of the options I presented (especially in light of the last sentence of my OP, where I specifically stated that I was against all but the first of them)?
  3. Is it possible for you to comment on a topic without having a knee-jerk reaction and ignoring the content?
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
You're assuming criminals are interested in your "measures". That's cute.
You're assuming I agree with all of these suggestions, despite the fact that I specifically and clearly stated that I didn't.

That's not cute. That's willfully ignorant.

Why should somebody have to show an ID to exercise a right?
That is an excellent question. I agree with you. I am curious to know if there is anyone here who thinks that would be a good idea.

And this would do...what, exactly?
That's another good question. Limiting the exercising of a right is usually for the purpose of preventing people -- especially a specific class or type of people -- from exercising that right. When someone suggests limits on a right, my question isn't "why" as much as "what are they trying to prevent"? The question in this case is who, exactly, would be harmed by such a law? Criminals would not likely be put out by such a limit. Criminals don't work M-F 9-5 jobs. This sort of law seems to be aimed at "working-class" folk. So if someone were actually advocating for such a measure, I would ask myself, why do they want working class folk not to be armed?

Again, what would this do, except put constraints on the free exercise of a right, while being completely ignored by criminals?
Again, you need to follow the money. Who is advocating for that law? Which gun makers are currently making a lot of money and gaining a lot of success from such advertising gimmicks? And which gun makers are losing out because of those gimmicks? One might rightfully ask, if this is really such a big problem, why don't the other gun makers offer better gimmicks, instead of limiting the advertising of their competition? It does, indeed, boggle the mind as to why this would even be suggested as a legitimate claim, to curtail rights in this way.

Sure. Just as soon as you're willing to accept a background check and a thirty day waiting period for your abortions.
Hmmm. This might be an interesting trade off. Would Republicans in congress agree to a 30-day waiting period for guns in exchange for Democrats accepting a 30-day waiting period for abortions? I don't like either one, personally, but it does bring up an interesting question, as to whether lawmakers in congress are more interested in making deals or in protecting rights. I think I know which ones would say which thing.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
These questions are primarily aimed at people who are pro-gun and/or anti-gun-legislation. (And this only pertains to the U.S.)

Which of the following measures, if any, would you support as a means to curb gun violence in the U.S.?
  • Require a government-issued picture ID in order to purchase a gun
  • Ban gun sales outside of normal business hours (after 5PM or on weekends)
  • Ban advertising gimmicks such as "free amo with the purchase of a gun" that would incentivize gun purchases, or the purchase of one gun over another
  • Require a person to apply for a gun 30 days in advance of purchasing, to allow for a thorough background check.
Any other suggestions?

(For the record, I am not saying I agree with any of these. In fact, I think I would disagree with all but the first.)
The measures is most likely to reduce gun violence would be:

1) teach children to get married before having children of their own.

2) make sure the kids stay in school until they get their high school degree

3) restore the nuclear family is the basic building block of the society, and

4) restore a lifelong commitment to faith as a corner stone of society and moral formation.

These three measures will do more to end gun violence (and all other kinds of crime) than anything under discussion
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
You're assuming I agree with all of these suggestions, despite the fact that I specifically and clearly stated that I didn't.

That's not cute. That's willfully ignorant.
Nothing ignorant about it.

You're the one who suggested a series of laws to stop gun violence, when the people who are doing the violence don't care about the law.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
The measures is most likely to reduce gun violence would be:

1) teach children to get married before having children of their own.

2) make sure the kids stay in school until they get their high school degree

3) restore the nuclear family is the basic building block of the society, and

4) restore a lifelong commitment to faith as a corner stone of society and moral formation.

These three measures will do more to end gun violence (and all other kinds of crime) than anything under discussion
We are already trying to do these things. We cannot try any harder without violating the constitution.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
We are already trying to do these things.
Correction, since The Great Society in which all the young women have been incentivized to marry the government. Are you aware that in the first half of the 20th century the incidence of unwed mothers was lower among the black population in the white population? The poverty that we have was not alleviated by The Great Society it was caused by it. The fact that a lot of these young men don't stay in schools and become contributors to society and end up in street gangs where most of the gun violence occurs is a result of liberal paternalism. The kids who do have a father in the home don't end up in street gangs. They do in fact end up finishing high school, getting married, and living successful lives, completely irrespective of the neighborhoods in which they are brought up. Hard times make strong men. Easy times makes weak men. And no father in the home makes the street gang the kids new father.
We cannot try any harder without violating the constitution.
There was a great deal of flourishing wealth, free enterprise, and richness in communities predominately in habited by black Americans in the first half of the 20th century. Building on the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, a return to that kind of robust flourishing is quite possible if we get the liberal paternalists out of the way.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
The measures is most likely to reduce gun violence would be:
Just curious, what is your first language? Your English is actually pretty good for a non-native speaker. How long have you been studying English as a foreign language? I'm not nearly as fluent in any of my second languages as you are in English, so kudos to you on that.

1) teach children to get married before having children of their own.
Do you have any evidence to show that (a) a majority of gun-related deaths are caused by people whose parents were not married before they were born, AND that (b) a majority of people whose parents were not married before they were born commit gun-related violence?

If you have such evidence, kindly present it.

I mean, in general, I think it's a good idea for a child to be raised by two parents who love each other. That is absolutely optimal. But I don't see evidence to back up that gun violence is caused by this not happening.


2) make sure the kids stay in school until they get their high school degree
Do you have evidence to show that (a) a majority of gun-related deaths are caused by people who dropped out of school before they graduated from high school, AND (b) a majority of high school drop-outs commit gun-related crimes?

If you have such evidence, kindly present it.

I mean, in general, I think every child should graduate from high school. That is absolutely optimal. But I don't see evidence to back up that gun violence is caused by this not happening.


3) restore the nuclear family is the basic building block of the society, and
Do you have evidence to show that (a) a majority of gun-related deaths are caused by people from "non-nuclear" families, AND (b) a majority of people from "non-nuclear families" commit gun-related crimes?

If you have such evidence, kindly present it.

Again, I am 100% behind strengthening the American Family. I just haven't seen any evidence to support that this will curtail gun violence.


4) restore a lifelong commitment to faith as a corner stone of society and moral formation.
Do you have evidence to show that (a) a majority of gun-related deaths are perpetrated by atheists, AND (b) a majority of atheists commit gun-related crimes?

If you have such evidence, kindly present it.

Otherwise, while I support people of all faiths, and am devout in my own faith, I do not see any evidence that this will reduce gun deaths.

Not that all your suggestions aren't great ideas. They are great ideas. I just don't think they're reasonable solutions for the specific purpose given.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Just curious, what is your first language? Your English is actually pretty good for a non-native speaker. How long have you been studying English as a foreign language? I'm not nearly as fluent in any of my second languages as you are in English, so kudos to you on that.
My apologies, I happen to be dictating into my iPad this evening; I'm probably not doing a good enough job of editing.
Do you have any evidence to show that (a) a majority of gun-related deaths are caused by people whose parents were not married before they were born, AND that (b) a majority of people whose parents were not married before they were born commit gun-related violence?
I happen to live in the greater Chicago land area if anything is obvious from living here, it is that the great society has spectacularly failed. The prohibitive majority of gun crime is perpetrated by gang members. The great society incentivized several generations of young women in working class neighborhoods, to marry the government rather than the fathers of their children. In these now impoverished neighborhoods with no fathers. Young boys seek out a father and the father ends up being the local gang. This is not hard to figure out. If you shut down the pipeline of new gang members, gun violence will go down. The higher rates of gun violence are a direct result of liberal paternalism.
If you have such evidence, kindly present it.
Look, racism in the first half of the 20th century was a terrible scourge. But in terms of actual economic harm to the flourishing of the black community in America it did far less actual harm to that population then has the subsequent great society fiasco.
I mean, in general, I think it's a good idea for a child to be raised by two parents who love each other. That is absolutely optimal. But I don't see evidence to back up that gun violence is caused by this not happening.
These gangs are moving from communities closer into the city center to communities that are further, further out in the suburbs. Criminal enterprise follows opportunity and the population of unwed mothers is moving further and further out. And so those gangs are now available and more and more communities for children who are looking for fathers.
Do you have evidence to show that (a) a majority of gun-related deaths are caused by people who dropped out of school before they graduated from high school, AND (b) a majority of high school drop-outs commit gun-related crimes?
You can keep a constant track of where the violence is happening in the Chicagoland area with this link.
These are the communities, on the heat map with all the murders, were the police don't even go. They don't go there because our illustrious mayor in all her wisdom shut down the precincts in those areas because it's too dangerous. That's because of gang violence.
If you have such evidence, kindly present it.
See above…
I mean, in general, I think every child should graduate from high school. That is absolutely optimal. But I don't see evidence to back up that gun violence is caused by this not happening.
The violence is perpetrated by gangs, and boys with fathers don't join gangs.
Again, I am 100% behind strengthening the American Family. I just haven't seen any evidence to support that this will curtail gun violence.
And you're not likely to. All the studies that illustrate that sort of thing are deep sixed by the main stream media.
Do you have evidence to show that (a) a majority of gun-related deaths are perpetrated by atheists, AND (b) a majority of atheists commit gun-related crimes?
It's pretty good but the people whose conscience hurts them if they speed in a school zone are not gonna go out and shoot someone.
Not that all your suggestions aren't great ideas. They are great ideas. I just don't think they're reasonable solutions for the specific purpose given.
The vast majority of gun violence is not senseless or random,it is in service of crimes in which the criminal expects to profit. That is the province of criminal gangs.
 
Last edited:

LifeIn

Well-known member
Are you aware that in the first half of the 20th century the incidence of unwed mothers was lower among the black population in the white population?
Yes, and the fact does nothing for your point.

The poverty that we have was not alleviated by The Great Society it was caused by it.
A common claim among the right-wing, but never actually proven.

The fact that a lot of these young men don't stay in schools and become contributors to society and end up in street gangs where most of the gun violence occurs is a result of liberal paternalism.
Another common right-wing claim with no support.

The kids who do have a father in the home don't end up in street gangs.
No argument on that point. But it still does not show how we can make more fathers be in the home.

There was a great deal of flourishing wealth, free enterprise, and richness in communities predominately in habited by black Americans in the first half of the 20th century.
Then with red-lining and riots like the in Tulsa Oklahoma in 1921 and other similar measures, racist whites managed to either destroy of appropriate that black wealth.

Building on the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, a return to that kind of robust flourishing is quite possible if we get the liberal paternalists out of the way.
...Correction, if we get the racist whites out of the way.
 
Top