Perhaps it is the attempt at only one solution.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Perhaps it is the attempt at only one solution.
Some factors you can control, some you can't. You can control things like how many bullets are in a gun or who owns them. You can't control population demographics.
I don't think you'll find a Constitutional right to an unlimited magazine size anywhere.
I don't believe this. Not one iota. This is a fantasy argument. I cannot recall a single argument for gun control that would actually keep guns away from dangerous people. All propositions seem to be aimed at disarming law abiding citizens. (Please spare me the anyone-could-snap-at-any-time *********) Taking guns away from only those who would use them in defense will not produce a decrease serious injury and death.
It falls under the second amendment. This is an attempt to limit my right to bear arms. Any attempt to argue otherwise is shallow and unconvincing to me.
I didn't say there was only one problem. You said that.
I have no expectation that evidence would be persuasive.
If there are fewer guns in the hands of citizens, there will be fewer guns available for criminals to steal/smuggle/purchase legitimately, as well. Why do you think Europe is not awash in guns?
Since that has no relevance to the point I'm making, gladly.
No, I said there was a specific demographic factor that accounted for the decrease. Not once did I say this group was a problem at all, much less the only problem.
So, if you want to buy a 30-round magazine, and the manufacturer only produces 20-rounders, you can sue them for a breach of your rights to own a 30-rounder?
True. Guns can be controled to an extent. However just because you can do something does not mean you should. You think we should and I think we should not.
For example: demographics can be controlled but we both agree that they should not be due to what that would entail.
This arguement makes no sense and goes directly against my stance that you quarreled with me in another thread. No I cannot sue them. If they do not make what I want then I find a supplier that can. Your example is bad for reasons you already know.
You can't be serious.
Agreed.
Agreed. That's why it's so humorous to refer to your ability to buy 30-round magazines as a "right".
You asked:
I don't think that, and have made no statement to that effect. Must have been you, then.
Sure, just like saying I have the right to the Sunday edition of the Times every day. However, if the government limited newspapers to a reasonable size of 1 page front and back you might question whether that interfered with their right to free speech. While others stand by saying, well, that's plenty of room for an intelligent person to say what they have to say. If they want to say more they're just being unreasonable.
This is a two way street. You are just as dismissive of evidence that doesn't support your argument as anyone else.
So in your opinion, guns owned by law abiding citizens take more lives than they save?
Because the right to own them has always been tightly controlled. It's easy to point to Europe, or Japan, or wherever, but the fact of the matter is, the U.S. constitution specifically grants it's citizens the right to bear arms, where those countries do not.
It is part of the 2nd Amendment. There is a world of difference between a supplier not having an item I want and the government forbiding me from having it.
What I see as humorus is your attempt, even mockingly, to associate them.
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?13575-Gun-Control&p=536033&viewfull=1#post536033
"the problem". Singular.
So, if the Times goes out of business, you'll sue the owners for denying you your right? It's one thing to say you have a right to buy something that is available, that's different from saying you have a right to buy it. There is no right to have specific magazine sizes available for purchase, any more than there is a right to have a specific newspaper edition available for purchase.
Any such restrictions on speech would be accepted only for reasons of a compelling government interest. Some people might claim felling fewer trees is a compelling government interest, but since so many of those trees were grown specifically for paper production, that's a tough sell. Some people might claim that a shooter, requiring more reloads based on lower magazine sizes, might only shoot 100 bullets instead of 120, and kill 18 people instead of 20. Is that a compelling government interest?
What evidence have I dismissed?
I don't know. I'm not even sure what your standards are, and I wouldn't have the answers at hand if I did (possibly not at all, since research is sparse). When a person steals a gun from a law-abiding citizen, and then uses it to kill, do you count that as a gun owned by a law-abiding citizen taking a life? Do the sources for the anecdotes that report on guns being used for defense also report on legally owned guns being used by criminals? Do you have an opinion on your question? More importantly, why doesn't your question have an easily researched, factual answer?
So, you agree that gun control can reduce the incidence of criminals using guns?