Steve James wrote:. I got this from Tucker Carlson in the past few days, haven't checked it myself, but he said there was a so-called assault weapons ban for 10 years from '94-04 that was studied by the DoJ and it concluded there was no change in gun crime, so that's on example of a common sense gun law reform that had no effect.
That logic is flawed. There have been an increasing number of mass shootings with assault weapons Since the assault ban was lifted. You would have to argue that the increase was not due to lifting the ban.
The logical equivalent to Tucker's argument is that reinstating the assault weapons ban now would not decrease gun crime --because it didn't change anything when was instated from 94-04. However, that's fatalism. It proposes that we must live with the current crime rate. At any rate, there's no way to know the effect reinstating the ban would have. At worst, there would be no change. At best, there would be a reduction --no matter how small.
The other argument implied is that the current gun laws are sufficient. Ok, but does that mean they're successful? Which one of the recent shooters got his weapons illegally?
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:I got this from Tucker Carlson
The other problem is that proposed legislation to reduce mass shootings or gun crimes could harm people in their ability to defend themselves, which is often done without firing a weapon, but just having or brandishing it.
Steve James wrote:I've very clearly explained the regulations I would impose. Offer your own.
If you're in China, do you have it there? Yes, a rhetorical question, but I really don't know.
Yeah, that thing about "rights." Inalienable aren't they. Complete bullshit. But, don't bother explaining why it's a right that Americans have but not everyone else. It's nothing to do with God. It's not universal.
Michael wrote:No, I just asked Ian what specific changes he suggests.
Did I overlook your post about what regulations you would impose? What are those?
The stuff about China is just trivia to satisfy your curiosity because you asked me. As far as this topic, it's a non sequitur and we've been through it before once, I think in 2012 during the Sandy Hook discussions here, and I did the China gotcha line once again recently with Trick, though no in regard to guns. It's totally irrelevant unless you can tell me how.
Sure, I'm giving my source for one data point I don't feel the need to check myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can google and see.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Michael wrote:No, I just asked Ian what specific changes he suggests.
Did I overlook your post about what regulations you would impose? What are those?
The stuff about China is just trivia to satisfy your curiosity because you asked me. As far as this topic, it's a non sequitur and we've been through it before once, I think in 2012 during the Sandy Hook discussions here, and I did the China gotcha line once again recently with Trick, though no in regard to guns. It's totally irrelevant unless you can tell me how.
Did you? I missed that post. I only saw this:Sure, I'm giving my source for one data point I don't feel the need to check myself. If you have a problem with it, then you can google and see.
Michael wrote:You brought up "uniform common sense gun law reform". The usual response to this is to ask for specifics because there are already a large number of regulations and restrictions. I got this from Tucker Carlson in the past few days, haven't checked it myself, but he said there was a so-called assault weapons ban for 10 years from '94-04 that was studied by the DoJ and it concluded there was no change in gun crime, so that's on example of a common sense gun law reform that had no effect.
You said, "Come to think of it, gun laws in most industrial nations are also very effective when they are strict and strictly enforced." This seems to be part of the premise for people reacting to mass shootings in America, but there are still mass shootings in other industrialized countries by crazy people, including one in Russia in the past week.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Well, it ain't easy, like I said. I don't think a ban is feasible given the Constitution, but I already said that.
So, a comprehensive approach including but perhaps not limited to, universally enforced gun regulation (common sense stuff like training, screening, and licensing), universal health care including mental health care, working to lessen the stigma of mental illness, and putting more resources into education.
Also, curtailing jingoism and negative othering.
That's where I'd start.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Sorry, I missed it the first time around and edited above. Sorry for the out of order post.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests