2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[dasva]

The Republicans don't want this to pass, they want to put out a virtually unenforceable non-solution, vote for it, and then say "see, the Democrats refuse to work with us!"

So kind of like the democrats making a similar one that will never pass and even if it did would probably be found unconstitutional so that if they can print a dozen articles all with the headlines that suggest only republicans voted things down and wants terrorists to have guns? It's almost like this is all political maneuvering in response to a political charged situation with each side trying to look good.

[archibaldcrane]

Yep, pretty much exactly like that.

Universal background checks are one thing, but this terrorist list ban has become pure politics.

[Kachiko]

The whole thing is rather cynical. I often wonder what would happen if Democrats decided they would be okay with similar restrictions on voting rights as they do with gun rights. Both are rights, according to constitutional amendments, but get treated differently depending on the political party. It's basically how I know both parties are still full of shit.

[Fiye]

Still going. This is impressive. They won't meet again formally until friday morning so lets see how long this holds out.

Also about voting and gun laws. I wish florida was as strict as voting laws as they are about gun laws.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...ng-rights.aspx

Related image

[Gredival]

I often wonder what would happen if Democrats decided they would be okay with similar restrictions on voting rights as they do with gun rights. Both are rights, according to constitutional amendments, but get treated differently depending on the political party. It's basically how I know both parties are still full of shit.

The difference is that Democrats usually espouse a reading of the 2nd amendment that doesn't make gun ownership the unqualified right that people who are against gun control argue it is. Whether that's the correct reading is debatable, though it has historical precedence.

Republican voting rights infringement is clearly about limiting demographics unfriendly to them at the polls.

Moreover there's no evidence that in person voter fraud is a problem such that encumbrances, such as voter ID, would be justified under the government interest requirements mandated by strict scrutiny. Comparatively, limited gun control to curb the lethality of near monthly mass shootings arguably does meet that standard.

[NynJa]

I'm not sure if this should be posted in the Miss Piggy thread, or here, or even the Pulse thread since that thread became a gun control thread...but yeah

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/ny...imes&smtyp=cur

New Jersey Boy, 4, Is Fatally Shot by His 6-Year-Old Brother

[Galkaeater]

Wrong, I am saying there is nothing wrong if legislation for mass shootings come up now. We don't HAVE to focus on gang violence until it ends before we focus on mass shootings. This may come as a shock to you, but you can come up with legislation as they come and it's OK if that legislation is for mass shootings, and it's OK if that legislation is for gang violence. Currently the legislation is focused on mass shootings, understandably considering what happened, and THAT's OK.

Theres a reason democrats care more about legislation against mass shooting than gang violence.

Former targets republican demographics, later targets democrat demograpics.

[Kachiko]

The difference is that Democrats usually espouse a reading of the 2nd amendment that doesn't make gun ownership the unqualified right that people who are against gun control argue it is. Whether that's the correct reading is debatable, though it has historical precedence.

Republican voting rights infringement is clearly about limiting demographics unfriendly to them at the polls.

Moreover there's no evidence that in person voter fraud is a problem such that encumbrances, such as voter ID, would be justified under the government interest requirements mandated by strict scrutiny. Comparatively, limited gun control to curb the lethality of near monthly mass shootings arguably does meet that standard.

You've pretty much proved my point. You like voting rights because of X, and don't want restrictions because of Y. It's okay to restrict X, because I dislike Y. Both are rights, but you want one restricted more then the other.

[Gredival]

You've pretty much proved my point. You like voting rights because of X, and don't want restrictions because of Y. It's okay to restrict X, because I dislike Y. Both are rights, but you want one restricted more then the other.

Are you unable to process the concept that "rights" are not limitless but are often qualified and conditional?

There's a difference when one side is arguing for restrictions that have historical constitutional precedent vs. the other side arguing for restrictions that are empirically disenfranchising to solve a problem that no credible evidence indicates exists. That difference is being remotely possibly legal under constitutional law.

[Ragnus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us...smtyp=cur&_r=0

TX mother kills her two daughters before being killed by a police officer after refusing to drop the weapon.

[Ksandra]

You've pretty much proved my point. You like voting rights because of X, and don't want restrictions because of Y. It's okay to restrict X, because I dislike Y. Both are rights, but you want one restricted more then the other.

Are you seriously right now trying to shout hypocrisy because voting rights aren't as restricted as gun rights?

I mean really? They are two very very different things, of course they are not going to be restricted the same.


Man, I can't take this whole "lump everything together" shit people keep proposing. There's an internet meme video atm of a guy loading a gun from the 1700s to say this is what the forefathers thought. Every single person on my fb page that posts it has some gun nut responding to the affect of, "Write your post on a quill and mail it to me by horse because 1st amendment."


I can't even anymore with this stupid shit.

[Fiye]

http://gawker.com/supreme-court-upho...ers-1782669804

Supreme Court did a thing.

[dasva]

Man, I can't take this whole "lump everything together" shit people keep proposing. There's an internet meme video atm of a guy loading a gun from the 1700s to say this is what the forefathers thought. Every single person on my fb page that posts it has some gun nut responding to the affect of, "Write your post on a quill and mail it to me by horse because 1st amendment."


I can't even anymore with this stupid shit.

I too can't even with the stupid musket line seeing as the founding fathers were quite aware of more advanced weaponry that already existed at the time. Fun fact machine guns and repeating rifles already existed and were even considered for use in the revolution. Regardless the constitution was written in a way that doesn't specify certain forms of whatever to account for technological advances including 1st, 2nd, 4th etc

[Rooney]

The founding fathers can and have been wrong on several points. Just because they were aware of more advanced weaponry does not mean they thought the general public would get their hands on it.

[Zealot]

I've actually been doing a lot of research into the effects of gun control laws. I haven't gotten into mass shootings yet, but as far as non-mass killings go, there's no evidence I can find that gun control laws work. However, there's also no indication that they don't work. There are too many other factors and not enough research available to definitely say that tough gun control restrictions have resulted in less violence. What I CAN say, though, is that Wyoming has far and away more guns than anywhere else in the nation (198 guns per 1000 people, next closest is DC with 66) and yet has one of the lowest rates of gun-related homicide in the nation (4.7 shooting fatalities per 100,000 people). Wyoming also has the second-highest rate of citizens with at least a high school diploma and one of the lowest poverty rates in the nation, as well as a pretty solid rate of people making a good income. Compare Louisiana, with only 15 guns per 1,000 people, but the highest rate of gun deaths (taking out Alaska, because something like 90% of their rate of gun deaths is suicides). Both states have almost identical gun control laws, Louisiana has just a fraction of the guns, but four times the gun murder rate (19.8 per 100,000). Louisiana also ranks 46th in the country for education and 44th for median income.

I'm wrapping up the study I'm writing on it (just doing some research into California and Hawaii to tie it all together) but take that information as you will.

[Blubbartron]

I think you should compare average population density in those states as well. Plainly speaking, the more people are around other people, the more opportunities they have to kill someone. Pretty sure Wyoming has a fucking tiny population in comparison.

[Niiro]

When you have to drive an hour in any direction just to find someone to shoot it's gonna lower the rate of gun violence.

And on a less joke-note, I'd say the number of guns is less important than the number of gun owners (but I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of gun ownership is WY was higher as well).

[FNH]

The founding fathers can and have been wrong on several points. Just because they were aware of more advanced weaponry does not mean they thought the general public would get their hands on it.

A well regulated militia needed the same armaments as the government they were fighting against.

[Zealot]

It does and I have, but that's why you look at things as a factor of population instead of just raw numbers (and yes, Wyoming does have one of the lowest population densities in the nation). But Chicago has much greater population density than New Orleans or Baltimore and is still below them on our list of most dangerous cities for gun violence. New Orleans and Baltimore also have much higher concentrations of areas with continuous poverty.

I'm not done yet and I'm trying not to inject my own opinions into what I'm doing, but the moral of the story seems to be that we could have our gun-shaped cake and eat it too if instead of focusing on what to ban and how we focused on eradicating poverty and put resources into education.

[zoobernut]

A well regulated militia needed the same armaments as the government they were fighting against.

How do you define a well regulated militia?