Gun Violence Facts for 2012

You're absolutely right nuk13, that if people were essentially good then none of this would matter.

That is dealing with an ideal world though, and in ours there is no easy answer. Every balance of power comes with serious dangers or consequences, which is probably why everyone feels so strongly that their balance has less danger than the others.

Ddawg wrote:
Who's wishing for greater distribution of nuclear weapons?

If someone believes (as many here do) that the government cannot be allowed to have something the citizens can't, there are only two options: take the weapons away from the government, or give them to the people. I haven't seen an argument yet that successfully describes the logistics of the first, or how to avoid the massive problems of the second. So which is it, and how would it work?

Sammich wrote:

Sammich wrote:

Sure, like our government. It's been viewed as the ultimate trump card. I'm with JVquarterback on this one, if I can't own one, the government shouldn't be allowed to have one. And I would be fine with that.

I would be totally fine with that too, thinking in a theoretical world where nobody had them yet. But our world is messy and hostile governments already have them, so what to do now? That is an honest question.

We follow the concept promoted by Ronald Reagan: 'Peace through strength."



Ronald Reagan 1983: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington's words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. "To be prepared for war," he said, "is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." Well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer. He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: "I've never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey."

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here that is different from what I was implying with my statement/question. I agree with the "Peace through strength" mantra and that's why I don't think it is possible to rescind them from government now that they exist in that sphere. Unless there was some way to banish the technology from the face of the earth. Negotiations between multiple countries to destroy existing supplies isn't enough to fix the problem and getting them all to agree is one of those things that is nice in theory but impossible in practice.

I agree that trying to eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth is impossible. Never going to happen. Russia will not agree - ever. N. Korea will not cooperate - ever. Iran will not cooperate - ever. Israel will not admit, nor agree to destroy their nukes - ever. Etc, etc, etc.



Ok, you got me - exactly what is the point of this discussion. I'm half looped on NyQuil.

I don't mean to sound argumentative. I am really intrigued by the thinking of people on this issue and I want to know the deeper logic behind the arguments. Not heady ideals and philosophies, but concrete solutions that make sense. Maybe they exist, and I want to hear how if they do.

Sammich wrote:
I don't mean to sound argumentative. I am really intrigued by the thinking of people on this issue and I want to know the deeper logic behind the arguments. Not heady ideals and philosophies, but concrete solutions that make sense. Maybe they exist, and I want to hear how if they do.

We recognize that the perfect is unattainable so we venture into the best possible. We identify certain weapons as posing too much threat to justify allowing even law abiding citizens from having them because the risk the law abiding citizens not being law abiding cannot be discounted. So we start with biological and chemical weapons. Ban them all. As far as guns go we debate how big a gun and how much destruction it can inflict and draw a line. I support banning full assault weapons. I recognize that where we draw the line will differ, but in the end unless you think there is no restriction justifiable, you will be drawing a line. For me the line drawing centers on how quickly and how many lives the weapon can take. My thoughts at least.

Sammich wrote:
I don't mean to sound argumentative. I am really intrigued by the thinking of people on this issue and I want to know the deeper logic behind the arguments. Not heady ideals and philosophies, but concrete solutions that make sense. Maybe they exist, and I want to hear how if they do.

Concrete solutions on how to eliminate nuclear weapons in todays world? Never going to happen. There are seriously evil, aggressive countries out there. A couple that I think well over 90% of the folks could agree on are N. Korea and Iran. They will never disarm.



I'm not so sure about the U.S. right now. Just when I think I've seen it all out of this admin. - surprise - a new, unanticipated variable pops up. It's the gift that always keeps on giving - the Progressive agenda.

BoiseBYU wrote:

I don't mean to sound argumentative. I am really intrigued by the thinking of people on this issue and I want to know the deeper logic behind the arguments. Not heady ideals and philosophies, but concrete solutions that make sense. Maybe they exist, and I want to hear how if they do.

We recognize that the perfect is unattainable so we venture into the best possible. We identify certain weapons as posing too much threat to justify allowing even law abiding citizens from having them because the risk the law abiding citizens not being law abiding cannot be discounted. So we start with biological and chemical weapons. Ban them all. As far as guns go we debate how big a gun and how much destruction it can inflict and draw a line. I support banning full assault weapons. I recognize that where we draw the line will differ, but in the end unless you think there is no restriction justifiable, you will be drawing a line. For me the line drawing centers on how quickly and how many lives the weapon can take. My thoughts at least.

And I think your thoughts are similar to mine (though our respective lines may be different). I also want to know the concrete definition of how things would work from those who believe there should be no line. I think that's what keeps drawing me into the debate: I'm not satisfied just thinking I don't understand someone. I want to be able to stand in their shoes and say, "That totally makes sense: you make compromise (A.) because you value (B.)" I think this thread has effectively shown what various people value, and even when I agree in theory I'm not settled because I don't see the connection to its related (and unavoidable) compromise yet.

Ddawg wrote:
Concrete solutions on how to eliminate nuclear weapons in todays world? Never going to happen. There are seriously evil, aggressive countries out there. A couple that I think well over 90% of the folks could agree on are N. Korea and Iran. They will never disarm.

I'm not necessarily asking for a solution on how to eliminate nuclear weapons. If you have one, awesome. But what I am asking is this: if that is not a solution, and you believe that the government should not have something the people cannot, do you allow the distribution of that thing to the people? Is there a way to do that while mitigating what could be pretty serious issues arising from hostile groups/people now having that thing? Or are you simply accepting that such issues will exist and accepting the consequences that come with them?

Sammich wrote:

Concrete solutions on how to eliminate nuclear weapons in todays world? Never going to happen. There are seriously evil, aggressive countries out there. A couple that I think well over 90% of the folks could agree on are N. Korea and Iran. They will never disarm.

I'm not necessarily asking for a solution on how to eliminate nuclear weapons. If you have one, awesome. But what I am asking is this: if that is not a solution, and you believe that the government should not have something the people cannot, do you allow the distribution of that thing to the people? Is there a way to do that while mitigating what could be pretty serious issues arising from hostile groups/people now having that thing? Or are you simply accepting that such issues will exist and accepting the consequences that come with them?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not really sure what you are talking about. A big vague.



1. Q: Do I have a solution for eliminating nuclear weapons?

A: No.

2. Q: The govt. has something and the people (citizens) don't have it. Do we allow distribution of that thing?

A: I would say it depends on what that thing is. If we're talking about anthrax - I say no. Let the govt. keep it locked up tight. No good can come from a private citizen owning anthrax.



However, if you are talking about guns (not artillery pieces, or bazookas), then yes, I believe law abiding citizens that are not mentally ill should be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right - unimpeded by the govt.

Ddawg wrote:

I'm not necessarily asking for a solution on how to eliminate nuclear weapons. If you have one, awesome. But what I am asking is this: if that is not a solution, and you believe that the government should not have something the people cannot, do you allow the distribution of that thing to the people? Is there a way to do that while mitigating what could be pretty serious issues arising from hostile groups/people now having that thing? Or are you simply accepting that such issues will exist and accepting the consequences that come with them?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not really sure what you are talking about. A big vague.



1. Q: Do I have a solution for eliminating nuclear weapons?

A: No.

2. Q: The govt. has something and the people (citizens) don't have it. Do we allow distribution of that thing?

A: I would say it depends on what that thing is. If we're talking about anthrax - I say no. Let the govt. keep it locked up tight. No good can come from a private citizen owning anthrax.



However, if you are talking about guns (not artillery pieces, or bazookas), then yes, I believe law abiding citizens that are not mentally ill should be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right - unimpeded by the govt.

It sounds like you understood what I was asking. And it sounds like you and I agree. I think I was trying to pin down someone who believes no line should drawn. Your answer shows that you do draw a line, so I guess I'm still searching. Thanks for the answer.

Certainly lines should be drawn. In my opinion, we don't draw enough "hard" lines. If I was king for a day, or, say - 4 years. I would address the gun control issue. My approach would be, instead of trying to take away guns from law abiding citizens - I would target violent criminals and mentally ill folks.



1. I would make it very tough on anyone that used a gun to commit a crime. In my world, you use a gun to commit a crime (and no one is hurt) - life in prison - 1st offense. That would clean up the streets real fast. You would see a dramatic drop in gun use crime over about 12 months. Also, the hardcore criminals would be locked up - gone. That's hard medicine - but it's right.



1a. If anyone used a gun to commit a crime and someone was killed - automatic death penalty. Very simple and straight forward. Watch the street violence decline dramatically.



2. Keeping guns from the mentally ill would be addressed, in depth. Instead of putting lots of misguided energy into denying law abiding citizens self defense weapons - because they look scary. I would focus on regulations and laws that keep the high risk mentally ill from getting the weapons. It can be done through required reporting and cooperation between mental health professionals and law enforcement. Also, refund the mental health institutions. There are mentally ill folks need to be off the streets, out of the home, and institutionalized. That is harsh - but it's the way it is.



That's it for starters. Mongo sleepy. 8)

Sammich wrote:

Sammich wrote:
I'm not necessarily asking for a solution on how to eliminate nuclear weapons. If you have one, awesome. But what I am asking is this: if that is not a solution, and you believe that the government should not have something the people cannot, do you allow the distribution of that thing to the people? Is there a way to do that while mitigating what could be pretty serious issues arising from hostile groups/people now having that thing? Or are you simply accepting that such issues will exist and accepting the consequences that come with them?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm not really sure what you are talking about. A big vague.



1. Q: Do I have a solution for eliminating nuclear weapons?

A: No.

2. Q: The govt. has something and the people (citizens) don't have it. Do we allow distribution of that thing?

A: I would say it depends on what that thing is. If we're talking about anthrax - I say no. Let the govt. keep it locked up tight. No good can come from a private citizen owning anthrax.



However, if you are talking about guns (not artillery pieces, or bazookas), then yes, I believe law abiding citizens that are not mentally ill should be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right - unimpeded by the govt.

It sounds like you understood what I was asking. And it sounds like you and I agree. I think I was trying to pin down someone who believes no line should drawn. Your answer shows that you do draw a line, so I guess I'm still searching. Thanks for the answer.

Bueno. Good luck.

Couldn't you make the argument that the right to bear arms only refers to weapons that can be borne?



Meaning, a citizen can bear a rifle. The right to carry a rifle can't be infringed. A citizen can bear a handgun, heck even a greande, grenade launcher or rocket launcher.



Other military grade weapons cannot be borne by one citizen. A citizen can't carry a tank or a MLRS or a nuclear missile, but I think you get my point.



Am I off base here as to that being a possible line to be drawn. Obviously, there are some flaws, a suitcase nuclear bomb, etc. But could this be a distinction?

SpiffCoug wrote:
Couldn't you make the argument that the right to bear arms only refers to weapons that can be borne?



Meaning, a citizen can bear a rifle. The right to carry a rifle can't be infringed. A citizen can bear a handgun, heck even a greande, grenade launcher or rocket launcher.



Other military grade weapons cannot be borne by one citizen. A citizen can't carry a tank or a MLRS or a nuclear missile, but I think you get my point.



Am I off base here as to that being a possible line to be drawn. Obviously, there are some flaws, a suitcase nuclear bomb, etc. But could this be a distinction?

I think you make a fine point. I agree, with some clarification. The gun ban folks would not. Just this last week when Sen. Ted Cruz was questioning Sen Diane Feinstein about her gun ban bill, Cruz was asking questions about the 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, and the 4th Amendment. Feinstein responded (after a lot of back and forth), then asked - "Do you need a bazooka?"



I've heard that argument before fro the folks that want to limit the 2nd Amendment - "What about a bazooka? Do you need a bazooka?" Of course the answer is "No." But a bazooka (now it would be a shoulder fired anti-tank weapon - ie an RPG type) can be "borne."



So, how do you define what the 2nd Amendment was protecting? That's the question. The anti-gun folks draw the line and say you can own low capacity hunting type rifles. I think they are incorrect. The 2nd Amendment never states or addresses hunting.



Anyway - hence the spirited debate.

I would have no problem with a bazooka being protected by the 2nd amendment while a Multiple Rocket Launch System (MLRS) truck not being so protected.

Well - call me crazy - and not to be argumentative. But in my mind, I wouldn't support having shoulder fired, anti-tank weapons being available to the general public. I also would not support making hand grenades legal and available.



That said - I am 100% against Diane Feinstein's gun ban effort. I live in the Republic of Kalifornia and I see what effect the progressive anti-gun agenda can have. The scary part is these cats are just warming up. Make no mistake, Feinstein's bill is a first step.

I think this is a very interesting question about the line, and I'd like to create a poll about it.

Ddawg wrote:
Well - call me crazy - and not to be argumentative. But in my mind, I wouldn't support having shoulder fired, anti-tank weapons being available to the general public. I also would not support making hand grenades legal and available.



That said - I am 100% against Diane Feinstein's gun ban effort. I live in the Republic of Kalifornia and I see what effect the progressive anti-gun agenda can have. The scary part is these cats are just warming up. Make no mistake, Feinstein's bill is a first step.

I'm with Ddawg (a first! ;) ) I'd ban shoulder fired anti-tank weapons. I'd also ban military grade firearms--kalishnikovs etc. But I'd also go much farther than my friend from Kalifornia and ban large gun clips (how large is too large? I am not certain to be honest) I'd ban armored piercing bullets too. This line drawing is hard. But, as I tried to make clear in some other thread some time ago, our Constitution demands this again and again in all sorts of other contexts: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment require a balancing of competing rights and acts

hawkwing wrote:
I think this is a very interesting question about the line, and I'd like to create a poll about it.

Exactly - where you draw the 2nd Amendment line is the issue? Certainly there are those few individuals that would like the USA to follow Mexico's lead and ban all guns. You see how well that works in Mexico.



It is estimated that there are 1.5 million illegal military grade assault weapons in Mexico. And guess who owns them? The drug cartels obviously - their personal army. The public? Well, you see what happens to them. They are fodder for the meat grinder.



The debate really is focused on where the govt. draws the 2nd Amendment line. I get the fact that it is emotionally charged. As our world continues to deteriorate and become more dangerous, I am thankful for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers years ago.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Well - call me crazy - and not to be argumentative. But in my mind, I wouldn't support having shoulder fired, anti-tank weapons being available to the general public. I also would not support making hand grenades legal and available.



That said - I am 100% against Diane Feinstein's gun ban effort. I live in the Republic of Kalifornia and I see what effect the progressive anti-gun agenda can have. The scary part is these cats are just warming up. Make no mistake, Feinstein's bill is a first step.

I'm with Ddawg (a first! ;) ) I'd ban shoulder fired anti-tank weapons. I'd also ban military grade firearms--kalishnikovs etc. But I'd also go much farther than my friend from Kalifornia and ban large gun clips (how large is too large? I am not certain to be honest) I'd ban armored piercing bullets too. This line drawing is hard. But, as I tried to make clear in some other thread some time ago, our Constitution demands this again and again in all sorts of other contexts: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment require a balancing of competing rights and acts

I agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but I disagree with the idea of large magazine bans, I see absolutely zero value in limiting someone to 5 rounds to defend themselves. If you can get 20 or 30 rounds or more, you're trading weight and mobility for more defense. If that's what you want, great.



I also am not sure what a 'military grade firearm' is. All firearms are military grade, so that point is essentially a non-starter for me.