when you run shit, you do what you want.
Which is why allowing states to set bans and putting federal laws in place to build their effectiveness would allow states to better set laws matching their population density (I realize some states are very diverse so it’s still a drawback). I think MA’s laws are great for MA. I think PA’s fit PA pretty well. I don’t think one law fits all of those jurisdictions. I also think more cities should follow NYC’s lead.
Hmmm…it seems like the places where lots of people own guns, there’s less crime and less gun violence. (Palantir’s observations–not mine.)
This is probably a good reason to NOT get rid of guns. Like they did in “Schindler’s List.”
…nah it’s probably where there are fewer criminals, there is less crime. but again that proves the point that guns don’t kill people. criminals kill people.
This brings me to one of my favorite statistics. Black males, 6% of the nation’s population, account for more than half of the gun deaths. The regions with a higher percentage of that demographic correlate accordingly.
Is it really America with the gun problem?
My point is, there are clearly cultural and legal steps that could be taken to address the issue. Or, since we all love bans, we could ban black men from owning firearms and leave the laws unchanged for 94% of the country… while cutting deaths in half to almost European levels. Obviously though you can’t legally deprive a whole segment of the population of their gun rights just because of a few bad apples… that would be wrong. Right Dems?
^deport them
I think it’s because the places where guns would be the biggest problem respond by making gun rules stricter. New York City without gun bans would be a total shit show.
Seems we’ve reached nearly 250 posts and no one’s called each other a Nazi yet. Something must be wrong here.
Though maybe the Schindler’s list reference counts…
I’m deeply disappointed in myself.
In case you were wondering, this table from the FBI breaks out murders by device in 2014. 2015 is not available yet, but the numbers don’t fluctuate much. The RIFLES row covers all rifles, not just assault weapons. So hunting rifles, etc.
In summary, there were 8,124 gun murders.
248 with rifles (all rifles). More than 6x that in knives, 1.8x that with blunt objects, 2.7x using bare hands and 0.5x that from GM’s ignition switch.
Assault weapons are the least of all gun types used in murders and followed most closely by asphyxiation. But lets spend another few days equating assault weapons to America’s gun problem. The reality is that in a normal year, this event would equate to more than 20% of the US’s assault weapon deaths. Versus alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, etc.
why don’t we just have a national ban on gangs? put resources into investigating and prosecuting harshly people who are in gangs. problem solved. no need to touch gun regulation.
Interesting who supports pushing gun laws down to states and municipalities. Name the author:
Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.
Guess: Bernie?
I’m guessing Bloomberg.
No, it’s established that bans don’t work. The only way is to seize people’s weapons. I think Schindler’s List gives us a rough idea of how we can do it.
Wrong. It was Oskar Schindler.
ok let’s round up gang members and send them to guantanomo for life. gangs kill people. round them up and eliminate them, problem solved.
You’re all wrong. None other than our next president, Hillary Rodham Clinton in April 2008 just before the PA primary. Barry took a similar view:
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods are also regulated to some extent. You can’t buy alcohol unless you’re 21, if you’re bombed, and you can’t drive a car without proving you aren’t drunk if you’ve been caught boozing and cruising one too many times. Tobacco is 18+, trans-fats bans, soda bans, etc. I know I’m conflating federal and local regulations here, and I think this somewhat proves your point, but I’m just pointing out that anything that could cause potential harm to society can and should be regulated - obviously the extent of regulation can be debated to no end. Not selling arms to people on the no fly list is a pretty good start (somewhat analogous to not selling alcohol to a drunk person).
I lol’d
heart disease and cholesterol kill more ppl than guns, we should send fast food restaurants to guantanamo too