Gun owners in WA have given up

[AlexanderA]

The core of the problem which is never successfully addressed by new gun control laws is that criminals by definition do not follow the law.

Obviously. In addition, there are those who are not criminals now but would become "criminals" with respect to the new gun law. Guns are an existential issue for a lot of people. They're not going to obey something simply because it's written on a piece of paper. In fact, guns are more of a core value in this culture than alcohol, and we saw what happened when they tried to abolish alcohol.

 

[redcon1]

Your post 133 is an example.

It's an example that supports everything I have been saying, that gun control laws do not reduce homicide rates, do not reduce violent crime rates, do not even reduce gun crime rates-that it isn't that gun control works for one group of people and not another but, rather, that gun control just doesn't work for any group of people.
Were I to go a step further, I'd say that, although it is always cited as the chief justification for implementing strict gun control laws, reducing homicide rates is not the actual reason for implementing strict gun control laws. Were I to go another step further, I would argue that gun control laws actually make us all less safe and that that has been well known for centuries. Cesare Beccaria knew it in 1764 when he wrote the following and Thomas Jefferson knew it shortly thereafter when he entered into his own diary and used it to build our constitution:

 

[JCJIM]

.

More likely, we're heading for a dystopian "Road Warrior" world in which everybody will be armed. We're halfway there already. There's simply no way to remove the existing inventory of guns, laws or no laws.

There will be no road warrior life here, there are 350 million people. But there is a way to get rid of all the guns. If/when everything gets to the point of outlawing guns the laws passed, against having a gun could be so severe that no one would ever have a gun, criminals would go back to bats and knives.

Laws could be passed that would give anyone with a gun a automatic life sentence without parol. A law could be passed to take all your personal property homes, cars, bank accounts, take you kids away and put them up for adoption, anything is possible at that point, hel many states already have laws now on drugs that let them confiscate everything you have. Anything they want they always can get it, they make the laws we have to live by.

A authoritarian government that's being pushed now by some could institute all this, just look at China, Russia there are dozens of other countries, that show what will happen, the first thing they do is get rid of all the guns and pass terrible laws to insure nobody has guns but the government/ military, the constitution is ripped up. freedom and rights are non existent. With no freedom, no rights, no vote you get the above.

Do you really think if you had a family you'd take the chance to have a gun if the laws were that severe NA, 99%. of everyone would not have a gun, all but a very few would do it and it would be just a matter of time before they'd all be in jail.

Did you see, years back when the military was going after Arab bad guys with the drowns, these dudes didn't have a chance nor did their families. That would be the future.

 

[The Glockodile]

There will be no road warrior life here...

Sad.

 

[redcon1]

.
A authoritarian government that's being pushed now by some could institute all this, just look at China, Russia there are dozens of other countries, that show what will happen, the first thing they do is get rid of all the guns and pass terrible laws to insure nobody has guns but the government/ military, the constitution is ripped up. freedom and rights are non existent. With no freedom, no rights, no vote you get the above...Did you see, years back when the military was going after Arab bad guys with the drowns, these dudes didn't have a chance nor did their families. That would be the future

There will be a civil war/revolution before it gets to that point. They thought January 6th was something? That was nothing. They will be the ones that have to spend their lives hiding in bunkers. There will be a million Americans who will happily exchange their life for one or two of theirs and it would be the end of this nation regardless of the outcome.

 

[JCJIM]

There will be a civil war/revolution before it gets to that point. They thought January 6th was something? That was nothing. They will be the ones that have to spend their lives hiding in bunkers. There will be a million Americans who will happily exchange their life for one or two of theirs and it would be the end of this nation regardless of the outcome.

If you know, what was the bunch on Jan 6 saying? What exactly do they want?

 

[Howland937]

If you know, what was the bunch on Jan 6 saying? What exactly do they want?

The same thing every mob wants. Attention.

 

[redcon1]

If you know, what was the bunch on Jan 6 saying? What exactly do they want?

I think there were probably different folks with different agendas there. I don't think it was an "insurrection". I think the events of the preceding 4 years were an insurrection and January 6th was just a way to shift attention away from everything that happened before January 6th.

 

[danez71]

No I didn't. Go ahead and point out where I listed any reasons why gun control would work in one population but not in another

Your post 133 is an example.

It's an example that supports....

That also supports why one county of similar size, or not, may have different results that another within same state or different state.

<smh> It's your own answer and you're not even applying it.

 

[AlexanderA]

Laws could be passed that would give anyone with a gun a automatic life sentence without parole. A law could be passed to take all your personal property homes, cars, bank accounts, take you kids away and put them up for adoption, anything is possible at that point, hell many states already have laws now on drugs that let them confiscate everything you have. Anything they want they always can get it, they make the laws we have to live by.

The harsher the penalties, the more the pushback. This is America. We can't even mandate vaccines and get everybody to conform. With guns it would be 1,000 times worse. You'd have total chaos. No government could withstand that.

 

[redcon1]

That also supports why one county of similar size, or not, may have different results that another within same state or different state.

<smh> It's your own answer and you're not even applying it.

Gun control laws aren't supposed to reduce homicides and violent crimes in cities and populations where homicides and violent crimes aren't a problem. They only have to reduce homicides and violent crimes in the cities/populations where homicides and violent crimes are a problem. Indeed, it would not even be possible for gun control laws to reduce homicides and violent crimes in cities and populations where homicides and violent crimes aren't actually a problem. So Beverly Hills is not made safer by gun control laws and gun control laws weren't implemented to reduce homicides and violent crimes in Beverly Hills. They were implemented to reduce homicides and violent crimes in places like Compton, Stockton and Oakland and in those places, gun control has failed to reduce homicides and violent crimes.
As a result of this failure, the decent people that are forced to live in these cities are made less safe and suffer a higher rate of violent crime victimization. While it's true that certain populations commit homicides at a higher rate than others, those same populations are also homicide victims at a significantly higher rate than other populations. Is this accidental, intentional or just an inconsequential side effect of a larger agenda? I don't know. I would suggest the latter however. But it is what it is.

 

[JCJIM]

Yes you would have chaos if you tried to do it in one fell swoop. But this is not the way they intend to accomplish this. Piece by piece
the cut away at our rights and one day you realize we're screwed.
I give a a couple of examples of what happened in the 80's The admin. decided to secretly stop the government/SEC from policing corporate monopolies and anti trust. They didn't do it one sign of the pen, no every year they didn't stop more and more monopolies from forming. so what do we have today to prove that, well we now have 6 banks that control 85% of all bank deposits and accounts., we have 6 companies that control 83% of all the meat we purchase in this country on and on and on. I could fill reams of paper with all the corporate take overs that screw every consumer in the USA. and now they are cashing in, they can raise prices to whatever they want and they will.. EVERYTHING WE NEED TO LIVE.
and it isn't going to stop any time soon.

 

[Old Dog]

A authoritarian government that's being pushed now by some could institute all this, just look at China, Russia there are dozens of other countries, that show what will happen, the first thing they do is get rid of all the guns and pass terrible laws to insure nobody has guns but the government/ military, the constitution is ripped up. freedom and rights are non existent. With no freedom, no rights, no vote you get the above.

Ah, so you're saying that you think this could happen here? China, Russia, dozens of other countries never had a history of freedom such as ours, a culture of rugged individualism and independence nor a Constitution and Bill of Rights such as ours.

Did you see, years back when the military was going after Arab bad guys with the drowns, these dudes didn't have a chance nor did their families. That would be the future.

Where would the new thread go: General Gun, Rifle, Shotgun or Handgun? "What caliber for drones?"
BTW, spell check is your friend.

The admin. decided to secretly stop the government/SEC from policing corporate monopolies and anti trust. They didn't do it one sign of the pen, no every year they didn't stop more and more monopolies from forming. so what do we have today to prove that, well we now have 6 banks that control 85% of all bank deposits and accounts., we have 6 companies that control 83% of all the meat we purchase in this country on and on and on. I could fill reams of paper with all the corporate take overs that screw every consumer in the USA. and now they are cashing in, they can raise prices to whatever they want and they will.. EVERYTHING WE NEED TO LIVE.
and it isn't going to stop any time soon.

It's called capitalism and none of this should be a surprise. We suffer because of the fools we elect to our legislatures.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Ah, so you're saying that you think this could happen here? China, Russia, dozens of other countries never had a history of freedom such as ours, a culture of rugged individualism and independence nor a Constitution and Bill of Rights such as ours.
Where would the new thread go: General Gun, Rifle, Shotgun or Handgun? "What caliber for drones?"
BTW, spell check is your friend.
It's called capitalism and none of this should be a surprise. We suffer because of the fools we elect to our legislatures.

They have been using decades of indoctrination in schools to work towards just that. Why else would anyone vote for socialist candidates.

 

[Old Dog]

They have been using decades of indoctrination in schools to work towards just that. Why else would anyone vote for socialist candidates.

You really have to ask? Not been paying attention to the changing demographics of our population centers over the past forty or fifty years?

Not to mention that our criminals, addicts, immigrants and lazy folks have discovered that there is such a thing as free lunch... and more.

 

[Will Munny]

Yes you would have chaos if you tried to do it in one fell swoop. But this is not the way they intend to accomplish this. Piece by piece
the cut away at our rights and one day you realize we're screwed.
I give a a couple of examples of what happened in the 80's The admin. decided to secretly stop the government/SEC from policing corporate monopolies and anti trust. They didn't do it one sign of the pen, no every year they didn't stop more and more monopolies from forming. so what do we have today to prove that, well we now have 6 banks that control 85% of all bank deposits and accounts., we have 6 companies that control 83% of all the meat we purchase in this country on and on and on. I could fill reams of paper with all the corporate take overs that screw every consumer in the USA. and now they are cashing in, they can raise prices to whatever they want and they will.. EVERYTHING WE NEED TO LIVE.
and it isn't going to stop any time soon.

That's not how economics works.
None of the things you list are monopolies, and they do not price like monopolies. They cannot and do not charge whatever they want, they can only charge whatever price the market will bear. Prices are rising on everything because the dollar itself has lost purchasing power, not because there is some conspiracy to raise prices.

 

[redcon1]

That's not how economics works.
None of the things you list are monopolies, and they do not price like monopolies. They cannot and do not charge whatever they want, they can only charge whatever price the market will bear. Prices are rising on everything because the dollar itself has lost purchasing power, not because there is some conspiracy to raise prices.

 

[Insignificant bill]

You really have to ask? Not been paying attention to the changing demographics of our population centers over the past forty or fifty years?

Not to mention that our criminals, addicts, immigrants and lazy folks have discovered that there is such a thing as free lunch... and more.

You really have to ask? Not been paying attention to the changing demographics of our population centers over the past forty or fifty years?

Not to mention that our criminals, addicts, immigrants and lazy folks have discovered that there is such a thing as free lunch... and more.

It's a rhetorical question

 

[Old Dog]

Postulating a theory and attempting to substantiate it by asking a rhetorical question doesn't really advance one's argument.

The sorry evolution of public education in this country is a subject for a whole separate thread.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Postulating a theory and attempting to substantiate it by asking a rhetorical question doesn't really advance one's argument.

The sorry evolution of public education in this country is a subject for a whole separate thread.

OK you win

 

[JohnKSa]

So strict gun control works in some California cities but not in others?

No. The problem, as you well know by now, is that you can't use homicide statistics (raw or per capita, by city, state, or county) to show the effectiveness of gun control because there are other factors that affect homicide rates more than gun control (if, in fact, gun control affects them at all).

Go ahead and point out where I listed any reasons why gun control would work in one population but not in another.

That's not what he means and you know it. You know that there are other factors that affect homicide statistics more than gun control does (if gun control affects them at all) because you have explicitly said so.

It's an example that supports everything I have been saying, that gun control laws do not reduce homicide rates, do not reduce violent crime rates, do not even reduce gun crime rates-that it isn't that gun control works for one group of people and not another but, rather, that gun control just doesn't work for any group of people.

See, this is where you jump the tracks. You can't say that it doesn't reduce them at all, because there are other factors that we all agree affect them far more strongly. So gun control MIGHT be reducing gun crime/homicide/violent crime rates (or it might be increasing them, or it might be having no effect) but we can't tell that because the other strong effects are swamping out any effect that gun control is having (if it is, indeed having any at all).

Gun control laws aren't supposed to reduce homicides and violent crimes in cities and populations where homicides and violent crimes aren't a problem.

That really isn't a factor. The people who push gun control push it everywhere. Look at CO--they weren't having any major crime wave when they passed their magazine bans. It's not really about the crime, it's only about having a voting base that will support that kind of government control.

 

[redcon1]

The problem, as you well know by now, is that you can't use homicide statistics (raw or per capita, by city, state, or county) to show the effectiveness of gun control because there are other factors that affect homicide rates more than gun control (if, in fact, gun control affects them at all).

Which is what California, gun grabbers, Everytown, etc are doing. My argument all throughout this fracas has been that strict gun control laws DO NOT correlate with safer cities and that statewide homicide statistics obscure the extent of this reality.

That's not what he means and you know it. You know that there are other factors that affect homicide statistics more than gun control does (if gun control affects them at all) because you have explicitly said so.

I do know that. That argument was becoming eristic as opposed to dialectic. I was trying to keep it focused on the truth. He was twisting my arguments around so as to suggest that I was arguing that, for "reasons", gun control measures work in one city and don't work in another. that was not my argument. My argument is and was that gun control simply doesn't work and the reasons are irrelevant. To put a finer point on it, gun control has not reduced homicides and violent crime in the areas where homicide and violent crime is a problem and has, without a doubt, made the residents of those cities less safe, not more safe.

See, this is where you jump the tracks. You can't say that it doesn't reduce them at all, because there are other factors that we all agree affect them far more strongly. So gun control MIGHT be reducing gun crime/homicide/violent crime rates (or it might be increasing them, or it might be having no effect) but we can't tell that because the other strong effects are swamping out any effect that gun control is having (if it is, indeed having any at all)

While it may be difficult to statistically quantify the extent to which strict gun control has not reduced homicides and violent crime in cities and populations where homicide and violent crime is a problem, I think it's fair to say that that the good residents of those bad cities are less safe today after being subjected to years of onerous gun control policies that were never actually intended to make them more safe. The question is, does anyone care?

It would be difficult to discuss this further without delving into the politics at play here which is probably off topic for THR.

The people who push gun control push it everywhere. Look at CO--they weren't having any major crime wave when they passed their magazine bans. It's not really about the crime, it's only about having a voting base that will support that kind of government control.

It's hard to say what "their" motivations are or who, precisely, they are serving without diving deep into politics. Diving into politics is not within the purview of THR which is why I have tried to keep this argument bedded around A) gun control and how ineffective it has clearly been for people that live in areas where homicide and violent crimes are actually a problem and B) statewide homicide statistics which obscure the extent to which gun control laws have failed to create safer communities in communities where homicide and violent crime are actually problems.

 

[GEM]

There are what seem to be law abiding folks who violate gun laws as they see firearms ownership as important to protecting their lives.

The motivation for gun control is always cited on media like this as 'wanting to control us' while it is unclear what the 'control' will be. Not to be too political.

However, a good part is the belief that removing guns will make them safer and that is an understandable motivation. They do not want to be safe by owning guns and training up (which much gun owners don't do anyway).

Another motivation is that guns are totems of their political enemies and must be attacked. The right has its own freedom denying speaking points to attack the totems of the left.

 

[50of4064]

Call me crazy...most do.
We all know that they fear an uprising...they control the political game of power in this country...and the are good at this game...they use the rules of Democracy to forward there agenda..call it by any label you like.....I believe the powers that be, mean to disarm the population to insure that there can be no uprising...and because it is LAW...we can use the police and military to enforce the law...even if it a blatant violation of Our Bill of Rights'....hummm.
Doe's this remind you of anything ?....
Call me crazy...

 

[The Glockodile]

They do not want to be safe by owning guns and training up (which much gun owners don't do anyway).

Ah train! To protect mah family, friends, and luv'd ones!

*** Pulls up gut and squeezes into pants while tensioning suspenders ***