Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (health, requirements)

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

If you'd like to be intellectually honest and discuss such infringements on things like voting, that would be very interesting. But of you're only willing to consider such infringements on one's constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, then get of here with that nonsense. . .

Every right we have from voting to free speech has limitations, and those don't normally lead directly to the deaths of others. It's arguably extremist to argue that the vast majority of people who support some form of gun regulations- againt including the majority of gun owners themselves- should go pound sand while so many people have to continuously die so you can play out some kind of savior fantasy.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Or I could be wishing the US wasn't so lax on gun control or I never would've been in that situation to begin with.

What workable gun control scheme do you envision that would eliminate the possibility of you being murdered?

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

What workable gun control scheme do you envision that would eliminate the possibility of you being murdered?

Starting to enforce existing gun control laws that would prevent people with history of mental instability from "legally" purchasing firearms would be an AWESOME start.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

Gun purchase laws across state lines are Federal. You can't go to a neighboring state and legally purchase a handgun.

Who said anything about legally? Though a significant number of firearms on the street were orginally bought by "law-abiding citizens" who had their guns stolen, lost or illegally sold. The point is that imaginary boundaries do not prevent firearms from crossing into different states/cities.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Who said anything about legally? Though a significant number of firearms on the street were orginally bought by "law-abiding citizens" who had their guns stolen, lost or illegally sold. The point is that imaginary boundaries do not prevent firearms from crossing into different states/cities.

And there's no way to control the access to the plethora of guns that are in the US today. Not for law abiding citizens. I can't see a way to control it, can you?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

I think I'm starting to figure why you gravitate so eagerly and willingly to buzz words such as "straw man". When one utilizes a rhetorical mechanism as often as you do, one of necessity wonders if there's an "official" name for it. Literally not one post in this thread advocates for taking away your guns. But gun nuts tell on themselves way too easily by inadvertently conceding that reasonable gun control is impossible, so to them any argument "against guns" becomes an all-or-nothing one.

I’ve not used the words “straw man” at all in this thread. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

As to the question I posed to cheech14, I’m simply trying to better understand his position. I’ve been involved in way too many gun debates where one who is ostensibly arguing for nothing more than “common sense gun control” quickly sheds such niceties and shows themself to be nothing but a rabid anti-gun abolitionist. Trying to cut to the chase can frequently save a lot of time and effort.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Every right we have from voting to free speech has limitations, and those don't normally lead directly to the deaths of others. It's arguably extremist to argue that the vast majority of people who support some form of gun regulations- againt including the majority of gun owners themselves- should go pound sand while so many people have to continuously die so you can play out some kind of savior fantasy.

So, am I to understand that you wouldn’t want to discuss similar infringements on voting?

What have I said that leads you to conclude that I have a savior fantasy?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Starting to enforce existing gun control laws that would prevent people with history of mental instability from "legally" purchasing firearms would be an AWESOME start.

So, we actually have some common ground. I agree with you 100%.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Who said anything about legally? Though a significant number of firearms on the street were orginally bought by "law-abiding citizens" who had their guns stolen, lost or illegally sold. The point is that imaginary boundaries do not prevent firearms from crossing into different states/cities.

In your post that I responded to, you were absolutely talking about legally, as you were lamenting differences in laws.

[cheech14]

[quote]

Originally Posted by memph

Why not? I was comparing whether access to guns within the household makes a difference in homicides. The vast majority of homicides aren't "I'm gonna kill someone, let me buy a gun first". It's general a fairly brash decision. With gang violence, they will have guns, purchased illegally, regardless of what gun laws are.

With domestic violence, if it leads to death, it's almost always an abusive male losing their temper, and they would be capable of killing their spouse with a knife, bludgeon or even their bare hands. And if it's an abusive ex husband/boyfriend, the woman would have the chance to buy a gun and even the playing field if the man decides to violate the restraining order.

I don't really understand your point here. So we should be providing easy access to another deadly option? Also, I'm not really sure "Well, they would've been murdered anyway" is a great argument.

Because there is a case to be made that if someone can't kill another person with a gun, they'll find some other way to kill them.

Okay, but there's probably a reason over 8 in 10 homicides in the US are with guns rather than pencils, cars or one's own hands.

In Canada, only 3% of homicides are committed using legally owned guns, even though 22% of households have access to a gun, and legal gun owners are 3x less likely to commit a murder than the general population.

That doesn't inspire confidence since so many firearms used illegally were once obtained legally. Violent crime with the use of firearms is also increasing in Canada. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/as-ott...rise-1.5923276

It's difficult to compare Canada directly with the US, though, considering the US had like 3x the number of guns per 100K people as Canada does, and literally almost 400 million more firearms in circulation than Canada. There are almost 100 million more guns in the US than people, while in Canada, the number of guns is less than 1/3rd of the population. Canada also has far stricter gun regulations than almost anywhere in the US, especially at the federal level.