Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (Reading: cost of, store)

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Let me ask you a very simple question: Do you think that a person who regular carries a firearm is more or less likely to be in a situation in which the firearm is ultimately used than someone who doesn't carry a firearm?

That's not a simple question, but I'll play.

If you're taking someone who did not carry previously who starts carrying -- and nothing else about their livelihood, habits, etc., changes, then I think there's essentially no difference, since it's incredibly rare to find yourself in a situation where a firearm is ultimately used.

Now, if you're pulling 10 people randomly each from the carrying and non-carrying population, then the carrying population is likely to encounter more situations where a firearm is ultimately used, but the reason for that has to do with livelihood -- a randomly chosen carrier could be a cop, gang member, etc., whereas a randomly chosen non-carrier cannot.

[cheech14]

[quote]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

We can disregard magazine capacity limitations for purposes of this discussion as there is nothing really analogous in the voting realm, but the other two are perfectly appropriate.

Not sure what you mean by this. Why couldn't something like that be voted on or legislated?

Would you support a requirement of mandatory education for prospective voters? How about mandatory background checks as a requirement? Would these restrictions be acceptable to you, or are those restrictions only acceptable when placed on gun owners?

I support regulations/requirements that ultimately reduce tangible danger or harm, not arbitrary restrictions meant to directly infringe a right for no reason. We have laws against libel, inducing panic, etc. regarding free speech because those things cause tangible harm. There is no tangible harm merely if someone with a criminal record votes. The education requirement is a bit more questionable because perhaps it would reduce extremism in voting to some degree, but I don't think a person voting merely with a lower IQ or education alone causes tangible harm, either. So I would disagree with those restrictions.
However, since firearms are manufactured for the specific purpose of killing or harming something or someone, and because their misuse always leads to tangible harm, I do find that situation different. There should be at least as many regulations regarding gun ownership as there are for owning cars- which do not have the specific purpose of harm.

I don’t really care if you answer the question or not, but what you wrote above is a non-answer.

It was an answer to your question about how you and most other gun proponents have a savior fantasy regarding the need to carry them constantly.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

So, training requirements is the answer? Why? Do you evidence to share to support that, or do you just have a warm fuzzy inside of you, telling that that’s going be a significant positive?

How will you get around the 2nd amendment protections?

It's not *the* answer, just an example of a regulation I think should be maintained or implemented.

To support what? Are you honestly going to argue that an untrained and inexperienced public handling firearms is safer than one that is? Do we not need to do the same when learning to drive or operating heavy machinery? Or performing surgery? Or any number of things in which harm may be caused if we are otherwise careless or inexperienced?

Training does not prevent someone from owning a firearm, so why would it need to get around those so-called protections?

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

Do you have evidence that supports the above conclusions?

You want me to prove that someone with a gun is more likely to use it than someone who doesn't have a gun? And that the people who carry guns all the time perceive danger differently than people who don't?

Not sure if you're serious.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

So give me some examples of laws you think we should apply to law abiding citizens.

I already have, check the thread.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

You tell me, but remember, as stated in the title of the thread, gun crime is down in six of eight of Ohio's largest cities since the law change.

These are national trends: https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-n...y?id=105556400

Did Ohio's law apply to the entire nation? Do you have any specific evidence that there is a correlation?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Not sure what you mean by this. Why couldn't something like that be voted on or legislated?

Do try to keep up. The discussion was about imposing the same types of restrictions on voting that you are calling for to be imposed on gun owners. In the context of voting, there is nothing analogous to magazine capacity restrictions.

I support regulations/requirements that ultimately reduce tangible danger or harm, not arbitrary restrictions meant to directly infringe a right for no reason. We have laws against libel, inducing panic, etc. regarding free speech because those things cause tangible harm. There is no tangible harm merely if someone with a criminal record votes.

Show the evidence that the restrictions that you are calling to be imposed on gun owners will accomplish exactly that, and that they will accomplish that in a way the the 10's of thousands of gun laws currently on the books do not.

The education requirement is a bit more questionable because perhaps it would reduce extremism in voting to some degree, but I don't think a person voting merely with a lower IQ or education alone causes tangible harm, either. So I would disagree with those restrictions.

I can't tell if you are being serious, or deliberately obtuse. Either way, such nonsense doesn't merit further discussion.

However, since firearms are manufactured for the specific purpose of killing or harming something or someone, and because their misuse always leads to tangible harm, I do find that situation different. There should be at least as many regulations regarding gun ownership as there are for owning cars- which do not have the specific purpose of harm.

That's simply false.

It was an answer to your question about how you and most other gun proponents have a savior fantasy regarding the need to carry them constantly.

No, it doesn't at all address the question. I asked what has led you to conclude that I have a savior complex. Support your answer with actual quotes of mine.

[leadfoot4]

[quote=cheech14;66292434]

Not sure what you mean by this. Why couldn't something like that be voted on or legislated?

In NY State it is legislated, and the law abiding, hand gun permitted citizen, is limited to a capacity of 6-7 rounds, whereas the pistol packing criminal is not required to follow that law.....

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

It's not *the* answer, just an example of a regulation I think should be maintained or implemented.

To support what? Are you honestly going to argue that an untrained and inexperienced public handling firearms is safer than one that is? Do we not need to do the same when learning to drive or operating heavy machinery? Or performing surgery? Or any number of things in which harm may be caused if we are otherwise careless or inexperienced?

Training does not prevent someone from owning a firearm, so why would it need to get around those so-called protections?

I'm not making that argument. I'm challenging you to support your positive assertion. Go ahead, I'm waiting. . .

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

These are national trends: https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-n...y?id=105556400

Did Ohio's law apply to the entire nation? Do you have any specific evidence that there is a correlation?

No, and no, but also, I never claimed there was a correlation.

I did bring up again the decline in gun crime that is the topic of this thread when Natural510 offered a panicky, sarcastic "what could go wrong?" in reference to loosening personal firearm restrictions. I was offering a reminder that not only did gun crime not go up, it actually went down.

If you want to argue that it should have gone down further, I'll listen, but I haven't seen anyone attempt to make that argument.