Trump's Plan For the 2nd Amendment

[PokerGuy]

Please. The majority of gun deaths are suicides followed by domestic violence of some sort.

Suicide stats have nothing to do with the discussion. If someone harms themselves, whether using a gun or some other way is not something I can (or should) control. Domestic violence is a crime. Again, putting restrictions on the use or ownership of guns by law abiding people does nothing to fix those issues.

How do we know the difference between the two? What happens when a good guy becomes the bad guy?

We have plenty of empirical evidence that shows that the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not engage in any kind of criminal activity. We know that those who apply for permits etc are not the ones committing the crimes. We don't know in advance who's going to be a good guy and who's going to be a bad guy, but we have enough information to know that a) the bad guys are not going to be curtailed by any limitations or restrictions anyway, and b) the good guys don't use their firearms for bad purposes.

 

[FrankRamiro]

Why would anyone have a problem with his plan?

Don't waist your time with reasonable thinking cause these F****** Liberals/Libertarians/loons will never give up protesting anything Trump does no matter what,this forum is filled of radical Liberals/Libertarians/loons.

 

[EduCat]

Suicide stats have nothing to do with the discussion. If someone harms themselves, whether using a gun or some other way is not something I can (or should) control. Domestic violence is a crime. Again, putting restrictions on the use or ownership of guns by law abiding people does nothing to fix those issues.



We have plenty of empirical evidence that shows that the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not engage in any kind of criminal activity. We know that those who apply for permits etc are not the ones committing the crimes. We don't know in advance who's going to be a good guy and who's going to be a bad guy, but we have enough information to know that a) the bad guys are not going to be curtailed by any limitations or restrictions anyway, and b) the good guys don't use their firearms for bad purposes.

LoL come on guy I think we have enough evidence to show good guys become bad guys all the time. Look how many people are incarcerated!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LoL come on guy I think we have enough evidence to show good guys become bad guys all the time. Look how many people are incarcerated!

If I decided to become a bad guy and wanted your head I would not need a gun. We shouldn't have police, armed or not. We shouldn't have government because it is not always benign. We shouldn't leave the house because some guy might flip and kill me with a car. I shouldn't stay home become of an arsonist.

If "good people may turn bad" is put forward as a serious argument then life itself becomes nothing more than suspicion and fear.

 

[PokerGuy]

LoL come on guy I think we have enough evidence to show good guys become bad guys all the time. Look how many people are incarcerated!

You're seriously going to argue that law abiding people should have restrictions and limitations placed on them because possibly some of them could turn into bad guys? In that case, better make sure nobody has a car, because some people might use it to commit a crime, drive drunk, injure others etc.

 

[UNCjigga]

Not sure I follow--when Obama and Hillary say we need to enforce the laws already on the books and provide better mental health screening, conservatives and NRA nuts literally go up in arms.

But when Trump says the same thing...cheers???

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not sure I follow--when Obama and Hillary say we need to enforce the laws already on the books and provide better mental health screening, conservatives and NRA nuts literally go up in arms.

But when Trump says the same thing...cheers???

If that was the only thing then the resistance would be far less. Imagine this scenario. You buy a perfectly functioning new car. One day you are driving along and you decide for whatever reason you want to cause an accident where people are killed. People harmed decide that they want to sue GM (if they made the car) because they knew this could happen. Well along comes Hillary and she decides she supports and wants people to sue auto companies, not just the criminal and opens the doors knowing full will this will put them out of business. Well that was Hillary and guns. I would trust her on them as much as Trump on the environment.

 

[mect]

Alright! A Trump policy that doesn't absolutely reek of corruption and ineptitude. Congratulations.

 

[Sunburn74]

I think people overestimate how easy it is to identify people who are mentally ill and ready to commit violent crimes with weapons.

We all are imagining some guy in a basement who talks to his gun for 2-3 hours a day. That's not the guy I'm worried about. Those guys are few and far between.

 

[glenn1]

I think people overestimate how easy it is to identify people who are mentally ill and ready to commit violent crimes with weapons.

We all are imagining some guy in a basement who talks to his gun for 2-3 hours a day. That's not the guy I'm worried about. Those guys are few and far between.

Fine, then create whatever expanded criteria you want for identifying mental illness and thus limiting citizens from their constitutional rights to possess firearms because of it. But then you need to be prepared for others to use your same basis to restrict all their other rights under your same framework. So not only no guns but also no free speech, no voting, no freedom of movement (we'll put them back into asylums), etc. If you're OK with that result then feel free to advocate for your position.

 

[rudder]

Imagine one day America goes back to the age of Wild Wild West.

Exactly!!! because we all know the gun violence in Chicago is solely due to their lax gun laws. I mean those bastard NRA members are shooting each other up every weekend.

 

[rudder]

Please. The majority of gun deaths are suicides followed by domestic violence of some sort.

This plan solves nothing and makes no one safer.

Like I said, non-fact based policy.

A you spouting alternative facts here? yes the majority of gun related deaths are suicides. However, the majority of the remaining gun deaths (around 34% of the ~32,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year) are related to gang/drug violence. So of that 34% we see that about ~2,300 of gun homicides are not related to gang/drug violence. A percentage of those are domestic violence related.

Acess to firearms is not the problem.

 

[UNCjigga]

If that was the only thing then the resistance would be far less. Imagine this scenario. You buy a perfectly functioning new car. One day you are driving along and you decide for whatever reason you want to cause an accident where people are killed. People harmed decide that they want to sue GM (if they made the car) because they knew this could happen. Well along comes Hillary and she decides she supports and wants people to sue auto companies, not just the criminal and opens the doors knowing full will this will put them out of business. Well that was Hillary and guns. I would trust her on them as much as Trump on the environment.

I remember her arguing with Bernie about this but I think her opposition was focused on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) passed in 2005 and impact on Sandy Hook lawsuits. The PLCAA provides a unique federal legal shield that most other consumer goods manufacturers do not have. The few industries that do have immunity (Big Tobacco, Coal, Asbestos I think?) are required to set up a compensation scheme for victims to recover money for damages — but the gun industry is not subject to this requirement. But hey, if it comes down to regulating Interstate commerce vs. 2nd Amendment, the 2nd should always win. Note that Bernie voted for the immunity act.

 

[rudder]

More guns to intimidate killers? I think not.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...e-rate-higher-than-other-developed-countries/

Go back to those statistics and remove gun homicides related to gangs and drug violence. I point those out because 1) more than likely the victim is related to a gang 2) gang members don't comply with laws now (i.e., I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon) and no amount of gun laws will make them relinguish thier illegal firearms. That being said having ~2,300 gun homicides (non gang related murders) out of a population of 333,000,000 is not too bad considering the amount of weapons Americans are allowed to own.. And if you look over total murder statistics each year... you will see the firearm is not the weapon of choice. Hammers, clubs, knives are used way more often.

 

[momeNt]

Quite honestly, any comparison to another country is completely moot. I just don't care. Our right to arms is part of what makes us American, the fact that we understand, and respect that right, is what keeps us American. I have no interest in hearing the arguments of what other countries do. Other countries are not us. Period.

 

[zinfamous]

I think people overestimate how easy it is to identify people who are mentally ill and ready to commit violent crimes with weapons.

We all are imagining some guy in a basement who talks to his gun for 2-3 hours a day. That's not the guy I'm worried about. Those guys are few and far between.

Though, disproportionately represented by the members that post here.

 

[zinfamous]

Go back to those statistics and remove gun homicides related to gangs and drug violence. I point those out because 1) more than likely the victim is related to a gang 2) gang members don't comply with laws now (i.e., I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon) and no amount of gun laws will make them relinguish thier illegal firearms. That being said having ~2,300 gun homicides (non gang related murders) out of a population of 333,000,000 is not too bad considering the amount of weapons Americans are allowed to own.. And if you look over total murder statistics each year... you will see the firearm is not the weapon of choice. Hammers, clubs, knives are used may more often.

Cool, when you don't like the numbers, just remove some because, well, fuck science and fuck statistics. No need to trust "data" if you feel that "data" exists simply for your arbitrary proportioning of validity.

No wonder you guys are terrified of science. You generally find it invalid simply because you believe that you can invalidate uncomfortable numbers within any model that is important to you. If you convince yourself that something can simply be made false, why not assume that the entire discipline is false?

 

[zinfamous]

Quite honestly, any comparison to another country is completely moot. I just don't care. Our right to arms is part of what makes us American, the fact that we understand, and respect that right, is what keeps us American. I have no interest in hearing the arguments of what other countries do. Other countries are not us. Period.

that's good. If we all thought like that, then we never would have had a Constitution.

Hell, we'd probably still have slaves.

 

[MrDudeMan]

More guns to intimidate killers? I think not.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...e-rate-higher-than-other-developed-countries/

I love stupid charts like this because they really expose ignorance. The title is "HOMICIDE PER..." and the actual value of the Y-axis is "GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES." It's trying to sell some bullshit and it apparently worked on a few people. Show me a chart of all homicides in all of those countries and the breakdown of gang-related violence, suicides, accidents, and 'other' crime. Then we can talk.

Quite honestly, any comparison to another country is completely moot. I just don't care. Our right to arms is part of what makes us American, the fact that we understand, and respect that right, is what keeps us American. I have no interest in hearing the arguments of what other countries do. Other countries are not us. Period.

Exactly. Plus, there are several other countries with a gun-owning populace and the associated statistics regarding murder and violence don't match ours. Anyone who knows a damn thing about statistics can see the lack of correlation with respect to firearm ownership. The problem always has been and always will be people. If I wanted to kill someone, having or not having a gun wouldn't stop me. It would only change how it happened.

 

[momeNt]

that's good. If we all thought like that, then we never would have had a Constitution.

Hell, we'd probably still have slaves.

Which other country at the time had a similar 2nd amendment back when they were framing the constitution? Can you name one? Can you name one now? It has been uniquely American. Slavery was not. Your arguments are terrible, like CNN.

 

[zinfamous]

Which other country at the time had a similar 2nd amendment back when they were framing the constitution? Can you name one? Can you name one now? It has been uniquely American. Slavery was not. Your arguments are terrible, like CNN.

We wouldn't have a constitution if our intent was to have unique ideas. The US constitution is inherently French.

The 2nd amendment was, in its way, unique. Likewise, maintaining and depending on slavery--that good old constitution!--for as long as we did, really made us unique. The institution was not unique at the time of the constitution, but thanks to that document, we somehow convinced ourselves that it needed to be preserved.

 

[momeNt]

We wouldn't have a constitution if our intent was to have unique ideas. The US constitution is inherently French.

The 2nd amendment was, in its way, unique. Likewise, maintaining and depending on slavery--that good old constitution!--for as long as we did, really made us unique. The institution was not unique at the time of the constitution, but thanks to that document, we somehow convinced ourselves that it needed to be preserved.

But but but slavery. We are talking about the 2nd amendment. Like take a step back, and really think about what you are talking about right now. I mean this is a really big steaming pile of mental shit I'm trying not to step in.

 

[glenn1]

Cool, when you don't like the numbers, just remove some because, well, fuck science and fuck statistics. No need to trust "data" if you feel that "data" exists simply for your arbitrary proportioning of validity.

No wonder you guys are terrified of science. You generally find it invalid simply because you believe that you can invalidate uncomfortable numbers within any model that is important to you. If you convince yourself that something can simply be made false, why not assume that the entire discipline is false?

When the aggregated numbers aren't granular enough to exclude instances germane to the policy you're discussing then yes the numbers should be discounted. For example it wouldn't make sense to include in those numbers any examples where a policeman shot a criminal in self defense even though it meets the legal definition of homicide since presumably justifiable homicide is a correct exclusion. Likewise citing probable non-compliance with a legal restriction on an activity is a justifiable objection to it - pro-choice advocates do this all the time when they say "women will just get back alley coat hanger abortions then!" and that's the exact same logic as pro-2nd Amendment folks use WRT use of firearms by those who would commit criminal acts.