Ho hum, another day, another mass shooting in the US.

[Left Coast]

I support relatively few "gun control" measures. This doesn't mean that I do not acknowledge regulating guns similar to the regulation of free speech is not going to be constitutional and therefore within the authority of the federal or state governments. Gun free zones would be an an example. Restricting the rights of felons or people engaged in committing a crime. Restricting the rights of someone "brandishing" or negligently firing a weapon all of these are well within the authority of the federal or state governments. Requiring background checks for the sale or transfer of a weapon.

Sorry, I got lost in all the negatives in the second sentence. I think you mean you do support these things?

Background checks are already required for FFL transfers.

As I assume you know from your extensive research on the topic, the system contains glaring loopholes. This is why the House passed legislation earlier this year to strengthen the system so it's actually universal.

House Passes First Major Gun Control Law in Decades

Sadly the Senate is GOP controlled, so they won't even consider such obvious low hanging fruit for public safety.

Mental health screening violates HIPAA

No, it doesn't, disclosure of PHI for law enforcement purposes is permitted by HIPAA.

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/f...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0hU-EeiyNgw_15MV_m4Uk9

and stigmatizes mental health issues.

I brought this issue up before and you side stepped it. If identifying mental health as a source of gun violence stigmatizes it, and you're against that, why are you bringing it up so much?

You said

"If two countries share the same problem (a), and yet one has an additional problem the other does not have"

I asked is it then your claim that these other countries do not have a problem with guns or gun violence? It is a yes or no question.

No they don't, their gun violence rates are much lower than ours.

These will prevent people with mental issues from getting a gun? Or these will merely reduce the chances. By how much?

Is it your position that a public policy must be 100% effective for us to reasonably adopt it?

I've done literally all of the citation of evidence thus far in our conversation, and when I do you decline to comment on it or dismiss it. So I won't be doing any more of your homework for you.

Yes, guns are efficient and effective tools. Some eople wanting to do harm will choose these if they are available.

No, not "some." The vast majority. Which is why I'm focused on it.

And I think we could make great strides by increasing funding, outreach, awareness, and accessibility.

Walk and chew gum. Preach!

That cherry picking countries to get the desired result evades the issue of violence.

I didnt cherry pick countries. Homicide rates by country are widely available available online. Yes, we are safer than third world countries. Congrats. We are also much less than many other countries.

Are you thinking that I am disputing that where guns are available they are often selected? They are efficient and effective tools. They are a go to for many interested in harming others but many more interested in self defense.

Great, then it shouldn't be a mystery to you why the focus is guns. They are by far the deadliest weapon available to the average person. Self-defense is fine, although a gun in the home actually makes you statistically less safe, not more.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no

Again, we are culturally conditioned to associate guns with safety and freedom. These are not objective facts of reality.

Because they are efficient and effective tools.

Yes, specifically tools for killing. Which is the obvious reason why we should restrict access to them.

That the violence in our country isn't in part related to mental health? No.

Does addressing mental health as a source of gun violence stigmatize mental health or not? If it does, I don't know why you've brought it up so many times as a priority over gun safety. If it doesn't, then you shouldn't have a problem with mental health screenings.

Yes, that is good. You recognize that the data on other countries doesn't accurately reflect what would happen in the U.S.

The research I cited included research done in the US. While every country is unique, patterns can be found. To pretend that we are that special and exempted from how reality works is, again, another cultural issue we should work to address.

I have researched the issue plenty--extensively. I am sorry that you won't accept that gun control will not reach the roots of violence in our society.

I never claimed that gun control would end all violence in society. That is a silly straw man. Gun control is a kind of harm reduction - it is not absolute, it is not perfect, it is not a panacea for all society's ills, but it does save lives.

There is a reason why Australia still has a rape problem.

Gun control's purpose is not to prevent rape, so that's a complete non sequitur.

There is a reason why the decreases that are seen cannot be determined as causal,

This is a widespread ethical problem faced in all public policy and health research, not unique to guns.

and there is a reason why you still see gun violence, though slightly lower (but still statistically significant) in these countries that have enacted gun control measures.

Yes, in the real world remedies are not 100% effective, virtually ever. That is not a rational reason to oppose them.

Those reasons are that the problem is multi-faceted and culturally embedded. If you want to make real strides you would join me in the pursuit of root issues, instead of chasing down a highly propagandized (on both sides) issue.

I keep bringing up the deeply embedded cultural beliefs and issues at play here, and yet you keep either ignoring them or endorsing them.

Basic facts to accept. Until there is an amendment to the constitution the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. The founders enumerated this right because it was related to the fundamental right of self defense. This was incorporated by the 14th and 15th amendments and also applies to state governments. If you want to rally behind gun control that is outside of the authority of our government then change the authority of our government first. Otherwise why not focus on what we can do?

1) That is a one-dimensional and ahistorical analysis of why we have a 2nd Amendment. This is a subject for another thread, but the Amendment was insisted upon by states who wanted state militias to oppose a federal military force if necessary. It wasn't interpreted by a majority on the Supreme Court as guaranteeing an individual right until 11 years ago in the Heller case.

2) Even the Roberts court in Heller did not interpret all gun control as unconstitutional, so you are just incorrect as to what can be done.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry, I got lost in all the negatives in the second sentence. I think you mean you do support these things?

Support? Not necessarily. Recognize as with the authority of the government? Yes.

As I assume you know from your extensive research on the topic, the system contains glaring loopholes. This is why the House passed legislation earlier this year to strengthen the system so it's actually universal.

House Passes First Major Gun Control Law in Decades

Sadly the Senate is GOP controlled, so they won't even consider such obvious low hanging fruit for public safety.

Yeah there are not really "glaring loopholes." What you are stressing about is the occasional private sale between individuals not engaged in buying and selling of weapons as a course of trade. This is not a glaring loophole. This means individuals who occasionally sell firearms can sell to other private parties within the same state (of some states) without background checks. Of the states that allow this, they are well equipped to decide for themselves.

No, it doesn't, disclosure of PHI for law enforcement purposes is permitted by HIPAA.

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/f...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0hU-EeiyNgw_15MV_m4Uk9

Not sure what your link was, it didn't work. But yes it is a violation of HIPAA.

I brought this issue up before and you side stepped it. If identifying mental health as a source of gun violence stigmatizes it, and you're against that, why are you bringing it up so much?

Identifying mental health issues as a source of gun violence does not stigmatize these issues. Punishing individuals with mental health issues categorically does.

No they don't, their gun violence rates are much lower than ours.

So 4.3 is okay but 4.9 is not? Where is the line of acceptance gun homicide or gun crime?

Is it your position that a public policy must be 100% effective for us to reasonably adopt it?

Nope

I've done literally all of the citation of evidence thus far in our conversation, and when I do you decline to comment on it or dismiss it. So I won't be doing any more of your homework for you.

That is cute you pretend there is an answer, you are just not telling me. There is no answer. The best answer that we can give is that it would likely, and ever so slightly, decrease the total number of gun homicides. And that is with extreme gun control outside the authority of our government.

No, not "some." The vast majority. Which is why I'm focused on it.

The vast majority of people want to do harm?

Walk and chew gum. Preach!

Only where chewing is allowed.

I didnt cherry pick countries.

That you, personally, didn't cherry pick does not mean that cherries were not picked.

Homicide rates by country are widely available available online. Yes, we are safer than third world countries. Congrats. We are also much less than many other countries.

Russia is a third world country?

Great, then it shouldn't be a mystery to you why the focus is guns. They are by far the deadliest weapon available to the average person. Self-defense is fine, although a gun in the home actually makes you statistically less safe, not more.

Does Gun Ownership Really Make You Safer? Research Says No

Careful not to fall prey to logical fallacies. Statistical truths are not individual truths.

Again, we are culturally conditioned to associate guns with safety and freedom. These are not objective facts of reality.

Well we are talking about access to one of the most effective and efficient tools of self defense. One is certainly more free with restrictions prohibiting that access.

Yes, specifically tools for killing. Which is the obvious reason why we should restrict access to them.

No it is not obvious reason why we should restrict the general public.

Does addressing mental health as a source of gun violence stigmatize mental health or not? If it does, I don't know why you've brought it up so many times as a priority over gun safety. If it doesn't, then you shouldn't have a problem with mental health screenings.

False dichotomy. It is not addressing it that is cause for stigmatization but how you are suggesting addressing it.

The research I cited included research done in the US. While every country is unique, patterns can be found. To pretend that we are that special and exempted from how reality works is, again, another cultural issue we should work to address.

I am not sure you have taken the time to understand what I have said because here again is a strawman. I am not suggesting that we are special and exempted. I agree that enacting strict gun control measures outside our authority will likely correlate to a very small but statistically significant drop in gun homicide rate. Say from 4.9 to 4.5. Certainly nothing we haven't seen within years without enacting any gun control. However this is outside of our authority and vetter reduction can be achieved while acting within our authority. This is a no brainer: do what is within our authority and achieve better reductions.

I never claimed that gun control would end all violence in society. That is a silly straw man.

Whoa, that is not what I said. Now you are strawmanning me to claim that I am strawmanning you. However, now that you point it out you have claimed that gun violence would no longer be a problem.

Gun control is a kind of harm reduction - it is not absolute, it is not perfect, it is not a panacea for all society's ills, but it does save lives.

Sure statistically it can save a slight but statistically significant amount of lives. It can also cost lives. But as long as the net gain is lives saved you are okay signing on.

Gun control's purpose is not to prevent rape, so that's a complete non sequitur.

I am not talking about gun controls purpose here. I am talking about what gun control misses.

This is a widespread ethical problem faced in all public policy and health research, not unique to guns.

No it is not. This is not smoking causes cancer but it is causation is too rigorous to prove. This is gun control rarely achieves much. This is there was already a downward trend and instead of following that trend and going from 1.9 to 1.8 we saw an accelerated decrease to 1.72. This is we can cherry pick data and excuse incidents to pat ourselves on the back and make the change seem even more significant.

Yes, in the real world remedies are not 100% effective, virtually ever. That is not a rational reason to oppose them.

Not the reason why I oppose it. The reason why I oppose gun control is 1) most suggested gun control is and should be outside our authority. 2) we can make better strides acting within our authority.

I keep bringing up the deeply embedded cultural beliefs and issues at play here, and yet you keep either ignoring them or endorsing them.

I don't think I have ignored anything you said. However, i found it interesting that your view on cultural violence revolves around one's perception of guns. You can make assertions like this all day, but quote me with specifics and I will elaborate.

1) That is a one-dimensional and ahistorical analysis of why we have a 2nd Amendment. This is a subject for another thread, but the Amendment was insisted upon by states who wanted state militias to oppose a federal military force if necessary. It wasn't interpreted by a majority on the Supreme Court as guaranteeing an individual right until 11 years ago in the Heller case.

That "analysis" was not ahistorical in the least.

2) Even the Roberts court in Heller did not interpret all gun control as unconstitutional, so you are just incorrect as to what can be done.

Not sure what you think I have said can or cannot be done in order to make this assessment. This is another where you are going to have to quote me saying something before just asserting I am wrong. Here you have quoted me saying "gun control outside the authority of our government." I don't think I am wrong in suggesting that gun control outside the authority of our government is, by its very nature, outside the authority of our government. But hey if you want to try to prove that "gun control outside the authority of our government" is within the authority of our government, then I am all ears.

 

[oldbadger]

I didn't ignore it. You are.

I said:

Unless you're suggesting that a felon legally acquired his weapons and ammo? Where is your evidence he bought his weapons legally? Because without that evidence then to prove that the only way to obtain these weapons is illegally on the black market.

Not the same thing at all.
But mostly everybody will acknowledge that America is absolutely awash with guns and that it will take decades for any new initiates to make much difference to the situation.

Some of your gun fairs need sorting, or so I have heard.

But since you mention my point about this villain's criminal past, I'll bet that many brains are now investigating away top discover how he came to possess all this armoury.

But one thing is certain...... before very long this dreadful event will have settled in to the midden of dreadful events that occur daily and weekly in the USA.

 

[oldbadger]

... In Mexico where guns are very restricte, there are towns where drug cartels openly patrol their areas with military grade weaponry mounted on the backs of pickups.

QUESTION:-
What would you do?
What would you do if a pickup drove through your streets with a bloke clutching an AR15?

What would you do?

 

[Enoch07]

Not the same thing at all.

Then why are your pretending it is.

But mostly everybody will acknowledge that America is absolutely awash with guns and that it will take decades for any new initiates to make much difference to the situation.

No it won't, because there will be no ban.

Constitutional right that will not be infringed upon.

Some of your gun fairs need sorting, or so I have heard.

Haha oh really them by all means make some suggestions.

But since you mention my point about this villain's criminal past, I'll bet that many brains are now investigating away top discover how he came to possess all this armoury.

It's called the black market. It is not a market for black folk. It is where you buy illegal items like prohibited guns, drugs, smut porn, and even slaves if you got the money. It is the only way a criminal can purchase a weapon in the U.S.

But one thing is certain...... before very long this dreadful event will have settled in to the midden of dreadful events that occur daily and weekly in the USA.

Very dramatic. Chicago experiences most violent weekend of 2019: 52 shot, 10 killed here is 52 people shot 10 dead by guns obtained on the black market. If guns were totally banned in the U.S. 20 years ago. This still would have happened.

 

[oldbadger]

Don't worry, statistically likely to be another one any day now.

I know.........
Somebody with nothing to do could make this in to a hobby, collecting gun murder data by incident, place, casualties, map links, known details of perps ... and as dark and weird a hobby as it would surely be, that person would never ever have nothing to do, for the rest of their lives.
They'd have something to do......... all day and night long...... every waking moment.

 

[Stanyon]

QUESTION:-
What would you do?
What would you do if a pickup drove through your streets with a bloke clutching an AR15?
What would you do?

Let the authorities handle it of course, what does that have to do with the very restrictive laws in Mexico for civilians who can own only .22s with restrictions and drug cartel members driving around with mounted fully automatic heavy machine guns much like the "technicals" with DsHks mounted to them in places like Mogadishu, Iraq, and elsewhere? False equivalency at it's finest.

 

[Augustus]

No because telling people to just say no requires them to voluntarily comply. This is almost futile.

Actually systematic attempts at demand reduction are the best way to reduce drug use and is massively cheaper. Still only has limited effects though.

Securing the border will reduce the flow because you are catching more people transporting. This is proven.

Wow, we still have people who think the "War on Drugs" is winnable. It's not like there is 40 years of evidence to the contrary after all. Multiple US government reports have even noted the failure of interdiction based strategies, but who cares when we have cliches like "secure the borders" to overwhelm mountains of empirical evidence

You could even secure the border like Britain by building a giant sea around your country and it would do **** all like having a sea around Britain does **** all to stop the drug trade.

With mile after mile of border and coast with millions of people and millions of tons of trade coming and going you can't stop enough to make any practical difference.

Even if you do reduce drug flow a bit and this just pushes up prices which funds more smuggling innovation and attracts more people to the trade.

Disruptions in the drug supply tend to lead to more violence anyway, and more expensive drugs lead to more crime among addicts.

It also encourages people to smuggle more dangerous but less bulky drugs like fentanyl, which is not a good thing.

 

[Enoch07]

Actually systematic attempts at demand reduction are the best way to reduce drug use and is massively cheaper.

You mean asking people to just say no?

Wow, we still have people who think the "War on Drugs" is winnable. It's not like there is 40 years of evidence to the contrary after all. Multiple US government reports have even noted the failure of interdiction based strategies, but who cares when we have cliches like "secure the borders" to overwhelm mountains of empirical evidence

Who said anything about winning? There is no such thing. I said reducing. That is the best we can hope for as far as drugs, guns, etc.

You could even secure the border like Britain by building a giant sea around your country and it would do **** all like having a sea around Britain does **** all to stop the drug trade.

What border? The E.U. has yall whipped like yard mutts.

Even if you do reduce drug flow a bit and this just pushes up prices which funds more smuggling innovation and attracts more people to the trade.

Excuses

Disruptions in the drug supply tend to lead to more violence anyway, and more expensive drugs lead to more crime among addicts.

Best to keep them druggies in lala land eh? Easier to control then.

It also encourages people to smuggle more dangerous but less bulky drugs like fentanyl, which is not a good thing.

It's a high dollar business that is the only motivation they need. Saying that cracking down on it will only make it worse is just enabling addicts.

 

[Augustus]

You mean asking people to just say no?

Mostly healthcare and treatment based programmes along with honest education on drugs rather than anti-drug propaganda.

Who said anything about winning? There is no such thing. I said reducing. That is the best we can hope for as far as drugs, guns, etc.

And has 40 years of the WoD reduced use? Did prohibition work?

What border? The E.U. has yall whipped like yard mutts.

Britain isn't part of the Schengen agreement. It still has a border.

Excuses

Basic economics supported by mountains of empirical evidence.

Best to keep them druggies in lala land eh? Easier to control then.

Best to pursue harm reduction strategies, not harm maximisation strategies

It's a high dollar business that is the only motivation they need. Saying that cracking down on it will only make it worse is just enabling addicts.

No, it's looking at what 40 years of evidence shows us rather than relying on empty slogans.

Still, if you like big, inefficient government policies that waste your tax money while reducing your freedoms, who am I to argue?

 

[Enoch07]

Mostly healthcare and treatment based programmes along with honest education on drugs rather than anti-drug propaganda.

Who said anything about anti- drug propaganda? Sorry your strawman just went up in flames.

And has 40 years of the WoD reduced use?

Why are you on about the WoD still. Drop the straw man already.

Did prohibition work?

Nope

Best to pursue harm reduction strategies, not harm maximisation strategies

Giving them needles to enable them isn't helping them.

No, it's looking at what 40 years of evidence shows us rather than relying on empty slogans.

What evidence? What slogans?

This evidence? The evidence showing Amsterdam has become a p00phole overrun with organized criminals since they started ignoring personal use of drugs?

Netherlands becoming a narco-state, warn Dutch police

Still, if you like big, inefficient government policies that waste your tax money while reducing your freedoms, who am I to argue?

Not having access to illicit drugs is a freedom I'm glad to give up. It's nice to walk down the street and not potentially step on a HIV or Hepatitus infected needle. Can't say that in west coast cities in the U.S. Its nice to not have to deal with crack/meth heads trying to steal all my stuff so they can get a fix. It would be nice to have family member not OD from heroin/opioids. I'd guess anyways, don't know what that feels like yet.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Wow, we still have people who think the "War on Drugs" is winnable. It's not like there is 40 years of evidence to the contrary after all.

*cough* Portugal *cough cough*

 

[Augustus]

Who said anything about anti- drug propaganda? Sorry your strawman just went up in flames.

Yet another one to add to the RF trend that 90% of fallacy claims are fallacious, and are, in fact, purely an error of the person claiming them.

I wasn't talking about your position, I was describing what I meant by 'systematic attempts at demand reduction'. Context, my friend, is important

Giving them needles to enable them isn't helping them.

Reducing the spread of AIDS and hepatitis while reducing the number of dirty needles on the streets and creating access points for medical professionals to help addicts into treatment certainly does help, and not just the addicts.

This evidence? The evidence showing Amsterdam has become a p00phole overrun with organized criminals since they started ignoring personal use of drugs?

Netherlands becoming a narco-state, warn Dutch police

You mean Amsterdam that is far, far safer than almost all American cities of which large sections are even worse 'narco-states'?

Amsterdam is so lawless now that the murder rate in St Louis is only a mere 3100% higher How ever will they cope in such a warzone?

It's also very near to Europe's largest port, and it's very easy to get a few Kg of drugs in among the millions of tonnes of legitimate cargo. Hence the reason drug interdiction strategies are so futile.

Not having access to illicit drugs is a freedom I'm glad to give up. It's nice to walk down the street and not potentially step on a HIV or Hepatitus infected needle. Can't say that in west coast cities in the U.S. Its nice to not have to deal with crack/meth heads trying to steal all my stuff so they can get a fix. It would be nice to have family member not OD from heroin/opioids. I'd guess anyways, don't know what that feels like yet.

The WoD has introduced many legal measures that increase the power of the government and do indeed reduce your freedoms though.

Anyway 'securing the borders' won't stop the above anyway, as 40 years of evidence demonstrates it has minimal effect on the drug trade.

If you want to avoid the above, then needle exchanges, and investment in treating addicts will get you much more for your money.

The number of drug addicts in the US with draconian penalties and massive anti-drug budget is much higher than in any other Western country. Strangely enough, these countries spend less on drug wars and more on harm reduction.

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah there are not really "glaring loopholes." What you are stressing about is the occasional private sale between individuals not engaged in buying and selling of weapons as a course of trade. This is not a glaring loophole. This means individuals who occasionally sell firearms can sell to other private parties within the same state (of some states) without background checks. Of the states that allow this, they are well equipped to decide for themselves.

How many private gun sales occur in the US annually, for you to conclude the loophole is not glaring? That is also not the only loophole addressed, but also includes lengthening the number of days required for a background check to be done so gives can't be sold prematurely without background check.

Not sure what your link was, it didn't work. But yes it is a violation of HIPAA.

Again, you claim things with no citation of evidence. No, release of PHI for law enforcement purposes is not a violation of HIPAA. You don't know what you're talking about.

Identifying mental health issues as a source of gun violence does not stigmatize these issues. Punishing individuals with mental health issues categorically does.

The only category involved are people who are homicidal/suicidal or so ill they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others in the view of a licensed mental health professional. Do you think homicidal people should have access to a gun?

So 4.3 is okay but 4.9 is not? Where is the line of acceptance gun homicide or gun crime?

You pulled those numbers from...somewhere, not sure where. If you want to pull actual data we can look at it. Hypotheticals will only get us so far.

That is cute you pretend there is an answer, you are just not telling me. There is no answer. The best answer that we can give is that it would likely, and ever so slightly, decrease the total number of gun homicides.

Any evidence to actually support that you want to cite?

And that is with extreme gun control outside the authority of our government.

Perhaps in your view. Not in the view of the Supreme Court, much less if the court wasn't currently controlled by conservatives.

The vast majority of people want to do harm?

No, the vast majority of people who commit homicide choose a gun.

That you, personally, didn't cherry pick does not mean that cherries were not picked.

You're in a conversation with me...

Russia is a third world country?

What is the median household income in the US vs. Russia? I think it makes more sense to compare ourselves to relatively prosperous nations, no?

Careful not to fall prey to logical fallacies. Statistical truths are not individual truths.

Careful not to fall prey to the power of anecdote. Anecdotal evidence does not make good public policy.

Well we are talking about access to one of the most effective and efficient tools of self defense. One is certainly more free with restrictions prohibiting that access.

One is not free if they're dead.

No it is not obvious reason why we should restrict the general public.

We just disagree then.

False dichotomy. It is not addressing it that is cause for stigmatization but how you are suggesting addressing it.

Again, unless you want homicidal people to have guns, a restriction preventing them has to be enacted.

I am not sure you have taken the time to understand what I have said because here again is a strawman. I am not suggesting that we are special and exempted. I agree that enacting strict gun control measures outside our authority will likely correlate to a very small but statistically significant drop in gun homicide rate. Say from 4.9 to 4.5. Certainly nothing we haven't seen within years without enacting any gun control. However this is outside of our authority and vetter reduction can be achieved while acting within our authority. This is a no brainer: do what is within our authority and achieve better reductions.

More claims, zero evidence to support.

Whoa, that is not what I said. Now you are strawmanning me to claim that I am strawmanning you. However, now that you point it out you have claimed that gun violence would no longer be a problem.

You said, "I am sorry that you won't accept that gun control will not reach the roots of violence in our society." I have never claimed it would. I claim it is a harm reduction strategy, not a universal cure for violent tendencies.

Sure statistically it can save a slight but statistically significant amount of lives. It can also cost lives. But as long as the net gain is lives saved you are okay signing on.

You would prefer a policy that costs more lives?

I am not talking about gun controls purpose here. I am talking about what gun control misses.

If you oppose street lights because they don't end all car accidents, you're being more than a bit silly. Gun control is not the only thing to be done. It is one obvious thing though.

No it is not. This is not smoking causes cancer but it is causation is too rigorous to prove.

No, it is because we need experimentation to show cause, and that is an ethical problem when dealing with real-world policy that could cost lives.

This is gun control rarely achieves much.

More claims, no evidence.

This is there was already a downward trend and instead of following that trend and going from 1.9 to 1.8 we saw an accelerated decrease to 1.72.

More claims, no evidence. One of my citations addressed the secular trend that already exists. You didnt read, or ignored it.

This is we can cherry pick data and excuse incidents to pat ourselves on the back and make the change seem even more significant.

Meaningless.

Not the reason why I oppose it. The reason why I oppose gun control is 1) most suggested gun control is and should be outside our authority. [/quote]

You would need to actually make this case, not just claim it.

2) we can make better strides acting within our authority.

Cool. Evidence?

I don't think I have ignored anything you said. However, i found it interesting that your view on cultural violence revolves around one's perception of guns. You can make assertions like this all day, but quote me with specifics and I will elaborate.

I quoted you every time I made a comment. Go back and read?

Not sure what you think I have said can or cannot be done in order to make this assessment. This is another where you are going to have to quote me saying something before just asserting I am wrong. Here you have quoted me saying "gun control outside the authority of our government." I don't think I am wrong in suggesting that gun control outside the authority of our government is, by its very nature, outside the authority of our government. But hey if you want to try to prove that "gun control outside the authority of our government" is within the authority of our government, then I am all ears.

Obviously, the point is to identify which policies specifically you think are "outside the authority of government." There is no need for word games.

 

[oldbadger]

Let the authorities handle it of course, what does that have to do with the very restrictive laws in Mexico for civilians who can own only .22s with restrictions and drug cartel members driving around with mounted fully automatic heavy machine guns much like the "technicals" with DsHks mounted to them in places like Mogadishu, Iraq, and elsewhere? False equivalency at it's finest.

Ok..... so what would you expect the authorities to do? About that truck driving around your district with a bloke on it holding an AR15?
I'm not comparing the above to anything. Just interested, is all. At least I'm in the right country.....

Now..... you're making mention of situations ion Mexico, that is a false equivalency at its finest! You ain't in Mexico!

 

[Curious George]

Again, you claim things with no citation of evidence. No, release of PHI for law enforcement purposes is not a violation of HIPAA. You don't know what you're talking about

Why do you think a background check to purchase an item is law enforcement purposes?

 

[Curious George]

The only category involved are people who are homicidal/suicidal or so ill they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others in the view of a licensed mental health professional. Do you think homicidal people should have access to a gun

I disagree that this is the only category involved.

No, i do not think a homicidal person should have access to a gun.

 

[Curious George]

You pulled those numbers from...somewhere, not sure where. If you want to pull actual data we can look at it. Hypotheticals will only get us so far.

Turkey's homicide rate in 2012. Turkey is a "developed nation."

 

[Left Coast]

Why do you think a background check to purchase an item is law enforcement purposes?

If it is the law that you must pass a background check to purchase an item, then by definition running the background check is a law enforcement purpose.

 

[Left Coast]

I disagree that this is the only category involved.

No, i do not think a homicidal person should have access to a gun.

If you don't think a homicidal person should have access to a gun, then some step(s) must be taken to ensure they don't. So what are they?