Tennessee legislature passes permitless handgun carry bill

[VirOptimus]

No I know what the word means it means something that’s not based on facts and these cases are facts. They are undeniable events that took place in real life. That is by definition a fact. Perhaps you just don’t know the meaning of the word fact.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So let me make certain I have your claim correct. You are claiming that because of these two incidents if we only had the majority of society armed then we would no longer have mass shooting events because anyone who tried would be gunned down?

Nope I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the attacker wouldn’t be able to kill as many people if he’s surrounded by people who have the ability to defend themselves.

 

[VirOptimus]

Nope I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the attacker wouldn’t be able to kill as many people if he’s surrounded by people who have the ability to protect themselves.

And if the attacker didnt have a gun in the first place, what would happen then?

 

[BNR32FAN]

And if the attacker didnt have a gun in the first place, what would happen then?

And how do you propose to take the guns away from the criminals?

 

[Belk]

Nope I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that the attacker wouldn’t be able to kill as many people if he’s surrounded by people who have the ability to defend themselves.

I see. So you are not proposing this will end mass shootings, simply make them less deadly?

 

[VirOptimus]

And how do you propose to take the guns away from the criminals?

I dont have all the answers (obviously, noone does) but lets say that by gun regulation you take away the guns from 15 % of the potential mass shoters, thats 500% more effective than ”good guy with a gun”.

And you didnt answer my question.

 

[Speedwell]

And how do you propose to take the guns away from the criminals?

Can't be done wholesale, only by attrition. The best that can be hoped for is to make it harder for them to get guns in the first place--and take them away from them when they're caught, and actually punish them for using them.

 

[hislegacy]

Can't be done wholesale, only by attrition. The best that can be hoped for is to make it harder for them to get guns in the first place--and take them away from them when they're caught, and actually punish them for using them.

What does that look like in real life? Chicago, a large city that is in one of the most restrictive states when is comes to gun control - what should they do differently, cause what they are currently doing sure ain't working.

40 shot, 5 fatally, in Chicago this weekend

36 shot, 4 fatally, in Chicago this weekend

At Least 40 Shot, 4 Killed In Weekend Gun Violence In Chicago; 2 Dead, 13 Wounded In One Mass Shooting

Tracking Chicago homicide victims

Latest Deadly Shooting Adds to Spate of Chicago Homicides

And that is only March of this year.

 

[renniks]

I dont have all the answers (obviously, noone does) but lets say that by gun regulation you take away the guns from 15 % of the potential mass shoters, thats 500% more effective than ”good guy with a gun”.

And you didnt answer my question.

A good guy with a gun is 100% effective if he puts a bullet in the right place.
Fact: everyone here has guns.
There's no buy back program that's going to pick them all up, no door to door confiscation either.

 

[VirOptimus]

A good guy with a gun is 100% effective if he puts a bullet in the right place.
Fact: everyone here has guns.
There's no buy back program that's going to pick them all up, no door to door confiscation either.

See my link upthread.

 

[Kentonio]

Umm it’s called reality. Not living in America I wouldn’t expect you to have the slightest idea of what your talking about. America has roughly 434 million guns in circulation. Suddenly making gun laws that only disarm law abiding citizens doesn’t protect law abiding citizens at all. Furthermore it wouldn’t remove guns from the population because it would only open up a black market for guns to be sold by drug smuggling organizations furthering their wealth. I’ve provided clear cases where guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do save lives. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that unarmed civilians can’t protect themselves from an armed attacker.

Your argument basically boils down to 'we have so many guns that there's no point in trying to reduce the number, so we need more'. Perhaps you have just passed the point of no return with regards to them, but if so that's something to be deeply ashamed of, not proud of.

Criminals aren’t going to relinquish their weapons just because it’s against the law to possess them. That’s just common sense, but then again unfortunately common sense isn’t so common these days.

No that isn't common sense, that's just nonsense. The entire justice system is built on the principle that penalizing bad behavior is a logical way to reduce bad behavior. There is no such thing as this cartoon 'criminal' who will just do any bad thing they can get away with, wants to hurt anyone they can, and is not concerned with consequences. A few extreme people might be found who fit those descriptions, but acting as if its a generalized definition of a criminal is kindergarten level thinking.

If you suddenly make the penalty for shoplifting 20 years in jail, then you'll see an awfully huge drop in shoplifting rates. We don't do it, because its totally disproportionate, but it would certainly have a massive effect. Similarly if you make possession of a class of weapons carry a very steep penalty, then even amongst criminals you'll see a steep decline in them carrying those weapons. Because the penalty starts to outweigh the potential benefit to them. Just like when RICO laws were enacted, you saw lifelong Mafioso suddenly start ratting out their buddies, simply because potentially spending the rest of your life in jail really does act as a sanity check for most people.

If someone is selling small amounts of drugs or stealing a few cars, they're probably looking at a fairly low jail time if caught. If also carrying a gun means they face an extra decade or more inside if caught, many of them simply won't do it.

Oh and those people who claim to be law-abiding citizens but who declare they wouldn't give up their guns if the law was changed, give me a break. Actually pass that law and face them with 10 years inside for breaking it, and watch as most of them do a rapid u-turn.

 

[parousia70]

The wrong people will always have guns...that's why the right people need them also.

Q: How many of the wrong people have fully automatic weapons?

A: ZERO - ONLY Law Abiding Citizens Own Fully automatic Weapons.

If your premise is true, How'd we manage that?

 

[renniks]

What does that look like in real life? Chicago, a large city that is in one of the most restrictive states when is comes to gun control - what should they do differently, cause what they are currently doing sure ain't working.

40 shot, 5 fatally, in Chicago this weekend

36 shot, 4 fatally, in Chicago this weekend

At Least 40 Shot, 4 Killed In Weekend Gun Violence In Chicago; 2 Dead, 13 Wounded In One Mass Shooting

Tracking Chicago homicide victims

Latest Deadly Shooting Adds to Spate of Chicago Homicides

And that is only March of this year.

Seems like those gun laws are really working well!

 

[renniks]

Q: How many of the wrong people have fully automatic weapons?

A: ZERO - ONLY Law Abiding Citizens Own Fully automatic Weapons.

If your premise is true, How'd we manage that?

Really? Why would you believe that no criminal has a full auto?
In a town near here they found grenades in someone's house. Kinda illegal, and hard to get but obviously not impossible.

 

[renniks]

No that isn't common sense, that's just nonsense. The entire justice system is built on the principle that penalizing bad behavior is a logical way to reduce bad behavior. There is no such thing as this cartoon 'criminal' who will just do any bad thing they can get away with, wants to hurt anyone they can, and is not concerned with consequences.

Lol, you are a dreamer aren't you?

 

[renniks]

See my link upthread.

I have no interest in your links.

 

[98cwitr]

Your argument basically boils down to 'we have so many guns that there's no point in trying to reduce the number, so we need more'. Perhaps you have just passed the point of no return with regards to them, but if so that's something to be deeply ashamed of, not proud of.



No that isn't common sense, that's just nonsense. The entire justice system is built on the principle that penalizing bad behavior is a logical way to reduce bad behavior. There is no such thing as this cartoon 'criminal' who will just do any bad thing they can get away with, wants to hurt anyone they can, and is not concerned with consequences. A few extreme people might be found who fit those descriptions, but acting as if its a generalized definition of a criminal is kindergarten level thinking.

If you suddenly make the penalty for shoplifting 20 years in jail, then you'll see an awfully huge drop in shoplifting rates. We don't do it, because its totally disproportionate, but it would certainly have a massive effect. Similarly if you make possession of a class of weapons carry a very steep penalty, then even amongst criminals you'll see a steep decline in them carrying those weapons. Because the penalty starts to outweigh the potential benefit to them. Just like when RICO laws were enacted, you saw lifelong Mafioso suddenly start ratting out their buddies, simply because potentially spending the rest of your life in jail really does act as a sanity check for most people.

If someone is selling small amounts of drugs or stealing a few cars, they're probably looking at a fairly low jail time if caught. If also carrying a gun means they face an extra decade or more inside if caught, many of them simply won't do it.

Oh and those people who claim to be law-abiding citizens but who declare they wouldn't give up their guns if the law was changed, give me a break. Actually pass that law and face them with 10 years inside for breaking it, and watch as most of them do a rapid u-turn.

Prison is not much of a deterrent to some, especially those who are violent and expecting to go back as repeat offenders (68% of violent criminals who are willing to use a gun in the commission of their crimes become repeat offenders, according to the Marshall Project). To assume incarceration is an effective deterrent is to see through a civilized person's eyes.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have no interest in your links.

Thats because you are here to preach, not debate.

 

[Speedwell]

What does that look like in real life? Chicago, a large city that is in one of the most restrictive states when is comes to gun control - what should they do differently, cause what they are currently doing sure ain't working.

40 shot, 5 fatally, in Chicago this weekend

36 shot, 4 fatally, in Chicago this weekend

At Least 40 Shot, 4 Killed In Weekend Gun Violence In Chicago; 2 Dead, 13 Wounded In One Mass Shooting

Tracking Chicago homicide victims

Latest Deadly Shooting Adds to Spate of Chicago Homicides

And that is only March of this year.

What good do strict gun control laws in Chicago do if it's possible to buy handguns without a background check just over the line in Indiana? What good do strict gun control laws to if that's the only step you take to control gun crime? Chicago is a good example. In Chicago it is not unusual for a person arrested for a gun crime to be back on the streets and arrested for another a couple of days later. I believe that the record is three times in one week.

 

[VirOptimus]

Prison is not much of a deterrent to some, especially those who are violent and expecting to go back as repeat offenders (68% of violent criminals who are willing to use a gun in the commission of their crimes become repeat offenders, according to the Marshall Project). To assume incarceration is an effective deterrent is to see through a civilized person's eyes.

Its much much more complex than that.