Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

The guys who wrote the Science magazine research article I referenced showed that.
That and simple common sense - a carried gun is clearly less secure: more accidents, more thefts.

Not blaming - just pointing out that you were wrong: the size of the base was fine for the purpose, provided the selection was truly random.

Standard investigation and police procedure is.
Universal background checks for all gun sales do not require or necessarily create a national registry of guns or gun owners.

So your assertion in #583 was not true, as noted. One often does have to prove a need to receive some kinds of health care, commonly and normally. That will be the case even if medical care is declared an enumerated right.

We've settled something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you show me where you linked, instead of only referenced, some unnamed article?
No, your uninformed "simple common sense" doesn't mean much.

Again, you ever plan to link to these studies you reference?

You keep saying "Standard investigation" as if it were a magical incantation. Investigation and prosecution require evidence. You've not explained how that would be obtained or what it may be.

Again, there's a standard for determining prescription need that applies equally to all patients, but "may-issue" ignores equal rights under the law with arbitrary determination. If you think those are the same, that's on you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personally, I do not feel the need for concealed carry. Nor do I wish to be burdened by the extra weight.
However, if the world "goes to hell in a handcart", it may one day become the smart move.
Currently, Iowa is a “shall issue” state. meaning that the sheriff cannot deny the permit to an applicant that is not prohibited under state criteria from obtaining a permit.
After reading the regulations, it seems that having a weapon "concealed" in a car or truck may make one wish that they had a concealed carry permit.
(it seems that ofttimes, legislators make laws intentionally vague----------a lawyer neighbor said that is what keeps lawyers employed)

meanwhile, we have the musings of
peter sloterdijk
on “rage banks,” his term for the way that disparate grievances can be organized into larger reserves of political capital.
...
But modern capitalism presents a particular problem. “Ever more irritated and isolated individuals find themselves surrounded by impossible offers,” he writes, and, out of this frustrated desire, “an impulse to hate everything emerges.” It was this kind of rage, ...
.......................................
It often seems that there are those who would use the tendency to rage to further divide us into warring factions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. Just referenced.

It means more than yours - partly because it was informed, partly because you are refusing to pay attention.

When it's easy and of material import. I don't need a study like that to show me that a firearm carried around everywhere is more likely to be lost or stolen, and more likely to be involved in accidents - I only referenced the Cook study published in "Science" because it put numerical estimates on this extra risk, and they differed somewhat from your study's numbers - thereby proving that, contrary to your suggestions, such research is available to some extent.

If you don't know how the police investigate crimes, I can't help you here. Start another thread, if you are curious. We could begin by describing how the police establish the origin and chain of possession of unregistered stolen goods, unregistered illegal and legal drugs, etc, when they are involved in a crime.

To the extent that means anything, it's false (the standards involved in prescribing drugs often vary widely by region, by physician, even by hospital).

Your claim was that health care did not require proof of need. I pointed to the obvious and incontrovertible evidence that your claim was false. It's not the only evidence - proving "need" for otherwise unobtainable care is a major health care issue with many aspects and ramifications - but it's very plain and simple and impossible to overlook once noticed.

The most critical relevant aspect is that proof of need for some provisions of care (opioid pain relief, plastic surgery of some kinds, mental health treatments of some kinds, etc) is an unavoidable feature of health care systems even when health care is an enumerated right. That has direct import for gun control laws.

As long as you are vague and do not point to specific people or events, you can get away with that.

When "those" are named and described, the historical record of their behaviors and explicit justifications or recommendations used to describe their ideology and political nature, what you just wrote there is called a "conspiracy theory" by the entire mainstream media and most of the public.

 

So you're outright refusing to cite your source?

But you refuse to cite what supposedly informs you?

But you refuse to actually cite said study?
I don't remember claiming such research wasn't available. Just that you repeatedly refuse to actually cite it.
I'm not going to take your word for it, and you refusing to cite it just makes you seem intellectually dishonest.
Are you afraid of what I'd find if I actually saw said research?

Oh, I know how police work is done, which is why I'm asking you what evidence could be used to prosecute noncompliance with universal background checks and how police could obtain that evidence. If you can't tell me, I can only assume you don't know.
The owners of stolen goods freely cooperate in identifying their possessions, because it generally doesn't open them up to prosecution.
Legal drugs have prescription records, similar to a registration. The origin of illegal drugs can only be determined by catching them with the same composition of said drugs.
Do you have any examples that actually make the point you're trying to argue?

You'd have to support that to be taken seriously.

No, you pointed to an element of healthcare. You can see a doctor, and even gets tests (if you can pay for them), without any proof of need. Prescriptions are a red-herring that ignores healthcare in general.

 

Yep. I'm telling you to go pound sand, that this tactic of yours has reached the limit of my patience.

You can look it up yourself, you have plenty of information (author's name, publication, topic, approximate time, etc), or pretend it doesn't exist - your choice.
You could even return to the actual argument involved, and quit trying to argue about whether carrying loaded guns around everywhere brings extra risk of loss, theft, and accident. Because that's not an intellectually honest approach - if such is a concern of yours.

Or as you put it: he said she said.
Funny how that doesn't prevent arrest and prosecution.

You appear clueless.

Neither one of those is always the case.

No. You'd need a good reason for asking that such an obvious and well known fact be explained to you, to be taken seriously. And you don't have one.

A central and controlling element in obtaining medical care of many kinds, and merely one of several I could have pointed to - some of which I listed.

Depends on the doctor, and the tests.

Give up. One must prove need, to obtain medical care of various kinds. And that would be the case even if medical care were an enumerated right.

Gun regulations can be formulated, made law, and enforced - from RPM restrictions to universal background checks, from magazine size to special conceal carry regs - despite the 2nd. And they will be - with the input of the informed, or without.

 

There is no right to health care in the usa.

my sugestion is that moraly the defining difference is defined by the nature of the expected right to the gun(maybe what your suggesting) being incongruent to the right to protect your life as the state having ultimate accountability to protect life...
i.e laws over children
laws over prisoners etc etc...
the social/civil right to a gun Vs the denial of rights to have your life saved.

it surely is odd that police for example in the usa are given the right to take life but are not also held accountable to save lifes.

soo many times i have heard americans say "thats not their job" aka "just following orders"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
... as if that is the excuse for everything.

 

Trolling.

Shifting the burden and trolling.

Except people usually report stolen goods before they are found.
Do you have an analogous situation for guns? Do the straw buyers report them stolen?

Then what case can you give that is relevant to guns?
I'm trying, but eventually you have to justify your own arguments.

Null hypothesis.

Again, healthcare isn't a right. And you've provided no means to enforce any universal background check.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


the right to healthcare is implicit to the right to life. it is in fact the logical conclusion of having a right to life. without the right to healthcare the right to life is merely fluff.

the question on universal background checks must be asked why are you demanding a loophole be left that is arming criminals. the simple fact your unhealthy obsession with guns and being completely ignorant of the second amendment other than what an extremist NRA has told you to believe arms criminals ranging from gangs to the mexican drug cartels. the simple fact remains there is no legal obstacle to universal background checks or hell even a national gun registry which i feel would be a good idea. it would vastly increase the cost of gun theft for criminals. the second amendment is an anachronism that was an olive branch stating the federal government wouldn't disarm the states for giving up their authority over military affairs nothing more nothing less. anything else you've been told is a lie.

 

No, all the Constitutional rights are negative rights that only require others not infringe them. Healthcare is a positive right, that requires the labor of others to provide. One is only a right, while the other demands an obligation from others. Demanding labor by government force is slavery.
Do you really think no one can live without healthcare? How did we ever survive long enough to develop medicine?

You know who did intentionally let cartels get guns? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Again, how would you enforce universal background checks? A national gun registry. That's never going to fly, due to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
How would that increase the cost of gun theft for criminals? Aren't stolen guns already reported?
DC v Heller holds that it's an individual's right to possess firearms.

You can feel however you like about it. Wish in one hand, defecate it the other, and see which fills up first.

 

Irrelevant.

Your assertion that it could be obtained without proof of need was in error.

Any case in which the origins of a gun are in question - any illegal supplier is taking a risk of finding themselves investigated, which reduces supply and increases price of illegal guns.

To repeat: By interviews, interrogations, surveillance, and other routine police procedures. Same way one traces illegal explosives, illegal animals and drugs, illegal gambling and loan sharking, liquor and tobacco tax evasion, and so forth.

- - - -
Meanwhile, in the world outside: https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/03/20/to-the-guy-waving-his-gun-during-our-dinner-tonight/

 

this is patently false. the question of positive and negative rights is still hotly debated but considering the courts ruled in favor of abortion rights that has been implemented as a positive right. you do realize medicine predate history right? however life was shit without it. but given your heavy political bias and over all low intellectual capacity i doubt your goping to admit this.

completely different there is a huge difference between allowing tagged items to travel through black market channels in an effort to track them and deliberately creating the means for crimianls to getting guns.

gun registry. could you please explain how a gun registry has anything to do with prevent the fwederal government from disarming the state miltias? because that the intent of the second amendment anything else is your own private delusion

economics still not your forte i see. the costs involved in gun theft are the ease of capture and traceability of the crime. if you make it all but guaranteed they will get caught and convicted you make less likely they will commit the crime. just look at the yakuza in japan. the opportunity costs of gun usage is so high they actually kill members who use them because of the heat it brings.

true which if you'll note was 10 years ago and overturned over 200 years of precident. if crybabies like your self can whine and get 200 years of precident over turned by whinying like spoiled children for 40 years i can still argue the original precident should be brought back. ie by using and relying heller your essentially admitting you ran a con game to get the interpertation changed. the second amendment still stands as an anachronism and the historical precident will eventual come back. yuou and your are to violent and hatefilled for anything else to come about.

considering your the one using the great ape as your moniker perhaps you should be carefully about the defecating in ones hands comments though you tend to defecate from your mouth with your posting.

 

Most people wouldn't. We would return to the days where people did not name children until they reached age 5 since so many of them would die in childbirth or as infants.

By having lots and lots of kids, and doing your life's work before you reached 40.

As Heller proved, the right to own guns is not unlimited, and restrictions/regulations on gun ownership do not violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

to all those confused about the intent of the second amendment like vociferous and ice here is the second amendment as it passed the house of representives

please note the last clause explictly talking about military service. while not the version that passed it does help crystalize the intent

since your both dishonest and will only see what you want to. it specifically spells out that bearing arms is serving militarily no personal right to self defense at all. you'd be better served using the ninth amendment and english common law but you prefer twisting the second because you do not want anything that might force you to be responsible

 

or
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
or
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
or
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
or
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
or
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
or
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
or
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It would seem that there was a bit of deliberation, as to the exact phraseology, involved between June 08/1789 and September 21/1789

.............................
chose one and guess as to the originator.

 

We should not try to interpret the 2nd amendment beyond what was the original context of the amendment as written by the founding fathers.

Everyone should have the right to own a musket.

 

In the American Revolutionary War, colonial rebel sharpshooters using much more deadly Kentucky and Pennsylvania long rifles with rifled barrels inflicted heavy casualties on the British regulars.

range Kentucky rifle and Pennsylvania rifle 200 yards
range of British brown bess musket 50-75 yards

and
we won
-------------------
extrapolating from that
our side(civilian militia) had better weapons than those of the most powerful military in the world of that time.
So ......................................
perhaps that(having better weapons than the military) was the right that the 2nd was designed/crafted to preserve

 

The rifles were comparatively expensive and took longer to load, so they had a downside as well. The last competition I saw, at "Friendship, Indiana" had one shooter and three loaders servicing four rifled muskets.

As for the muskets, the command was "level", not "aim", because God only knew where that ball was going when it left the barrel.

 

You're right! The populace must be armed better than the most powerful militaries in the world. Nukes, Sarin and anthrax for everyone! Only then can we protect the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

When you outlaw thermonuclear weapons, only outlaws will have thermonuclear weapons.
The only way to stop a bad guy with a Sarin dispersal system is a good guy with a Sarin dispersal system.
I'd rather be judged by 12,000,000 than carried by six.
Just label all the areas with no nukes as "victim disarmament zones."
Ted Kennedy killed more people with his car than I ever did with my Davy Crockett M-29.

 

Sama
standard british marching speed(116 beats/minute, 30 inch step)= about 96 yards/minute = about 1 1/2 minutes to close the gap from 200 yards to 50 yards.
average reload of rifle = 30 seconds
= fire 3 shots before the british could engage
(then, ----------------------------RUN)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!