Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

And now for something completely different:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/dona...n-the-data-of-life-and-the-universe-20180411/
It turns out the stats dominating the gun control debate have been so strikingly bad they have been used to promote major improvements in how statistics are treated in the first place. Here's Donald Richards illustrating the value of a new measure of correlation he helped invent, the "distance correlation", by retailing how it improves on an example of the common public misuse of gun violence statistics:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what a surprise your lying about gun control again. your making a strawman argument. the principle use of the statistic your whinying about is not that its used to support gun control but used to refute gun nuts. and here the next 2 paragraphs from your source

emphasis mine. funny your own source disagrees with you. your nothing but a lying hack ice. the proof is right there. your source literally says the exact opposite of what you claim it does.

i like how you cut out the 2 paragraphs that prove you wrong. to reiterate quit fucking lying. you deliberately edit the source material to alter its meaning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where in the constitution does it say that airlines can ban you from bringing your gun onboard? Hurry, answer quickly before you piss off Mr. Toad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't specifically outlaw stupidity either, so here you are.

Another flaw in the Constitution, right? Troll.

 

right next to where it says that in Canada you (specifically) were not taught the difference between Rights and Laws

 

Ok, so let's try this once again. Does the US constitution permit people to keep and bear arms anywhere they please, or is it legal to restrict the locations where they're allowed to do this?

 

The Constitution permits and forbids things to the government. It is not statutory law.
No rights possessed by anyone, Constitutionally enumerated or not, are absolute. All rights can be - must be, if more than one is to exist - restricted by statute, and custom, and physical circumstance.

 

Ok, so if a judge rules that one person keeping guns in their home is a danger to the person next door and a violation of that person's rights, why is it not possible to apply restrictions on gun storage just like it's done for aircraft?

 

It is.
That would apply to that one person, of course, who was ruled a danger after due process of law.

 

To be sure, you're talking two separate types of places.
One is public and requires special circumstance (aeroplanes) and the other is private (or is that different in Canada?).

in the US, You don't have public access to your home, nor do you have a pressurized home flying or floating between 5K and 35K feet which would cause considerable public damage or loss of life if violated. You also have a right to privacy as has been determined in the SCOTUS and case law. See also Iceaura above

 

But according to the constitution, that's having your gun rights infringed upon, or so goes the anti-restriction rhetoric. Banning gun-toting passengers from aircraft is discrimination according to that language, just as your civil rights would be violated if you were prohibited from flying on account of your skin color.

I don't think any of America's founding fathers made exceptions for airplanes when they drafted the constitution, although hot air balloons might be in there. The way I see it, if violations of a strict NRA constitutional interpretation are permitted in circumstances such as aircraft, or courthouses, then they should be equally permissible in restricting where people are allowed to carry or store their guns under other circumstances.

 

No, it doesn't. (Neither one)
No rights are absolute.

There's no violation.

 

I forgot, I'm arguing with certified Supreme Court justices. If only I was free to make up my own arbitrary interpretation of the constitution just like you guys...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are, actually.
You are also arguing with chapters in high school civics textbooks, encyclopedias, websites you can check for yourself, various answer keys on the Bar Exams of various States, and so forth.
But carry on, telling all the Americans what the NRA, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the Supreme Court meant to say and should have said.

 

Agreed. And the Supreme Court, in Heller vs DC, also agreed.

 

I think the Founding Fathers wanted everyone to have landmines scattered around their property, just in case some intruders decide to poke their noses in.

 

John Adams always preferred thermonuclear weapons to muskets. George Washington was more of a Sarin man himself.

 

"good morning department of redundancy department good morning may I help you?"

 

Yeah, but ... I mean ....

Okay, so, one of my posts on the subject, from another thread, last last month:

While it is true I find the car comparison inappropriate, the firearms lobby really has insisted; the common sense of the comparison is disrupted, for gun safety advocates because it never was a legitimate comparison, and firearms advocates because decades have passed and they still haven't figured out basic questions of function. They need to show us how to ride their guns to work, and mounting them on a car doesn't count. They need to show how they write a novel, or take the SAT (#2 pencil only), with a gun.

(#3510304/33↗)​

So, since you went ahead and wrote the car comparison in yet another thread↗, I thought perhaps the Department of Redundancy Department might well wonder yet again whether anyone offering that two-bit sleight is capable of answering the basic question.

We had a terrible accident out here, in my corner of the world, last night, and the questions at hand are how did that happen, and do we really want to know.

But like the car, it does make a good point about guns: When you show me how to perform this or that task with a gun, we can consider the associated machines similarly to how the Road Crash Statistics will be relevant once you show me how to drive your gun to work, and something goes here about using a firearm to fill out your SAT form.

In this case, nobody is ever going to undertake this particular activity with a firearm; it's the wrong tool for the job because while the car is made for transportation, the pencil for writing, and so on, other instruments that can be harmful have ostensibly different purposes; a firearm is for killing. It is not a proper tool for turning out the lights, or opening a beer, or landscaping, or bee-shooing, or spicing up our sex lives.

Indeed, I recall a conversation one could hear some decades ago among Lustbader readers, who would sit around like macho men comparing their guns or cars, but they werre counting up lethal weapons in a room according to some passage in one or another of the novels arguing over a hundred seventy lethal weapons in a hotel room, and I think that includes stuff like strangling someone with the phone cables, or bludgeoning them with the components, and right there are four; owing to certain martial arts involving fans it seems worth noting the arguable thesis that courtesy stationery might be used to slice someone's throat open.

That scrap of memory only wanders through because one of the most common political representations on behalf of gun ownership in firearm safety discussions is the cognitive disruption evident about shooter rights advocates; nobody needs to make believe about advocates who aren't capable of discerning such basic differences.

Yet it keeps happening.

What's that? Another comparison of cars to guns? (sigh). Good morning, Department of Redundancy Department; may I help you, or are you beyond help?

So, driving cars: Mandatory education? Mandatory periodic relicensing obligations, including occasional mandatory competence testing? Mandatory liability insurance? And on that last, there are, of course, other outlooks↗ on the subject of mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership, but it always reads like cognitive dissonance when the argument on behalf of shooter rights invokes an automotive comparison while, generally speaking, shooter rights advocates don't really seem to want to deal with the rest of what goes with that juxtaposition.

 

In our state it's mandatory to receive and prove training to get a hunting permit.

it's equivalent to license holders, except we have to test regularly for guns whereas renewing the driving license only requires you pay the state occasionally.

CDL holders have to pay more, and provide proof of health, training and additional endorsement information, much like a CCW permit holder.

that is based on existing law and is enforced, including to out-of-state requests for hunting permits.

required for hunting and CCW permits - but not drivers licenses unless specifically requested by an authority due to evidence (judge, LEO's and dashcam, etc).

optional but highly recommended in state.
In county, since we have a new sheriff in town, it's reqired it for CCW permit issue. no requirement to maintain once permit is issued, however.

as noted elsewhere, the industry is not a fan. I still fight with my company. That article may be older, but it's still relevant today, I assure you.

Costs are prohibitive and lower income are less likely to use insurance under those conditions