BBC News - US gun laws: House votes to loosen background checks rules US gun laws: House votes to loosen background checks rules - BBC News
Republicans are not real conservatives. What do they want to “conserve”? They are only interested in the freedom of owning guns and assault weapons. They demand looser restrictions on selling and buying guns. They are not interested in protecting human lives. More guns, more gun deaths.
They are conservative concerning guns because the 2nd Amendment in the United States Constitution allows US citizens to own firearms. Conservatives want to “conserve” that right by not allowing stricter provisions in order to attain firearms.
“A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.”
Second Amendment Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute via @LIICornell
(Added)
I think that the Second Amendment could be interpreted in different ways.
"Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold
regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)"
Second Amendment Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute via @LIICornell
(Added)
Restrictions on owning and carrying handguns and assault weapons is not in conflict wth the Second Amendment according to the courts in the US.
Yup, 2nd amendment.
“More guns, more gun deaths”
Although I don’t like guns and don’t enjoy being around people who have them…facts.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013
I am not saying more guns means less murders(correlation is not causation). I really don’t think this is the important variable. I wish it was because then you could just take away all the guns, but history has shown it doesn’t work that way. This also means the problem is much more difficult to deal with, but at least we are heading int he right direction.
If you stay away from drugs, don’t kill yourself you are actually pretty safe.
That statement contradicts itself. How does one regulate a right that no one has? You can cite websites all day. I’m not here for an argument on constitutional law. Suffice it to say, if the government and all of the current politicians who are anti-firearm could legally find a way to confiscate firearms from their citizens, they would have. But, they can’t. Not even in California.
Do you agree with “loosening” background checks rules?
Here is some further research on the subject
Am I having a conversation with Yutaka or LIICornell?
Me personally? No. Truth is, every background check goes thru the FBI Database. Now, each state… regarding your citation of their ability to regulate within themselves can add extra provisions like a wait period. For example, I can purchase a firearm but can’t pick it up until 3 days after I buy it. But the background check to attain the firearm is the same. There are some loose ends like certain gun shows where people acquire guns thru bartering/trading that doesn’t go tracked. The issue with background checks doesn’t correlate to crime directly. Many people who had firearms and committed crimes with them, had no prior record that would have shown up on a background check. Those with criminal records can acquire a firearm illegally on the street. There are already laws in place that prohibit prior felons from ever Legally owning a firearm.
I read a book called the “Gun Guys”. It really researched America’s complex culture of firearms. I certainly enjoy guns but am by no means a “Gun nut”. But i can see how this topic is confusing and fascinating to people from other countries.
“No single policy could stop all gun crime — there will always be a black market for guns, and humans have been killing each other since they began to exist. (More comprehensive solutions would, for instance, seriously consider solutions to poverty, excessive alcohol consumption, and the other variables that gun studies control for because they’re known contributors to crime.)”
“But the tremendous number of guns in circulation is one of the issues that makes America — and some states in particular — unique in the world, and explains why the US seems to be so far ahead of its peers when it comes to lethal violence.
So it might not stop every incident like the San Bernardino shooting, but the research is fairly unequivocal in demonstrating that reducing access to guns — and reducing the number of guns — would reduce gun violence in America. And it might even bring the US closer to its developed peers.”
More guns mean more gun murders. Here’s how we know. More guns mean more gun murders. Here's how we know. - Vox via@voxdotcom
“More guns mean more gun murders. Here’s how we know”
Well, no, unless you think the CDC statistics are wrong. (see my previous post)
Here are some rebuttals to VOX’s articles/videos
“CNSNews.com (formerly known as Cybercast News Service) is a politically conservative American news and commentary website founded by L. Brent Bozell III and owned by Media Research Center, Bozell’s Reston, Virginia-based organization (Wikipedia). Has strong conservative bias with wording and story choices. Some articles use racist language such as referring to Blacks as Thugs.”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cns-news/
You wrote,“See my previous post”. Does it refer to the post in which you showed the link for the “CNS News”?
“There’s another possible reason for the decline in gun violence overlooked by Ehrenfreund – the significant increase in the number of guns in America, …”–CNS News
Is this what you wanted to contend?
Yup, which is why i verified the data from the CDC(center for disease control and prevention)
Are you replying to fact? Is the CDC wrong?
Which fact are you referring to? The trend data without controlling for other variables such as poverty and excessive alcohol consumption?
(Edited)
The data from cnsnews is from the CDC( Center for Disease Control and Prevention)
The studies at Vox, the one you you posted only looks at those factors when comparing countries.
"So with studies on gun ownership and gun violence, researchers go through great efforts to control for all sorts of variables — economic outcomes, alcohol consumption, rates of urbanization, other crime rates, and so on — to make sure the results look, as much as they possibly can, only at gun ownership and its effects.
This is why, for example, Vox’s charts look at the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence in developed countries: It helps weed out the many, many social and economic factors involved if you compare the US with, for instance, Honduras — a nation mired by poverty and weak government institutions."
The actual studies don’t look at these factors and are “assumed” to be accounted for because other countries are considered developed(Vox kind of lied).
The analysis I posted ONLY looks at U.S. Your variables are not needed since they are not comparing countries.
The idea that more guns=more gun deaths is statistically incorrect based on the 20 year trends and data from the CDC.
(Learn the methodology of your own argument before you attack mine)
Stephen Taiwan wrote:
“The analysis I posted ONLY looks at U.S. Your variables are not needed since they are not comparing countries.
The idea that more guns=more gun deaths is statistically incorrect based on the 20 year trends and data from the CDC.”
Analyzing the relationships between variables based on chronological data from a specific country is not free from false causation. Each variable might change at the same time, but you cannot easily assume causality among them. Time series analysis of this sort is as vulnerable as using ecological correlations.
“There’s another possible reason for the decline in gun violence … the significant increase in the number of guns in America, …”–CNS News
Is this what you wanted to contend? Do you think that more guns resulted in less gun deaths in the US? Do you assume a causal relationship between more guns and less gun deaths?
Do you agree with “loosening” background checks rules because you assume that more guns result in less gun deaths?
(Edited and added)