One Reason Why Republicans Can't Seem To Win Elections Lately

[George Costanza]

Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what?

So what? You've put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing the bad guys with whatever firearm/magazine they like. That's what.

A society where everyone (good guys and bad guys) carries a gun, is potentially much more dangerous for the good guys, than one where only the bad guys have the guns. Why? Because there will be a lot more violence between good guys than ever before, while the bad guys will continue to do pretty much what they always did.

Ah, but there will NOT be more violence. Years of statistics prove that. As more firearms came into public hands and as exponentially more CCW permits were issued in states across the country, violent crime DECLINED. Your fears are unfounded in reality. Try reading Lott's groundbreaking book "More guns, less crime" for all the evidence any rational person could need.

But even in the absence of such evidence, why in the hell would you be okay with good guys being put into a position where they are unable to defend themselves? You understand the bad guys will still have the firearms but it's as though you're fine with law abiding citizens unable to adequately defend themselves. I find that incredibly odd.

Take your typical road rage incident. It's one thing if the drivers involved are not armed. Then, they just pull over and duke it out. Put handguns under each driver's seat, have a true road rage incident, and see what happens. Dad gets drunk on Saturday night and attacks Mom in a rage. No gun in the house, and people just go to the hospital and jail. Gun in the house: people go to the morgue.

You are assuming something bad will happen with armed citizens when all the evidence proves that is not the case. Again, after states saw exponential increases in CCW permits and the number of legally owned firearms, crime DECREASED.

To put it another way, the guy with a CCW permit driving down the road is likely to be the most polite and courteous driver on the road. We go out of our way to avoid petty incidents of road rage and domestic disputes. That's the reality of armed society...it's a polite (and safe) society.

Another way to look at it is this: For all the firearm in America (and we have LOTS of them), we don't even break into the top 100 countries when it comes to murder rates. More guns does not mean more crime. It means less.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

History does not support that conclusion. Crime in England and Australia skyrocketed AFTER they virtually banned civilian gun ownership, and this during a time period in which other western nations were seeing a decrease in crime rates. While here in America, states that lessen gun control with more CCW permits saw crime plummet.

What you think might happen is not supported by any empirical evidence. We've had enough "feel good" legislation that only makes the problem worse.

All right - some good comments here. I can't argue with statistics. I would hope yours are correct - that an armed population results in less violence than an unarmed one. It runs contrary to common sense to me - I am in a profession where I deal with the end result of violence on a daily basis. I am a public defender. I see the propensity for violence in such things as road rage incidents, domestic disputes, robberies, etc. It sure seems to me that if guns were injected into all such situations, much more potential harm would come out of it.

I am aware of the studies that have been done in this regard and which are often cited by opponents to gun control. No one wants "feel good" legislation that accomplishes nothing and which may, in fact, actually worsen the situation.

I keep coming back to my original point, however. I just think that the Republican Party is mistakenly assuming that their stance on gun control is supported by the majority of the people in this country. I don't think it is - especailly on the heels of the Colorado theater killings and the Conn. school killings.

 

[peach174]

Why is it that you think it should be paid for by the Federal Government and States?

Mental health care is very, very expensive. Either you want these "nutcases" to get help or you don't. You seem to assume that all nutcases are either wealthy, working and obtaining health insurance that way (assuming their insurance covers mental health care - many plans don't) or destitute and on medicaid (also very limited in coverage). What about the working poor? They cannot afford any insurance, especially cadillac insurance that also includes mental health coverage. If you don't identify these "nutcases" in the first place (aka getting them initial treatment and into the system), then how on earth will a background check ever work? Either communities help these people or they fall through the cracks.

Many States have mental homes who take care of them.Paid for in different ways, depending of the State.
It is cheaper and it is working.
Here is one State as an example.
State Operated Services

Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center (AMRTC) serves people who are mentally ill in a large campus-based setting. Many of these people have complex medical histories. AMRTC is a 200-bed psychiatric hospital consisting of eight 25-bed units. Services include units dedicated to the treatment of psychiatric patients with complex co-morbid medical conditions, treatment of individuals with mental illness who face a criminal trial and patients with high levels of behavioral issues.

3301 Seventh Avenue North
Anoka, MN 55303

 

[eflatminor]

Yes, if we take assault weapons away from good guys, bad guys are going to continue to have them. If we take handguns (or any other type of guns) away from good guys, bad guys will continue to have them. So what?

So what? You've put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing the bad guys with whatever firearm/magazine they like. That's what.



Ah, but there will NOT be more violence. Years of statistics prove that. As more firearms came into public hands and as exponentially more CCW permits were issued in states across the country, violent crime DECLINED. Your fears are unfounded in reality. Try reading Lott's groundbreaking book "More guns, less crime" for all the evidence any rational person could need.

But even in the absence of such evidence, why in the hell would you be okay with good guys being put into a position where they are unable to defend themselves? You understand the bad guys will still have the firearms but it's as though you're fine with law abiding citizens unable to adequately defend themselves. I find that incredibly odd.



You are assuming something bad will happen with armed citizens when all the evidence proves that is not the case. Again, after states saw exponential increases in CCW permits and the number of legally owned firearms, crime DECREASED.

To put it another way, the guy with a CCW permit driving down the road is likely to be the most polite and courteous driver on the road. We go out of our way to avoid petty incidents of road rage and domestic disputes. That's the reality of armed society...it's a polite (and safe) society.

Another way to look at it is this: For all the firearm in America (and we have LOTS of them), we don't even break into the top 100 countries when it comes to murder rates. More guns does not mean more crime. It means less.

So the answer to the "bad guys will still have guns while the good guys will have none" argument is, yes, that's probably true. But when all is said and done, our society would be much worse off where all citizens are armed, than when gun control is in effect.

History does not support that conclusion. Crime in England and Australia skyrocketed AFTER they virtually banned civilian gun ownership, and this during a time period in which other western nations were seeing a decrease in crime rates. While here in America, states that lessen gun control with more CCW permits saw crime plummet.

What you think might happen is not supported by any empirical evidence. We've had enough "feel good" legislation that only makes the problem worse.

All right - some good comments here. I can't argue with statistics. I would hope yours are correct - that an armed population results in less violence than an unarmed one. It runs contrary to common sense to me - I am in a profession where I deal with the end result of violence on a daily basis. I am a public defender. I see the propensity for violence in such things as road rage incidents, domestic disputes, robberies, etc. It sure seems to me that if guns were injected into all such situations, much more potential harm would come out of it.

I get that. I understand that's the initial reaction many have. Yet often, what we think will be the case turns out to be just the opposite.

Kant famously wrote that The Enlightenment was man's emergence from childhood. The Enlightenment suggests REASON be used in all things public. If we are evolve as a society, we must use reason in the establishment of laws. When it come to gun control, reason dictates that we look at history and seek to under what has and what has not worked. The evidence is irrefutable - more guns does not mean more violence and the disarming of a populace is an incredibly dangerous step to take. Not only because of the inevitable increase in crime rates but also because of the tyranny to which the people become subject.

I am aware of the studies that have been done in this regard and which are often cited by opponents to gun control. No one wants "feel good" legislation that accomplishes nothing and which may, in fact, actually worsen the situation.

Sound great. Please, tell Feinstein that!

I keep coming back to my original point, however. I just think that the Republican Party is mistakenly assuming that their stance on gun control is supported by the majority of the people in this country. I don't think it is - especailly on the heels of the Colorado theater killings and the Conn. school killings.

I disagree. While I'm NOT a Republican, I don't think any party can go wrong supporting the Bill of Rights and our inalienable right to self defense. Alternatively, we have plenty of examples of where politicians lost their seats due to support of gun control. Of course, Feinstein has nothing to worry about in the People Republic of Kalifornia.

Bottom line, I hope you will check out Lott's book. Read the website gunfacts.info. Check out the numerous instances of legal gun owners saving their lives, and the lives of their families, against criminals (the NRA publishes some of those cases every month). Please, don't be one of those people that thinks a 120lb woman should have the 'right' to fistfight a 250lb rapist!

Lastly, I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot. The conversation has certainly taken a more civilized tone. My apologies for delaying the path to that civility.

 

[JoeNormal]

Look, we know the reasons the GOP is losing. It's quite simply because the stupid and lazy now outnumber the smart and productive.

I'm smart and productive and I think the GOP is the party of losers.

 

[eflatminor]

Look, we know the reasons the GOP is losing. It's quite simply because the stupid and lazy now outnumber the smart and productive.

I'm smart and productive and I think the GOP is the party of losers.

If you understand the same about the Democrats, you just might be a libertarian.

 

[JoeNormal]

Look, we know the reasons the GOP is losing. It's quite simply because the stupid and lazy now outnumber the smart and productive.

I'm smart and productive and I think the GOP is the party of losers.

If you understand the same about the Democrats, you just might be a libertarian.

I feel largely the same about Dems although I feel Republicans are more loathsome by quite a wide margin. I thought I might be a libertarian until I heard the ramblings of Rand Paul. I don't see that as workable either.

 

[George Costanza]

So what? You've put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing the bad guys with whatever firearm/magazine they like. That's what.



Ah, but there will NOT be more violence. Years of statistics prove that. As more firearms came into public hands and as exponentially more CCW permits were issued in states across the country, violent crime DECLINED. Your fears are unfounded in reality. Try reading Lott's groundbreaking book "More guns, less crime" for all the evidence any rational person could need.

But even in the absence of such evidence, why in the hell would you be okay with good guys being put into a position where they are unable to defend themselves? You understand the bad guys will still have the firearms but it's as though you're fine with law abiding citizens unable to adequately defend themselves. I find that incredibly odd.



You are assuming something bad will happen with armed citizens when all the evidence proves that is not the case. Again, after states saw exponential increases in CCW permits and the number of legally owned firearms, crime DECREASED.

To put it another way, the guy with a CCW permit driving down the road is likely to be the most polite and courteous driver on the road. We go out of our way to avoid petty incidents of road rage and domestic disputes. That's the reality of armed society...it's a polite (and safe) society.

Another way to look at it is this: For all the firearm in America (and we have LOTS of them), we don't even break into the top 100 countries when it comes to murder rates. More guns does not mean more crime. It means less.



History does not support that conclusion. Crime in England and Australia skyrocketed AFTER they virtually banned civilian gun ownership, and this during a time period in which other western nations were seeing a decrease in crime rates. While here in America, states that lessen gun control with more CCW permits saw crime plummet.

What you think might happen is not supported by any empirical evidence. We've had enough "feel good" legislation that only makes the problem worse.

All right - some good comments here. I can't argue with statistics. I would hope yours are correct - that an armed population results in less violence than an unarmed one. It runs contrary to common sense to me - I am in a profession where I deal with the end result of violence on a daily basis. I am a public defender. I see the propensity for violence in such things as road rage incidents, domestic disputes, robberies, etc. It sure seems to me that if guns were injected into all such situations, much more potential harm would come out of it.

I get that. I understand that's the initial reaction many have. Yet often, what we think will be the case turns out to be just the opposite.

Kant famously wrote that The Enlightenment was man's emergence from childhood. The Enlightenment suggests REASON be used in all things public. If we are evolve as a society, we must use reason in the establishment of laws. When it come to gun control, reason dictates that we look at history and seek to under what has and what has not worked. The evidence is irrefutable - more guns does not mean more violence and the disarming of a populace is an incredibly dangerous step to take. Not only because of the inevitable increase in crime rates but also because of the tyranny to which the people become subject.

I am aware of the studies that have been done in this regard and which are often cited by opponents to gun control. No one wants "feel good" legislation that accomplishes nothing and which may, in fact, actually worsen the situation.

Sound great. Please, tell Feinstein that!

I keep coming back to my original point, however. I just think that the Republican Party is mistakenly assuming that their stance on gun control is supported by the majority of the people in this country. I don't think it is - especailly on the heels of the Colorado theater killings and the Conn. school killings.

I disagree. While I'm NOT a Republican, I don't think any party can go wrong supporting the Bill of Rights and our inalienable right to self defense. Alternatively, we have plenty of examples of where politicians lost their seats due to support of gun control. Of course, Feinstein has nothing to worry about in the People Republic of Kalifornia.

Bottom line, I hope you will check out Lott's book. Read the website gunfacts.info. Check out the numerous instances of legal gun owners saving their lives, and the lives of their families, against criminals (the NRA publishes some of those cases every month). Please, don't be one of those people that thinks a 120lb woman should have the 'right' to fistfight a 250lb rapist!

Lastly, I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot. The conversation has certainly taken a more civilized tone. My apologies for delaying the path to that civility.

I often say (and will say again now) that there are several topics of discussion on this board that will never be productive of any type of resolution whatsoever. Those are: abortion, the death penalty and gun control. One's position on these issues is written in stone and is not subject to change. It depends on a lot of things, chief among them, personal experience, personal values and personal standards.

Add in that there are valid arguments on both sides of each of these issues, and we are pretty much left with something that's fun to kick around, but that's about it. Possibly, of the three, gun control may be the less subjective, but it is still subjective enough for it to be included in my list.

I guess I just see the potentials as somewhat different than yourself when it comes to gun control or no gun control.

Anyway - apology accepted. Good to see that we can discuss stuff civilly. Look forward to future discussions.