Gun ownership right Vs Voting right?

[frigidweirdo]

Not at all.

There are plenty of places in the US where you have to register guns.

Firearm registration requirements by state

ballotpedia.org

" As of January 1, 2019, seven states and the District of Columbia required individuals to register their ownership of certain firearms with local law enforcement agencies."

Other than compliance with the rule to register guns, what is the purpose of the rule? And don't say to know who has guns; why do they want to know who has guns?

Well, that's a different issue.

Gun control in general has the purpose of reducing gun violence and killings.

Easy access to guns is the way that this happens. Trying to stop easy access to guns while allowing people to have guns, would be, I'd think, the purpose of registering guns.

But like most things in the US that come from governments, it probably won't work because politics in the US is corrupt.

 

[woodwork201]

Well, that's a different issue.

Gun control in general has the purpose of reducing gun violence and killings.

Easy access to guns is the way that this happens. Trying to stop easy access to guns while allowing people to have guns, would be, I'd think, the purpose of registering guns.

But like most things in the US that come from governments, it probably won't work because politics in the US is corrupt.

How does gun registration reduce gun violence? There's absolutely zero causation between law-abiding citizens registering their guns and a reduction in violence. So, that's a lie.

How does registration change the ease of access other than an administrative pain in the butt? If I have been approved to own guns, why does the government need to know how many or of what type? It only takes one to kill someone. So, once again, your argument fails badly. Registration does nothing to reduce violence.

But you're right that it won't work even if you're wrong about the reason. It won't work because criminals don't register their guns. Politics are corrupt but this isn't a political question, it's a civil rights question. The only purpose for registering guns is to eliminate almost all access to guns - in other words, confiscation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, that's a different issue.

Gun control in general has the purpose of reducing gun violence and killings.

Easy access to guns is the way that this happens. Trying to stop easy access to guns while allowing people to have guns, would be, I'd think, the purpose of registering guns.

But like most things in the US that come from governments, it probably won't work because politics in the US is corrupt.

How does gun registration reduce gun violence? There's absolutely zero causation between law-abiding citizens registering their guns and a reduction in violence. So, that's a lie.

How does registration change the ease of access other than an administrative pain in the butt? If I have been approved to own guns, why does the government need to know how many or of what type? It only takes one to kill someone. So, once again, your argument fails badly. Registration does nothing to reduce violence.

But you're right that it won't work even if you're wrong about the reason. It won't work because criminals don't register their guns. Politics are corrupt but this isn't a political question, it's a civil rights question. The only purpose for registering guns is to eliminate almost all access to guns - in other words, confiscation.

Maybe gun registration won't do anything. I'm not arguing it will do anything.

Gun registration as a policy within a whole series of things could help reduce gun violence, but US politics is all about show, not reality.

Well, eliminating access to guns could also help reduce crime, again, as one measure in a series of measures. But again, the US political system is bad, corrupt and everything is for show.

You vote for this system, you get the system that does things for emotion and for show rather than for reality.

Want it to change? Then change it.

 

[danielpalos]

Insist our legislators do their Job!

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

 

[Turtlesoup]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

The thread premise is a lie and fails as a strawman fallacy.

Liberals have no issue with requiring citizens to provide ID when registering to vote.

Once registered and current on the voting rolls, there’s no good reason to require an ID every time a citizen votes as voter ‘fraud’ by identity theft is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

Moreover, often ID requirement are such that older voters of color lack the required documentation to obtain the type of ID required.

We have no objection to qualified citizens voting once per election

the best way tp prevent cheating is in-person voting only

Wrong.
In person voting is the easiest to cheat, by going to multiple polling places with multiple IDs.
They can't check if the ID is valid or not at a polling place.

The most secure against cheating is vote by mail, because then the ballot has to be sent to your address, that address can easily be tracked and verified, and duplicates prevented.

they can do like they did in Houston--just have a bunch dems claim a single dem activist as their home too even though they don't live there.

 

[2aguy]

Not at all.

There are plenty of places in the US where you have to register guns.

Firearm registration requirements by state

ballotpedia.org

" As of January 1, 2019, seven states and the District of Columbia required individuals to register their ownership of certain firearms with local law enforcement agencies."

Other than compliance with the rule to register guns, what is the purpose of the rule? And don't say to know who has guns; why do they want to know who has guns?

Well, that's a different issue.

Gun control in general has the purpose of reducing gun violence and killings.

Easy access to guns is the way that this happens. Trying to stop easy access to guns while allowing people to have guns, would be, I'd think, the purpose of registering guns.

But like most things in the US that come from governments, it probably won't work because politics in the US is corrupt.

You don't understand anything about this issue.

As more Americans own and carried guns over the last 27 years, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%...showing that access to guns does not increase gun crime or gun murder.

What does increase gun crime and gun murder?

Policies that keep releasing violent gun offenders, the ones actually committing the gun crimes. This falls on the democrat party, their policies and their judges, prosecutors and politicians........if you let the people committing the gun crimes out of jail, over and over again, it allows them to commit more gun crimes.

That is basic logic that people like you don't understand.

When you catch a gun criminal, keep them locked up and the gun crime rate goes down......making new laws that harass normal gun owners does nothing to stop gun crime.

Registration of guns has nothing to do with the goal of reducing gun crime......you asshats want gun registration so you know who the legal gun owners are so when you get enough power, you can ban and confiscate them.

 

[2aguy]

Well, that's a different issue.

Gun control in general has the purpose of reducing gun violence and killings.

Easy access to guns is the way that this happens. Trying to stop easy access to guns while allowing people to have guns, would be, I'd think, the purpose of registering guns.

But like most things in the US that come from governments, it probably won't work because politics in the US is corrupt.

How does gun registration reduce gun violence? There's absolutely zero causation between law-abiding citizens registering their guns and a reduction in violence. So, that's a lie.

How does registration change the ease of access other than an administrative pain in the butt? If I have been approved to own guns, why does the government need to know how many or of what type? It only takes one to kill someone. So, once again, your argument fails badly. Registration does nothing to reduce violence.

But you're right that it won't work even if you're wrong about the reason. It won't work because criminals don't register their guns. Politics are corrupt but this isn't a political question, it's a civil rights question. The only purpose for registering guns is to eliminate almost all access to guns - in other words, confiscation.

Maybe gun registration won't do anything. I'm not arguing it will do anything.

Gun registration as a policy within a whole series of things could help reduce gun violence, but US politics is all about show, not reality.

Well, eliminating access to guns could also help reduce crime, again, as one measure in a series of measures. But again, the US political system is bad, corrupt and everything is for show.

You vote for this system, you get the system that does things for emotion and for show rather than for reality.

Want it to change? Then change it.

Gun registration has nothing to do with reducing gun violence and crime.....nothing.

As to access to guns? Access to guns does not cause gun crime or gun murder...we have 27 years of actual experience to show this.....you don't want to admit it, since your goal is confiscating guns....but access to guns does not drive gun crime or gun murder...

Releasing violent gun offenders over and over again because of democrat party policies increases gun crime and gun murder....but again, your goal isn't reducing gun crime, your goal is confiscating guns from law abiding people...

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

https://crimeresearch.org/2020/10/n...n-issuing-permits-because-of-the-coronavirus/


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Well, the UK had 32 gun homicides in 2015

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

Switzerland had 18.

That's a rate of 0.22 for Switzerland and 0.02 for the UK. Switzerland has a population of 8 million to the UK's 65 million.

Most states get ignored right now. Candidates only look at the swing states.

Europe, in general, has lower homicide rates than us, whether by gun or something else. It has less to do with guns and more to do with demographics.

You'll notice the whitest parts of Europe tend to have the lowest homicide rates in general. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it's true. The same is largely true even in America. But I'm not saying it's a genetic thing. It's a cultural thing.

And Europeans aren't even the least homicidal. Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Their suicide rate is much higher than their homicide rate. Japan also has much stricter gun control than most other countries, but that doesn't seem to keep their suicide rate down.

So, again, culture seems to be the biggest factor overall. Even if we somehow made all guns disappear from America right now, we'd still be killing each other with knives or various other objects just because we have a lot of violent people in general.

Getting back to the electoral stuff, yes, swing states do get more attention than they should. That's why I support ending winner-takes-all. That would end that problem.

Europe is becoming more and more violent.....check the news stories from Sweden......gun crime is sky rocketing there......

Europe is where the U.S. was at in the 1960s.....at that point in the U.S. the criminal gangs became more violent and violence went up until the 1990s......Europe, after importing foreign criminals from the 3rd world is now seeing a dramatic increase in violence...and gun crime is following that increase...the new gangs don't care about western values, they do not respect or fear the police the way Europeans do......and they are about to see a crime spike that we saw in the 60s...

 

[2aguy]

Well, the UK had 32 gun homicides in 2015

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

Switzerland had 18.

That's a rate of 0.22 for Switzerland and 0.02 for the UK. Switzerland has a population of 8 million to the UK's 65 million.

Most states get ignored right now. Candidates only look at the swing states.

Europe, in general, has lower homicide rates than us, whether by gun or something else. It has less to do with guns and more to do with demographics.

You'll notice the whitest parts of Europe tend to have the lowest homicide rates in general. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it's true. The same is largely true even in America. But I'm not saying it's a genetic thing. It's a cultural thing.

And Europeans aren't even the least homicidal. Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Their suicide rate is much higher than their homicide rate. Japan also has much stricter gun control than most other countries, but that doesn't seem to keep their suicide rate down.

So, again, culture seems to be the biggest factor overall. Even if we somehow made all guns disappear from America right now, we'd still be killing each other with knives or various other objects just because we have a lot of violent people in general.

Getting back to the electoral stuff, yes, swing states do get more attention than they should. That's why I support ending winner-takes-all. That would end that problem.

No, the whole demographics argument is a fallacy designed to explain away a problem without having to confront the problem.

Yes, there's a certain amount of culture in this. Black Africans in the UK have a similar educational achievement to white British people. Black Caribbeans on the other hand have a much lower educational achievement than anyone else (except Gypsies and travellers for what seems to be obvious reasons, a lack of educational stability).

This then means that more of the crime is being committed by these Black Caribbeans, rather than anyone else.

In the US there's a history of slavery, segregation, migration to cities to do menial jobs and being stuck in poor inner city neighborhoods. Another cultural thing in the US is educational funding. In the UK and most of Europe education is funded more or less equally. In the US it's based on property taxes, which furthers the poor/rich divide.

Another cultural thing is the saying in the US "anyone can make it in the US", which is technically true. The problem is not everyone can make it, only a few can rise up out of the ghettos.

Another thing is US society is WHITE. Meaning black people are growing up in a society which isn't made for them. It's made for white people. Which has an impact. How much it's difficult to say, but certainly different races have different positive attributes that can be utilized by society, or ignored.

However I'd point to the UK to say the issue in the US is one of political laziness. The simple saying of things like "anyone in the US can make it" as a way of not improving things, or even making sure people don't succeed to benefit those who have that power.

In the UK there was a massive rise in gun crime in the early 2000s. This was mostly because of the Yardies, Jamaican gangs. Jamaicans could get into the UK visa free and did, and stayed and brought their gangs with them. (and in return the UK got to decide who had the death penalty in Jamaica, hardly seems fair).

But the UK government did something about it. They targeted this crime, and they reduced it.

Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United Kingdom, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

234 gun deaths in 2000 was a high. 107 in 2016.

Yes, it doesn't stop all violence, knife crime has become more prominent, but it was an active push to stop society rotting away (from this one aspect at least)

You don't know what you are talking about......Britain is about to see an explosion in violence and gun crime.....they have imported violent 3rd world gangs, and those gangs do not fear or respect Western culture or police....

The shooting and stabbing of a teenager in broad daylight on a street in Canning Town is just the latest chapter of what has become Britain’s most violent gangland feud
----
Harding’s work identifies the concept of “street capital”, where gang members are perpetually required to prove their worth with increasingly ferocious acts of violence – acts which can silence a community.

Butt refers to the idea of “ratings” to explain brazen violence.“If they stab or hurt someone, they are more likely to get ratings, road status,” he says. An act of sickening brutality committed in a public place – ideally in front of bystanders and shared on social media – offers guaranteed ratings. Newham’s two recent murders, committed in the afternoon and likely to be witnessed, conform to the theory.
------
Murders, frenzied knife attacks, shootings and violent “ride-outs” into rival’s territory followed. Both gangs grew; in reputation and size. Donkoh was particularly adept at recruiting Newham’s vulnerable youngsters.

London killings: ‘It’s like a war zone. How did it come to this?’

The shooting and stabbing of a teenager in broad daylight on a street in Canning Town is just the latest chapter of what has become Britain’s most violent gangland feud

www.theguardian.com

The Mali Boys' bosses originally came to Britain as children from war-torn Somalia, with police saying in 2018 they were earning up to £50,000 a week from drug sales.

One rival gang member told The Sun the group was "a whole new entity"

“Those people come from countries where there are pirates, where people are gang-raped and beaten up, and it’s all in front of them," said the source.

"Some are ex-soldiers who have seen people’s heads blown off.

"So they feel they can come and do it here."

Among the Mali Boys' turf is Walthamstow's Vallentin Road - dubbed 'Britain's most dangerous street' thanks to a string of violent attacks including fatal shootings and arson.

How brutal foreign gangs have carved up London fuelled by cocaine epidemic

TWO shameless Chilean gangsters pose in gold necklaces after jetting into Britain and ransacking celebrity chef Marcus Wareing’s £5 million London home. Their brazenness is shocking – …

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Utilitarian]

Getting back to the electoral stuff, yes, swing states do get more attention than they should. That's why I support ending winner-takes-all. That would end that problem.

So you want to undo the United States as we know it; you just want to undo it differently from the left?

I don't see how ending winner-takes-all would undo the nation. Some states have already ended it, and it has resulted in higher turnout in those states on average.

The Electoral College's basis does not require winner-takes-all. This method wasn't even decided by the Constitution. It was a state-based decision.