That's a fair question. I would expect it to continue trending downward but at a slightly higher rate. It's not like gun restrictions would cause the affected weapons to all just simultaneously cease to exist.
Has it worked thoigh? Has homacide gone down? Did it actually make a step change? Or did it continue downward with the same slope as preban?
.
That's a fair question. I would expect it to continue trending downward but at a slightly higher rate. It's not like gun restrictions would cause the affected weapons to all just simultaneously cease to exist.
Destin < Razor in MvC3
If handguns were illegal, eventually, there would be less in circulation. Legally purchased guns isn't really related to this argument, because Bob can legally purchase 420 guns and give them to his boys. If he could not do that, we would have some sort of real comparison here. Unless you think our massive amounts of imports from mexico or something will equal the demand.Originally Posted by Fe 26
Why do people care about handguns? Assuming no open carry, are the really ideal for anything except, well, murdering people?
Check out Mr. Businessman
He bought some wild, wild life
On the way to the stock exchange
He got some wild, wild life
They're far cheaper than a Ferrari or Porsche but perform the same role of over compensation.
Doc and I can use them to shoot cans while eating pizza and talking about bunnies?
This is a pretty big problem with this debate. There is a whole world of socializing connected to guns that the left is completely ignorant of. Or apathetic to because they don't partake.
You can shoot cans with an airsoft gun.
.
So the guy who cares so damn much about inner city youth being murdered with handguns doesn't want to give them up because shooting up cans is more important. Got it.
This Mishima kills fascists
Doesn't count as regulating "material?" How about this:The cost of rising fuel prices caused many states to start adopting speed limit laws to save money and resources in the early 1970s. President Richard Nixon agreed to a national speed limit of 55 mph for all states in 1974. After this law went into effect, America saw its traffic fatality rate drop from 4.28 per million miles traveled in 1972 to 2.73 in 1983.
Fourth column is deaths per 100 million miles driven. Where do you see the sharp drop off? 1968 was the year every new car had to be built with a seat belt. Even though if someone really wanted to get a car without a seat belt, they could and did, or if they didn't want to wear the seat belt, they didn't and didn't have to (few laws about wearing the seat belt were in place). Bottom line is the manufacture of cars without seat belts was banned and there was an immediate reduction in fatalities. A similar but less dramatic drop happened in the years following the 1998 airbag mandate.
Behavioral issue versus material issue is a false dichotomy. These things are enmeshed. We ban the Material of certain chemicals that can be dumped into the atmosphere because of (and which influences) the Behavior of the people doing the dumping. Regulating the behavior regulates the material; regulating the material regulates the behavior. Is banning child labor a Material law (regulating the material body of the child) or Behavioral (regulating the act of employing that material body)? Of course it's both.
Last edited by A Robot Bit Me; 29 Mar 2018 at 04:04 PM.
The difference being that people 99.9% of the time don't choose to murder people with a car wreck. Nor are people socializing to discuss their favorite way to drive without one.
AND with seat belts, you could opt out for 20, 30 years.
So sure, ban all guns if I can opt out of them being banned and still buy them.
I mean (why are people so fond of starting their sentences this way? It's maddening!) you can't ask me to stop turning a Folger's tin into a sieve just to save ONLY 50 people's lives.
Even if my sister could potentially be one of them.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks