Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,511
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The Gun Age Is Restricted As Well.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 at 06:34:00 pm EST (Viewed 577 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Not Really, Because
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 at 09:48:50 am EST (Viewed 696 times)

Previous Post


      Actually, if you do a quick search states with more lax gun laws have more deaths based on guns. So, your assumption would prove out to be correct.


        Not saying there are not counter points, there usually are, but Chicago to me is always a bad example when you can just drive a short ways to Indiana and get a gun without worrying about any of those laws and bringing it back.


          It is one of the major issues with expecting States to do much of anything. Patchwork laws have major issues. Folks always complain about them but depending on the issue at hand there are major advantages to having a baseline.

    I am not sure that guns = safety is quite as simple as that.

Based on what? There is always more to it but the fact that there is more gun crime in states with more lax gun laws is not really an opinion on my part. It is what the data shows.

Just like anything else, there are other factors at play with anything other than a given policy. However, one could make the exact same case and generally with some better evidence against that increased gun ownership increases safety.

    Does alcohol = safety?
    Do cars = safety?
    Does pot = safety?
    Does any of a myriad of things we expect in this country = safety?

It may be my sleep deprivation, but I am not sure I am following. Do you refer to federal guidelines or what for these examples. I am just not sure I follow.

The drinking age is restricted, cars are mostly regulated by states, pot is complicated.

I am not making a case that this is all or nothing. Most of my point was that it is hard to point to something like say Chicago without acknowledging that it is next to a state with lax gun laws. Meaning if you want a gun, drive a short distance and get one. Done.

Safety is not all or nothing either, I am not saying that it is. I am just saying if I made the claim that a bunch of people in a location with increased alcohol sales or availability would more than likely lead to an increase in the danger of somebody doing something stupid like driving drunk. Does not mean it will happen, but everything with safety and the like is a probability game.

    I think you can bring it up as a factor/weight in if guns are good overall. But not sure saying they arnt always safe is a slam dunk case to end having guns...if you look at alchohol statistics or opiods etc...the stats are horrifying.

Again, maybe I am not following what you are saying. My major point was that there should be a baseline gun standard for all states to help prevent spill over effects.

And add to that states with more guns typically have more gun related events. Which is logical. Most of the states have more of a rural sort of gun culture (not all by any means) and one could make the case for other things, but it still bares out the observation that the easier it is to get guns the more bad stuff tends to happen involving them.

Hence why guns aren't sold to toddlers or high schoolers. Pot is pretty much entirely harmless. Also, not all states that have loose gun laws have higher homicide rates, such as Vermont.

Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software