Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: House Passes Bill Allowing Mentally Ill Veterans To Own Guns [View all]Straw Man
(6,771 posts)30. I guess you don't like titles.
It is a battle between 2A supporters and lives. If you feel the Second Amendment is more important than lives, OK. That's what it boils down to.
It is nothing of the kind. Your radical simplification does a disservice to both sides of the issue. Let's look at some similar proposals.
Many lives could be saved if speed limits were lowered to 40 mph nationwide. If you oppose that, then you think that driving fast is more important than lives. Many lives could be saved if using a cell phone while driving meant a mandatory ten years in prison and the loss of your driving privileges for life. If you oppose that, then you think that texting is more important than lives. An outright prohibition on alcohol, with severe penalties for any infraction, could save countless lives that are lost every year to alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and diseases. If you oppose prohibition of alcohol, you think that booze is more important than lives.
See how that works?
82% of people stopped during stop & frisk were innocent.
And 18% were not. That's a lot of guns and drugs taken off the street. Anti-gun guru Michael Bloomberg was a fervent supporter of stop-and-frisk, crediting it with drastically lowering NYC's gun-death rate. So ... if you oppose stop-and-frisk, you think that privacy is more important than lives. Does that sound about right?
BTW, I oppose stop-and-frisk.
States with stricter gun laws had a 42% lower mortality rate than states with looser gun laws (from Harvard Medical School Researchers).
How was that statistic derived? How did the researchers determine the strictness of gun laws? Do they consider NY a strict state because of its universal background checks or a lax state because no training is required for the issuance of a concealed-carry permit? Does the "mortality rate" distinguish between suicides and homicides? Between murder and justifiable homicide? How is the strictness of a state's gun laws relevant to murders committed by people who obtained their guns illegally? How does the poverty level in these states correlate with the mortality rates?
You mght want to read this article before you tout those findings:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/
Again, what do you think will solve the problem? More guns? Should we just dump a box of firearms at a mental facility and wait for them to all shoot each other? Do you think people with criminal pasts should be allowed to access arms?
Hyperbole is not your friend.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I support RKBA but background checks and restrictions for the mentally ill just make sense.
Blue_Warrior
Mar 2017
#3
'mentally ill' is a moveable feast, and people within that category are more likely to be victims of
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2017
#12
Who are these "gun nuts" you speak of? And what is your definition of "mentally ill"?
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2017
#14
Like the Trump White House, gun control advocacy relies upon 'faith-promoting rumor'
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2017
#8