Why gun control push fizzled?

Guns can be valuable protection, I agree, but also, those are anecdotes in that link. You usually don't like anecdotes. You've bashed me for using an anecdote to make a point.

I was actually talking about something else, anyway. It was why someone like Andrew Cuomo is not going to prominently mention "protection" as a reason why guns are valuable to society. He was criticized for only mentioning sportsmen and hunters, leaving out home protection.

I never said guns weren't used for protection. I know it happens, I read the news. I appreciate a link instead more rhetoric. I was talking about how critical they are in maintaining a safe lifestyle.

You're going to need more than news stories to convince the majority of the American public that people should arm themselves for protection. Most people don't like the sound of that. That's not the kind of society they want to live in.
 
First you wrote, "the "statistics you're looking for do not exist in a verifiable or scientific form." Now you write:
Sabretooth said:
There are hundreds upon thousands of instances where people use their firearm defensively every single year. Many are easily verifiable by news and police reports.

...
Click to expand...

Hundreds of thousands and not one study? Even if there are hundreds of thousands every year, why did you wait until now to mention it? If there are hundreds of thousands every year why doesn't the NRA commission a study? Because that's what you need to get someone like Andrew Cuomo talking about citizens arming themselves for protection.

It's basic philosophy. Most people don't want to live in a society where everyone's packing a gun. Cuomo knows that.
 
This thread has been totally (probably irretrievably) derailed. It started out to be a pretty good thread. Then someone accused Governor Andrew Cuomo of wanting to ban firearms. I posted a quote by Cuomo in which he said he was a gun-owner and a hunter. He said New York's gun control law was not about hunters or sportsmen. Someone criticized him for not mentioning 'guns for protection.' I wondered how often guns are used for protection. [see below]

newyorkguy said:
...I've asked about this, the self defense issue. How often are guns used for protection? For burglaries or home invasions they could obviously be very valuable. But how often are they used? Are there any figures showing the number of incidents? Are there any figures showing what model of handgun provides the best protection?
Click to expand...

After many rants and accusations later it turns out there probably aren't any figures, at least any reliable ones.

Okay.

Maybe we can get back to discussing why the gun control bill fizzled?
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
...
Maybe we can get back to discussing why the gun control bill fizzled?
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
That was answered by the 5th post.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we're done here?

Post # 5
Ranb said:
Hardly. The bills suck. They call standard capacity magazines high capacity as this somehow makes them abnormal instead of the usual thing. They say it is just a background check bill when it is also a registration scheme. They say it isn't a gun grab when the bill would have required registration that the government is not required to perform. The major media outlets give the bill sponsors a pass when it comes to critical thinking, but not all Americans are that stupid.

These people sat on their hands for ten years since their last AWB sunset. They choose to dance on TV during a national tragedy and tell us that the restrictions that made hardly any difference in the 90's were the solution now.

Ranb
Click to expand...
 
newyorkguy said:
Then I guess we're done here?
Click to expand...

Don't have to be done at all. We can discuss why the sponsors would push a bill that so obviously sucked instead of something that had more than a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Why do you think these guys waited years to sponsor suckage instead of making small incremental improvements to gun control law every few years?

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
...Why do you think these guys waited years to sponsor suckage instead of making small incremental improvements to gun control law every few years?

Ranb
Click to expand...

They didn't have the votes until post-Newtown?
 
newyorkguy said:
...Then someone accused Governor Andrew Cuomo of wanting to ban firearms...
Click to expand...

He did ban firearms. Any firearm that fits his ambiguous definition of "assault weapon" is now illegal to own in NY.

Tell me, how do you plan to continue to be a part of this discussion when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?

newyorkguy said:
First you wrote, "the "statistics you're looking for do not exist in a verifiable or scientific form." Now you write:

Hundreds of thousands and not one study? Even if there are hundreds of thousands every year, why did you wait until now to mention it? If there are hundreds of thousands every year why doesn't the NRA commission a study?
Click to expand...
Because of the reasons I laid out in the post that you quote-mined "the statistics you're looking for do not exist in a verifiable or scientific form" from. The reportings of these events are incomplete. What part of that aren't you comprehending?

What difference does it make? There are, without question, plenty of verifiable instances of DGU's. You are denying that reality because they aren't quantified in some neat little package. Well, tough titty. I want that study, too...if for nothing more than to keep you from whining about it.

Because that's what you need to get someone like Andrew Cuomo talking about citizens arming themselves for protection.
Click to expand...
You could have a study confirming the existence of God and Cuomo will ignore it if it doesn't push his agenda. Your faith in Cuomo is greatly misguided.

It's basic philosophy. Most people don't want to live in a society where everyone's packing a gun. Cuomo knows that.
Click to expand...
[citation needed]
 
Sabretooth said:
He did ban firearms. Any firearm that fits his ambiguous definition of "assault weapon" is now illegal to own in NY.

Tell me, how do you plan to continue to be a part of this discussion when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?

Because of the reasons I laid out in the post that you quote-mined "the statistics you're looking for do not exist in a verifiable or scientific form" from. The reportings of these events are incomplete. What part of that aren't you comprehending?
What difference does it make? There are, without question, plenty of verifiable instances of DGU's. You are denying that reality because they aren't quantified in some neat little package. Well, tough titty. I want that study, too...if for nothing more than to keep you from whining about it.


You could have a study confirming the existence of God and Cuomo will ignore it if it doesn't push his agenda. Your faith in Cuomo is greatly misguided.


[citation needed]
Click to expand...

You need to find somebody else to harass. Sorry. The topic is why did the gun control law fizzle.
 
triforcharity said:
It should make you smile, because that claim came from your rear. I complained that DOCTORS were doing studies on LAW. Do you call a doctor when you need a good defense attorney? I'd think I'd call....I dunno, what's the word I'm looking for.....um....someone who studies....the *********** law? Maybe you would like to talk to my attorney on medical information, he's a great lawyer, he should be able to answer your medical questions....
Click to expand...

This is just precious. I'm not even going to go back to pull the qualifications of the doctors involved or delve into how the very thing you accuse them of doing is what wildcat points out they aren't doing. I'm just going to let it it sit and simmer in all its glory.

Thank you.
 
newyorkguy said:
They didn't have the votes until post-Newtown?
Click to expand...
They probably don't have the votes for the crappy bills they want to pass now either. Why not write a bill that is only for background checks instead of one that includes a registry? This way they just might get the NRA on their side. Even if the NRA is against it, they might get it passed anyway. If they could satisfy themselves with baby steps instead of the world, they might make some progress instead of crying that is it anyone else's fault other than their own.

It took years, but anti-gun nuts required registration for some types of guns years ago, then later on prohibited registering some of those guns by the little people. Have today's politicians actually forgotten how to do their jobs? Ten years of sitting on their hands just so they could whine and moan about the NRA? Wimps! :)

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
They probably don't have the votes for the crappy bills they want to pass now either. Why not write a bill that is only for background checks instead of one that includes a registry? This way they just might get the NRA on their side. Even if the NRA is against it, they might get it passed anyway. If they could satisfy themselves with baby steps instead of the world, they might make some progress instead of crying that is it anyone else's fault other than their own.

It took years, but anti-gun nuts required registration for some types of guns years ago, then later on prohibited registering some of those guns by the little people. Have today's politicians actually forgotten how to do their jobs? Ten years of sitting on their hands just so they could whine and moan about the NRA? Wimps! :)

Ranb
Click to expand...

Don't bother. NYG believes politicians only vote for what's right for the people through facts, evidence, and reason.
 
Let's say that there is a study that shows people who own guns are more likely to be violently assaulted or murdered. How would that drive the gun control debate? Would people then conclude that it's thus alright to ban guns besides for hunters? That they make self defense less likely? I'm sure some would, but that wouldn't be the only valid way to interpret such a finding. It could be that people who are afraid of being targeted by violence are more likely to own guns, thus a correlation and not a causation that's not prevented by the protective effects of gun ownership. It could be that guns can be used very successfully for self defense but that people tend to employ them incorrectly (I hold this belief already by the way). Then the data could be examined for best practices to increase effectiveness. It could be a combination. I've used the examples of fire extinguishers and cohabitation before marriage as things that can be very effective, but that people tend to use incorrectly. Both can be improved by following certain best practices. As a bonus, a lot of the fire extinguisher best practices overlap with some firearm ones.

We already know that guns can and have been used for self defense. It would be wrong to conclude that they aren't any good at that. That's why forgetting collecting and self defense as valid uses of a gun, driving the discussion to marginalize these uses, tends to get called out. I don't think Cuomo was doing this intentionally, but it sure seems like some are. Especially with moving goalposts, straw men, and weasel words.

And that brings us back to the topic of the thread. One of the reasons the gun control push fizzled is that proponents of stronger controls over played their hands, said too many unreasonable things, and turned off many people to the entire discussion. Same with the NRA types. The more valid points of view are marginalized, the more people become distrustful. And for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom