Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

(10-17-2017, 01:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-17-2017, 11:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.

Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

You can thank the fact that you live in a blue state of long-standing, with more advanced social support than most other states. I am thankful too for where *I* live. Minnesota gets a C grade on gun control by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

California gets an A-

According to their latest map, Minnesota moved up to a C+ and is ranked #12 in the nation, and California moved up to an A and is ranked #1.


http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/...p-2016.png

Note that the states with the worst gun death rates are all deep red states (except New Mexico, now turning blue) with an F grade for gun control.

I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).

But isn't it interesting that overall, despite all the hype about Chicago guns and murders, Illinois has a good record on gun laws AND gun violence. Yes, a few urban areas where poor people are still concentrated, thanks to our inadequate federal social programs and low taxes, have more murders, more drug gangs and more criminals who can go next door to a red state and buy or steal as many guns as they want with their drug money, thanks to our drug wars and opioid epidemics. I wouldn't want to live in a black ghetto. But virtually all urban areas in the USA are "Democratic strongholds" today, because urban areas are urbane, well-informed, diverse, and not parochial deserts locked into traditionalist delusions and capitalist, self-reliance memes that blame blacks and poor people for their low taxes (but too high according to them). 

Urban Democratic governments, you could well say, should do better to help their poor citizens, if they could (which they can't, according to Republicans, because that perpetuates dependence). Supposedly urbane but poor cities and their violence, you say, proves Democratic Party policies don't work.

But how much can urban mayors and councils do by themselves? The fact is, blue states are far better off than red states, because they vote Democratic, have social programs, make investments in education, health and infrastructure, have gun control, and have regulations on pollution and mistreatment of workers and consumers. Blue states are safer and more prosperous than red states. That makes our urban areas and blue states much better places to live, and consequently also more expensive to live in, because they are the desirable places. So, because people have to pay more, although they also earn more, in order to live in blue states, and give more to the federal government than red states do, but get less back, resources are limited for these cities to do ALL that should be possible for all their people. But, they do better than the red states do at that. Parts of Chicago may be in trouble, but look at New York, near the top in gun laws and near the bottom in gun deaths; who wouda thot back in 1970 that New York City would be one of the safest places to live? Maybe Chicago will get there too, if they keep on the blue path. And Los Angeles too. Illinois is rated 8th in gun laws, and has the 12th best rate of gun violence. Illinois' slightly higher level and rank in gun violence compared to its gun law rating would be entirely due to the lax gun laws and huge exports from red state Indiana next door. Even so, Indiana's rank for gun violence is slightly worse than its gun law ranking. You see a similar problem in Maryland, which has some new strict gun laws, but Maryland criminals have easy access to guns from the red and purple states to the south and west.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

But thanks for the discussion and your views; it gives me a good basis for responding as best I can. And maybe the truth emerges sometimes from discussions.

And I'm so proud of my state on this issue