Did the conservatives bump this thread to argue for gun control? My world is spinning, what is going on.

What country had 1/2 the amount of guns the US has per capita and did the type of gun control many dems are proposing?

LOL.

1. Guns per capita is not an inherent barrier to gun control
2. Most Dems are proposing chickenshit half measures like universal background checks that are still vehemently opposed by gun nuts, not actual gun bans.

wookie, opinion on the white couple accosted outside a chipotle by a mom and her daughters for accidentally having a bag of food bump someone as people were entering, exiting or otherwise negotiating the establisment.

it was most disrespectful to those who rightfully haven't earned or have never known respect. they demanded respect!

Haven't heard about it.

It's actually amazing how some piss-ant idiots could throw this country into unprecedented turmoil. 1 party in this encounter may have saved our skins.

The specter of further unrest, and encounters like this are why gun-rights advocates are who they are. The composure and proportionality of this woman is laudable. Try to get it, mang

lol and they were actually charged with a crime, had to lawyer up

this country's got some reckoning coming

It's interesting, huh? The typical gun control advocate who preaches "common sense" gun control simply has a poor understanding of the economic factors involved.


Demand:

Making it illegal to buy a gun does not stop demand. One of the common narratives we here is that if you make it illegal for some people to purchase a firearm in areas surrounding Chicago, it will reduce violence. However, illegality does not seem to be a prohibitive factor for the folks who own and use a gun illegally in Chicago.

If there is a demand for an illegal product, there will be a black market. We are about to cross the 400 million mark in total firearms that exist in the US. Every time you make it harder to purchase a legal firearm, the value of an illegal firearm will increase. This consequently increases the financial incentive to sell illegal firearms. The will lead to the government increasing the size and scope of its prohibition officers to deal with the black market, i.e. war on guns.

This brings us to the demographics of those who want an illegal firearm. Any gun control law you pass, and any war on guns will disproportionately and negatively impact black and hispanic people.

The only true control measure is to remove the guns. Legislatively, that's a non-starter, though.

Man, how did those guns ever get past Chicago's strict border checkpoints?

To be clear, you're saying the composure and proportionality of the woman who committed a crime by exiting her vehicle to point a gun at two black women is "laudable"?

Wooooooooo boy. There was discussion about that incident here. Go nuts dude.

Of course it does not stop demand. However, where do you think these guns come from? It is the uneven application of gun laws all over the nation. If the entire nation was as draconian about it as NYC, there would be very few guns floating around.

It's not just a legislative non-starter, due to constitutional protections, it is also practical impossibility to get rid of the 400 million guns already out there. It is a super complex problem with no easy answer.

How do we lower demand for illegal firearms?

One, economic opportunity that makes crime less appealing. We all agree on that. How do we create economic opportunities in areas infested with crime? Gun control aint it. You gonna to open a business in area that you have a higher chance of getting robbed than another place?

The aim of gun control is not to create economic opportunities or to reduce demand for guns. The purpose is to make it really hard for people to get guns.

I don't think economic considerations are in any way relevant.

They are for lowering mass shootings in the urban setting, though.

I think it's pretty well established by the data that more guns don't make us safer.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/

You could probably google a million other articles showing the same.

I understand the gun rights argument for guns, but the guns = safety argument does not bear out.

because u rightfully do not want that experience!!

and that's ok

This is staggering.

For one, we're mostly friendly on Unstuck but now I'm a "jackass" who's "intractably committed to my bullshit perception of the world" because I disagree with you? Do better, buddy.

Secondly, if you go read the discussion I linked, you'll clearly see that I watched the video showing what this woman actually did. Why does that have less importance to you than an interview with this couple, months later, flanked by their lawyers, reflecting on their experience specifically to try to draw sympathy to their defense?

(also - I don't live in Marin, lol??? But it's good to know that if I did, you'd discard anything I said, regardless of its content, based solely on where I lived!)

we've watched the video when the incident happened. you aren't allowed to brandish firearms because you are mad at someone. it's a crime.

the "restraint" to not further commit an additional crime of assault and battery with a deadly weapon after committing the first crime isnt what i would call "laudable"

I'll do better. Sorry about that. It's an alienating style of posting, and I respect you guys. Lotta bright people in here. I'll be more tactful, like I was preaching to itshotinvegas last night.

Do not know the specific language of all the various gun law in this country, but there does exist justification. Cue the need for lawyers.

The other party was clearly threatening. Their actions are equally depicted in the video.

And not to be overly blunt, because the opt-in segregation of this country is probably more complex, but there's a reason you haven't recently opted to live any place other than where you have, owing to your autonomy through affluence.

Being loud and Black is not cause to brandish a firearm, even if it does scare some white people.

Oh, and while the post where you compared Marin County (where I do not live) to Detroit has been deleted, probably worth noting:

This did not happen in Detroit. It happened in Orion Township, in Oakland County, 40 miles from Detroit. Oakland County is the 21st most wealthy county in the United States, four spots under Marin. Median family income in Orion Township is very close to the county average.

So, uh, your criticism about where this incident happened vs. where I live (a less wealthy county than Marin or Oakland County) is noted, and rejected.

I won't openly speculate on why you watched this video and immediately thought "Detroit" and "goofy clearly doesn't see people like this in his rich enclave", but I have some ideas.

dunno what that means, sorry.

and this is basically further evidence that eyewitness testimony is worthless, if we can't even watch a 3-minute video without finding ourselves poles apart.

how many times did they holler the word 'bump' ?

You criticized me for opining, from the comfort of Marin County, CA (which, again, is not where I live), on this incident that happened in tha hoods of Detroit, Michigan.

In reality, the place where this happened is richer than where I live.