New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

[MAX-24-Dean]

If that were the case, then states with strict gun laws would have high amounts of violence, and states with lax gun laws would have low amounts because of the deterrent due to prevalent gun ownership.

The fact is that is not the case. It is the exact opposite.

Could you post a link that would support this?

 

[RSR]

You say you are a professor, You use the term ''gun violence'' and don't understand an inanimate object can't commit violence ?
That statement in and of it's self should tell everyone your level of intelligence.

Again, personal attacks say more about you than me.

Where did I say inanimate objects commit violence?

 

[RSR]

Could you post a link that would support this?

Sure:

Gun Safety Policies Save Lives

Compares gun policy across 50 states. In states where elected officials have taken action to pass gun laws, fewer people die by gun violence.

everytownresearch.org

 

[Eagle1]

There are undoubtedly serious concerns with the order. I acknowledge that, which is why I said I don't know that it's a good move. However, at least it's something, and starts the conversation. That is a welcome change from so many approaches that equate to either (1) pretending it's not a problem, or (2) feigning a lack of authority/responsibility for tackling the problem.

It's a difficult, complex problem, that will undoubtedly take a multi-pronged approach, with buy-in from a vast array of policy makers and stakeholders. But again, I get frustrated when lawmakers and politicians use that as an excuse to avoid addressing the problem.

That's why, as misguided as this approach may potentially be, I view it as someone using the little bit of authority they have to try to solve a major problem. I applaud that.

My view is that MY safety is MY responsibility. Police will never prevent crime except by accident. If you could remove all firearms, the next weapon becomes more effective.
Really the problem is that removing guns from the public and concentrating them in government hands never ends well.

Reality is that if you want guns confiscated or owners arrest you need lots and lots of people with guns to accomplish that deed. Therefore you are not anti gun just anti freedom.

Then (see England) you have start outlawing knifes and swords.

You can not outlaw evil, we been trying that for our entire history. You can only contain or remove it. You assume that the guns caused the evil, I'll argue gun is a tool and can be used by both sides. Just like books, music or anything else.

I seem to remember that some folks with airline tickets and box cutters killed a lot of people. Was it the fault of the box cutter or airplane?

I have carried every day for a long time, never killed anyone (human) but have used weapons to defuse potential crimes more than once. Police is 45 minutes away.

If you want to support Gov Newsome 28th amendment that would be the correct way, until that happens ALL infringement on the right to bear arms by a citizen is unconstitutional.
There is a way and for once I agree with a CA politician just that it is a heavy lift. Or you can remove the federal supremacy clause and leave it up to the states, another heavy lift that would remove much federal control.

 

[ddbackhoe]

Your comment makes some very broad assumptions about the individuals that own guns legally, and those that don't.


Let me rephrase the same question to you. If gun laws only hinder the rights of law-abiding citizens and leave them unprotected, why is there a clear inverse correlation between the strictness of state gun laws and gun violence? (i.e., states with strict gun laws have much lower rates of gun violence, and vice versa).

(Edited due to a typo)”

Is this where you read that? You missed one of the highlights. Personally, I deplore reading articles driven by polls and uncharacterized data points.
“In spite of scoring highly on preventative measures, two states – Maryland and Illinois – still had gun deaths that are near the national average. The report attributed these higher rates of gun death to illegal firearms being trafficked into major cities from states with more lenient laws.”

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-01-21/report-states-with-strong-laws-see-less-gun-violence#:~:text=In%20spite%20of%20scoring%20highly,states%20with%20more%20lenient%20laws.

 

[RSR]

Could you post a link that would support this?

Or, there are any number of a scientific studies on the matter:

E.g., Google Scholar

 

[kenmac]

Again, personal attacks say more about you than me.

Where did I say inanimate objects commit violence?

You said ''gun violence'' Do you not understand a gun is an inanimate object ?
inanimate objects ie Guns, rocks, sticks, etc ?

Not personal attacks . If stating facts are personal attacks,,, so be it

 

[oldnslo]

Your comment makes some very broad assumptions about the individuals that own guns legally, and those that don't.


Let me rephrase the same question to you. If gun laws only hinder the rights of law-abiding citizens and leave them unprotected, why is there a clear inverse correlation between the strictness of state gun laws and gun violence? (i.e., states with strict gun laws have much lower rates of gun violence, and vice versa).

(Edited due to a typo)

Last time I checked Chicago has pretty significant gun problems and some pretty strict gun laws. Can’t speak for other areas.

 

[RSR]

My view is that MY safety is MY responsibility. Police will never prevent crime except by accident. If you could remove all firearms, the next weapon becomes more effective.
Really the problem is that removing guns from the public and concentrating them in government hands never ends well.

Reality is that if you want guns confiscated or owners arrest you need lots and lots of people with guns to accomplish that deed. Therefore you are not anti gun just anti freedom.

Then (see England) you have start outlawing knifes and swords.

You can not outlaw evil, we been trying that for our entire history. You can only contain or remove it. You assume that the guns caused the evil, I'll argue gun is a tool and can be used by both sides. Just like books, music or anything else.

I seem to remember that some folks with airline tickets and box cutters killed a lot of people. Was it the fault of the box cutter or airplane?

I have carried every day for a long time, never killed anyone (human) but have used weapons to defuse potential crimes more than once. Police is 45 minutes away.

If you want to support Gov Newsome 28th amendment that would be the correct way, until that happens ALL infringement on the right to bear arms by a citizen is unconstitutional.
There is a way and for once I agree with a CA politician just that it is a heavy lift. Or you can remove the federal supremacy clause and leave it up to the states, another heavy lift that would remove much federal control.

I agree with what you are saying. Unlike many readers on this forum seem to be able to comprehend, it's a complex issue, and is fraught with legal complexity. Yet it's still a problem.xv

As you said, a lot of the solutions are a very heavy lift. As I said initially, it's not that I think what this mayor is doing is right, or for that matter, has a chance of standing up to a legal challenge (as someone else posted NM gun laws are even broader than federal laws), but at least she is trying. I appreciate that.

 

[Eagle1]

Last time I checked Chicago has pretty significant gun problems and some pretty strict gun laws. Can’t speak for other areas.

Baltimore, Washington DC...... could just be that humans should not live together in large numbers. I know I stay much calmer when I don't see or have to talk to other people