Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: scyth on October 02, 2017, 08:39:59 am
-
long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !
-
The US needs to recognise that spelling mistake in the Constitution; it isn't a right to bear arms, it's a right to bare arms. Feel free to wear T-shirts or roll up those sleeves, but FFS, stop killing one another.
-
Yep, all of Las Vegas will be rooting for you, not.
NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
Dumbfounded,
-
It's too late.
You can't cancel millions of weapons even if you do render them illegal, which no government, either state or federal appears to have the will to do.
According to France 24 tv just now, in Nevada - or at least in LV - you can carry a concealed weapon in the street; have no need to have a licence and the only thing that was attempted to make the issue a tiny bit less dangerous was to create a short period between buying a weapon and being allowed to take possession. This was to allow time for a character check. Turns out that the local govt. expected the FBI to do the checks and the FBI said no way, you do it. So nobody is going to do it. So no regulation. Bang, bang on!
The only way it may happen is if tourists start to desert Las Vegas in droves, and powerful hands get forced into action. Empty hotels and casinos will soon take care of a little legislative business, methinks. After all, it's money keeps the laws off the books, so more money can also do other things in the opposite direction.
-
You can't cancel millions of weapons even if you do render them illegal
you need to start somewhere ...
-
It apparently is a lone wolf attack, in which case gunlaws and legislation make no difference.
Attached Google's idea of appropriate advertising for that newsitem.
-
It apparently is a lone wolf attack, in which case gunlaws and legislation make no difference.
Attached Google's idea of appropriate advertising for that newsitem.
Hey, making sure that you might make making guns capable of killing tens of innocent people unavailable to the public may be a start.
Just thinking,
-
It apparently is a lone wolf attack, in which case gunlaws and legislation make no difference.
He's white, so yes, it's a lone wolf attack. Had he been a Muslim he'd have been a terrorist. White Christians don't do terrorism, which is good.
-
50+ killed in Las Vegas Strip massacre; suspect had 10 rifles, police say
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooter/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooter/index.html)
Now some idiot will tell us it's all fake news.
-
The differentiating factor in the case of a determined psycho with a shortcircuited brain, is the short circuit, not the chance of obtaining a gun easily.
-
He's white, so yes, it's a lone wolf attack. Had he been a Muslim he'd have been a terrorist. White Christians don't do terrorism, which is good.
No, they are terrorist if it is accompanied by a threat. So far i haven't read about a threat.
In addition, these days most terrorist attacks are also shortcircuited loners that want to associate with IS. It makes a big difference compared to an actual member of an actual terrorist cell.
-
What an horrific incident. Now I'm just waiting for the usual contributors to claim that if more guns were carried then this sort of incident would not happen because the shooter would have been shot dead more quickly.....
I don't have any instant solutions other than to say this sort of thing rarely happens in countries that have tighter gun-control laws.
If a muslim terrorist had done this then massive security changes would result, including banning travel for muslims etc, etc. But as it's a 'Lone Wolf' regular citizen then it will just be a lot of hand-wringing
Jim
-
I don't have any instant solutions other than to say this sort of thing rarely happens in countries that have tighter gun-control laws.
Right, Jim. In those countries they blow 'em up with bombs or mow 'em down with trucks. That's even messier.
-
Right, Jim. In those countries they blow 'em up with bombs or mow 'em down with trucks. That's even messier.
But they are genuine terrorists - we've had them in Europe for decades (IRA, ETA and others). I'm talking about some guy who for some reason has a chip on his shoulder and just feels like blowing away a whole load of innocent people. I know I am making assumptions about this shooter without knowing much yet - but it has happened many times in the US in recent years.
Real terrorists will almost always get through eventually, but why make it so easy for ordinary folk? Like I say - I don't have easy solutions and as Rob C said - not easy to disarm a heavily armed nation either. And before anyone says that criminals will always manage to get guns so that is a reason to let everyone have them, most criminals use them for robbery or killing other drug dealers. The ones carrying out mass killings are not your typical criminal. They are everyday people who just happen to be a bit deranged. Likewise domestic killings - normal people having a bad day. Don't make guns so freely available.
Jim
-
So what the hell difference does it make, Jim? A killer is a killer is a killer. With a gun I at least can defend myself. If the truck is hurtling toward me I at least have a chance to shoot the driver. You're right, real terrorists will always get through. So will nuts like this guy and like Oswald when he shot John Kennedy and like Sirhan Sirhan when he shot Robert Kennedy, both of whom were being guarded by our best? security. You're implying that "real terrorists" don't carry out mass killings, but I'm pretty sure the survivors of 9/11 would disagree. And anybody can make a bomb. It's a piece of cake. If you don't know how to do it you can google it.
-
You shoot 50 people dead from a Hotel window, you're a Terrorist, I don't need more labels.
Lone wolf or not.
-
Just waiting for the "Now isn't the time for this conversation." announcement in response to changing any laws.
I agree it's late but not too late to act at all.
-
Right, Jim. In those countries they blow 'em up with bombs or mow 'em down with trucks. That's even messier.
On average at much lower rates vs. gun killings in the US. So your comparison isn't really supporting your case, to the contrary I'd say.
But if you feel safer carrying a gun around that's fine, to each his own.
-
Right, Jim. In those countries they blow 'em up with bombs or mow 'em down with trucks. That's even messier.
The important thing is to never entertain a new thought since the old ones are working so well for you. The important thing is to keep selling high-power automatic weapons to whoever wants one because that's the "price of freedom".
-
I wonder if anyone has read this article: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/
The suggestion is that in its worship of the gun the United States is practising human sacrifice on a scale undreamed of by the pre-modern sacrificial cults we though we had moved beyond. Only we haven't. Horrifying, but very persuasive. I suppose stricter controls and tighter laws would be the sensible outcome but no betting on that happening, alas.
-
I wonder if anyone has read this article: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/
The suggestion is that in its worship of the gun the United States is practising human sacrifice on a scale undreamed of by the pre-modern sacrificial cults we though we had moved beyond. Only we haven't. Horrifying, but very persuasive. I suppose stricter controls and tighter laws would be the sensible outcome but no betting on that happening, alas.
There is a book by A.J. Somerset called Arms: Culture and Credo of the Gun that is largely about the fetishization of gun and gun culture. The author is an ex gun guy and hunter, maybe ex-military (can't remember), so he's not the usual "left-wing liberal" Canadian, who might therefore have no credibility. :)
Canada has strict laws about handguns and concealed weapons, and has mandatory procedures that need to be followed if you want a rifle to go hunting or if a farmer needs a varmint gun. There are lots of guns in Canada, anyone who wants to go hunting can, and farmers can shoot pests. Which is my way of saying that "gun control" does not destroy civilization nor take away anyone's "freedom".
-
On average at much lower rates vs. gun killings in the US. So your comparison isn't really supporting your case, to the contrary I'd say.
But if you feel safer carrying a gun around that's fine, to each his own.
Okay, Pieter, give me a percentage figure based on population. From what I've been reading it sounds as if both France and Germany are having murder rates relative to their populations roughly equivalent to what we're experiencing. Of course, I'd like to leave out Chicago and Baltimore, two completely left-wing jurisdictions where gun control is being attempted.
The problem with the whole gun control idea is that it controls guns in the hands of people who aren't criminals but does nothing to control guns in the hands of criminals.
But I can see that this is thread is going to degenerate into Trump II type mental retardation, so I'm outta here.
-
The problem with the whole gun control idea is that it controls guns in the hands of people who aren't criminals but does nothing to control guns in the hands of criminals.
Do you have any data that proves it does nothing to control guns in the hands of criminals or those who are mentally ill? Was the Vegas shooter a criminal before this event? Seems not the case. Yet no problem gathering up many assault rifles which the NRA will tell us we must be able to own. Why not a machine gun? Or a grenade launcher?
-
According to the Washington Post the death toll is now at 58. The gunman was on the 32nd floor of the hotel and unless there was someone on that floor with a gun there is not much that could have been done to stop this kind of carnage. In my mind any mass shooting or bombing (as with the Oklahoma City federal building bombing some years ago) is a case of domestic terrorism whether carried out by one, two or a group of people. The reckless slaughter of innocent human beings is terrorism plain and simple. The NRA cannot explain this one away.
-
The NRA cannot explain this one away.
They can and will but it will be mostly a load of rubbish. The actual fake news some in office think is real news. So very sad.
-
Okay, Pieter, give me a percentage figure based on population. From what I've been reading it sounds as if both France and Germany are having murder rates relative to their populations roughly equivalent to what we're experiencing. Of course, I'd like to leave out Chicago and Baltimore, two completely left-wing jurisdictions where gun control is being attempted.
The problem with the whole gun control idea is that it controls guns in the hands of people who aren't criminals but does nothing to control guns in the hands of criminals.
But I can see that this is thread is going to degenerate into Trump II type mental retardation, so I'm outta here.
Like I said in my previous entry, no need to change one's thinking when things are going so well.
-
So what the hell difference does it make, Jim? A killer is a killer is a killer. With a gun I at least can defend myself. If the truck is hurtling toward me I at least have a chance to shoot the driver. You're right, real terrorists will always get through. So will nuts like this guy and like Oswald when he shot John Kennedy and like Sirhan Sirhan when he shot Robert Kennedy, both of whom were being guarded by our best? security. You're implying that "real terrorists" don't carry out mass killings, but I'm pretty sure the survivors of 9/11 would disagree. And anybody can make a bomb. It's a piece of cake. If you don't know how to do it you can google it.
Russ - I respect your views, but do not agree with them. My post was in your response to yours, claiming that in other places they use bombs or trucks to mow down victims. My point was yes, terrorists do use those means, but not usually unhinged individuals. No matter how repugnant we find terrorist acts - the reason we need to distinguish between terrorists and random mass - murderers is that terrorists usually have a political aim. That aim may be flawed and it may be nonsensical to us - but they do have a motivation. Most of the mass shootings in the US seem to be carried out by disgruntled individuals.
The reason we need to distinguish between the motivations is in order to find ways to prevent the attack. Gun control may not prevent terrorist attacks, but it just might prevent random acts such as the latest event. Threat of punishment in either case is no deterrent because they mostly seem suicidal.
The problem with allowing every sane person to have a gun is that a certain percentage of those sane people will have a bad day, and possibly shoot their neighbour, partner or a load of random folk. If a man with a gun walks up your road when you are out front gardening and shoots you - your gun hanging up in the house will not save you. Unless you all do spend your whole life carrying a gun wherever. Even then a smart killer will not be giving notice of their intent.
But like you - I cannot see much future in this thread because there are too many minds already made up.
Jim
-
Okay, Pieter, give me a percentage figure based on population.
But I can see that this is thread is going to degenerate into Trump II type mental retardation, so I'm outta here.
Hardly empirical being wiki but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Still looks like Iraq has a better record . The evidence suggests that the brain dead are American NRA and trump supporters . Yeah see how having the right to bear arms helped all those folks in Nevada. Oh by the same logic there is this dude in Korea who wants the right to bear H bombs just to defend himself I hear some folks in America are upset about this.
-
Okay, Pieter, give me a percentage figure based on population. From what I've been reading it sounds as if both France and Germany are having murder rates relative to their populations roughly equivalent to what we're experiencing. Of course, I'd like to leave out Chicago and Baltimore, two completely left-wing jurisdictions where gun control is being attempted.
The problem with the whole gun control idea is that it controls guns in the hands of people who aren't criminals but does nothing to control guns in the hands of criminals.
But I can see that this is thread is going to degenerate into Trump II type mental retardation, so I'm outta here.
I did do a quick look online at murder rates relative to population. A few picked at random - figures per 100,000 population
Germany 0.85
United Kingdom 0.92
France 1.58
USA 4.88
So not too bad overall for the US - only five times the rate of Germany and the UK and only three times that of France. But safe compared to Russia on 11.31. Still, possibly room for improvement. And you cannot cherry pick cities otherwise we could leave out London and Manchester and in the UK we would be as safe as on the Moon.
Jim
-
Jim, I can't resist getting back in for one more shot: Look at it this way. All this shooting is practice for when we have to go overseas to Europe or Asia and bail their asses out of the hole they're in because they never learned to shoot straight.
-
Relevant again, sadly. (http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131)
Jeremy
-
Well, I can agree that terrorists are not to be confused with "ordinary" nutters who have a gun and use it on other people. Terrorist have to have a philosophy, a belief system to which they subscribe; in other words, a common agenda with others of similar mind, that could be one of religion, of politics. These people are not to be confused with common criminals who simply want to rob you, or with folks who are high on drugs. Terrorists think they are in a war situation. That war has even been declared out loud.
I can't see how anyone not involved in terrorism would do this kind of thing and be of sound mind. That they do, that they find so many weapons and so much ammunition available is quite unbelievable; surely, the least one should have to do before buying more ammo is account for the use of ammunition: why are you shooting anywhere outwith a target range, anyway, where use can be verified before you buy more shots?
Not much, but it might prevent some of the stocking of arsenals.
Of course, it's not gonna happen.
Rob
-
The Economist: America's deadliest mass shooting (https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/america-s-deadliest-mass-shooting?cid1=cust/ddnew/email/n/n/2017102n/owned/n/n/ddnew/n/n/n/nUK/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatch)
At least 58 people are killed and 515 injured in a shooting in Las Vegas
A gunman opened fire from a high-rise hotel on a crowd that had gathered for a country-music festival
[..]
American politicians routinely warn against “politicising” mass shootings. Although they take to the airwaves to discuss airline safety in the wake of a plane crash or security measures after a terrorist attack, discussing gun laws after a lunatic shoots scores of people to death—asking whether, perhaps, the ease of obtaining weapons in America might have something to do with the frequency with which mass murderers kill people with firearms—is understood to somehow be in bad taste. So let’s not mention the massacres at Port Arthur and Dunblane, which prompted Australia and Britain to pass more restrictive gun laws that dramatically reduced the risk of dying by gunshot in both countries.
This week the House of Representatives could pass the “Hearing Protection Act”, which rolls back restrictions on gun silencers. It was supposed to be taken up in June, but was postponed after a gunman opened fire on a congressional softball game. Separate legislation in the House would allow holders of concealed-carry permits to carry their weapons in other states with more restrictive licensing—effectively gutting state-level concealment restrictions. As Barack Obama said after a married couple slaughtered 14 people in San Bernardino, California with legally bought guns, “We’ve become numb to this…This is a political choice we make to allow this to happen every few months in America.”
(https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/2017/10/blogs/democracy-america/20171007_woc931_1_0.png)
-
1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart.
The attack at a country music festival in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history – but there were six other mass shootings in America this past week alone.
No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult.
Mass shootings (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence)
What the…
-
1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart.
The attack at a country music festival in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history – but there were six other mass shootings in America this past week alone.
No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult.
Mass shootings (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence)
What the…
Additional pertinent data (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-things-to-know-about-mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sa-editorial-social&utm_content&utm_term=health_partner_text_free)
-
Jim, I can't resist getting back in for one more shot: Look at it this way. All this shooting is practice for when we have to go overseas to Europe or Asia and bail their asses out of the hole they're in because they never learned to shoot straight.
Well I suppose a bit of black humour never goes amiss.......
Ultimately there are no easy answers and I don't for one minute suggest there are. I can say that me and my family are sickened and saddened by what has happened, and our thoughts are with all those caught up in this madness. And without pitching one nationality against another, and irrespective of race, colour or religion - we are all in this together.
Jim
-
They can and will but it will be mostly a load of rubbish. The actual fake news some in office think is real news. So very sad.
"This could have been prevented if everyone in the audience had some basic weapons training, a sniper rifle, and the ability to locate an enemy sniper"
If you think I'm joking, look at what the NRA has said about school shootings.
-
Just waiting for the "Now isn't the time for this conversation." announcement in response to changing any laws.
I agree it's late but not too late to act at all.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/02/white-house-trump-las-vegas-gun-debate-243371
-
Good thing I don't like waiting. I guess.
-
Why is it useful for people to own gun silencers: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/02/congress-gun-silencer-bill-las-vegas-243366?lo=ap_a1 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/02/congress-gun-silencer-bill-las-vegas-243366?lo=ap_a1)?
-
Why is it useful for people to own gun silencers: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/02/congress-gun-silencer-bill-las-vegas-243366?lo=ap_a1 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/02/congress-gun-silencer-bill-las-vegas-243366?lo=ap_a1)?
If they are hit men for organized crime, silencers are quite useful. For the rest of us not so much. BTW, the gunman in Las Vegas had 19 rifles in the room, two mounted on tripods and hundreds of rounds of ammunition according to the New York Times.
-
Sick people create a sick culture that produces sicker people who create a sicker cul…
Multiple negative feedback loops entering runaway mode at the same time in this country. :-[
-Dave-
-
Okay, Pieter, give me a percentage figure based on population. From what I've been reading it sounds as if both France and Germany are having murder rates relative to their populations roughly equivalent to what we're experiencing. Of course, I'd like to leave out Chicago and Baltimore, two completely left-wing jurisdictions where gun control is being attempted.
The gun related homicide rate in germany is 0.07/100k, France is 0,21/100k and the US is 3.6/100k
That means in France about 134/yr, Germany 57/yr and the US 11.660/yr
The truck and bomb killings in both countries wouldn't even double their rate.
So the comparison you raised is false, and while every terrorist related killing with trucks or bombs is one too many it's still far lower then the rate of US gun related homicides.
So you better check the sources of what you're reading, because saying thet France and Germany have equivalent murder rates to the US is not supported by the data.
-
That means in France about 134/yr, Germany 57/yr and the US 11.660/yr
For the benefit of those not used to the period being a separator, that is ELEVEN THOUSAND PER YEAR
Also that is homicides, it does not include shooting yourself.
Total gun related deaths in the USA is over 30 thousand per year.
But as they say in the US, this was not a terrorist attack, just some white guy exercising his constitutional right.
If you believe that, well .....
-
It would be wonderful if we could put the gun-genie back in the bottle in the US. But that’s not going to happen for a bunch of reasons, some legit, some nut-so. Someone with this guy’s apparent resources would have weaponry like this even if there was a total ban on firearms in the US, I’m afraid. And then there’s Boston where no firearms were used.
This is the evil that people do in its most vile form. And that is a truly intractable problem. There will always be technology available of one sort or another. Think more powerful (lifting capability) drones and bombs... that will undoubtedly become an issue at some point. With his resources this would not have been much of a problem to utilize such a weapon - fly it into the middle of that crowd. If he was bent on doing evil, and firearms were absolutely not available to him, I doubt seriously he’d have just stayed home and played golf instead.
To have this discussion focus on the sad and stupid gun situation in the US is to not reallly see the root problem. (Don’t get me wrong, if I could make guns go away tomorrow, I’d do it in a heartbeat.)
One of the firefighters I hired 20+ years ago was at the concert and was shot through the leg. Fortunately it looks like he’ll be OK. This is not an academic discussion for me.
I think a change in tone as things are reported would help, at least a little bit. We need to call evil, evil. Talking about it in abstract terms like “tragedy” is inaccurate at a fundamental level. Tragedy is what happens when your dog gets run over by a car, accidentally. This was a deliberate, heinous, act of pure premeditated evil, perpetrated by someone who valued his own “agenda” (for whatever warped reason) above anyone or anything else in the world. It is narcissism taken to the ultimate level. His name should be reviled.
Rand
-
I agree with Rand, and I'm no gun nut either. This particular use of firearms, along with this level of access to and desire for firearms, are just symptoms of a deeper problem. I think narcissism is precisely the right term. Lack of humility, and the cultural/societal acceptance and even celebration of that lack: a dark road leading to nihilistic behavior.
-Dave-
-
... this sort of thing rarely happens in countries that have tighter gun-control laws...
Tell that to the Paris concert goers - 90 murdered. In Oklahoma bombing, 168 murdered without a single bullet fired.
-
.... That means in France about 134/yr, Germany 57/yr and the US 11.660/yr ... Year after year after year.
Yes, the people in Paris are also very dead, we get it, but 134/yr, Germany 57/yr and the US 11.660/yr, year after year after year. Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence by attempting to draw equivalences, or are you just trying to convince yourself?
-
Jim, I can't resist getting back in for one more shot: Look at it this way. All this shooting is practice for when we have to go overseas to Europe or Asia and bail their asses out of the hole they're in because they never learned to shoot straight.
I kept checking back on this thread today hoping that this posting would have been removed. I just hope that none of the Sandy Hook parents are photographers who happen to read this thread.
-
I kept checking back on this thread today hoping that this posting would have been removed...
Indeed. A truly despicable post.
-
.... That means in France about 134/yr, Germany 57/yr and the US 11.660/yr ... Year after year after year.
Yes, the people in Paris are also very dead, we get it, but 134/yr, Germany 57/yr and the US 11.660/yr, year after year after year. Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence by attempting to draw equivalences, or are you just trying to convince yourself?
You are comparing apples and oranges by concentrating on guns only. In absence of guns, people in other countries use something else. Knife is a known problem in Britain, for instance.
Besides, we are talking here about mass shootings. Most other shootings in the States are intra- and inter-gang related. When it comes to mass shootings:
"There were 55% more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in EU than US from 2009-15"
(https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2016-04-05-at-Tuesday-April-5-1.05-AM.png)
(https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2016-04-05-at-Tuesday-April-5-1.06-AM.png)
Source: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
-
...Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence...
I was tempted, but then I realized I couldn't possibly do a better job than mother nature did;)
-
I was tempted, but then I realized I couldn't possibly do a better job than mother nature did;)
Oh goodie. More schoolboy taunts.
-
Should you choose to click on Slobodan's link, be sure to inspect the list of literature on the right hand side. Available now for your enjoyment and edification.
-
You are comparing apples and oranges by concentrating on guns only. In absence of guns, people in other countries use something else. Knife is a known problem in Britain, for instance.
Besides, we are talking here about mass shootings. Most other shootings in the States are intra- and inter-gang related. When it comes to mass shootings:
"There were 55% more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in EU than US from 2009-15"
Source: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
I'm sure there are a hundred more ways by looking at artificial (and favourable for your cause) subsets of the data to show it's not a problem in the US vs. Europe. But as they say figures don't lie, but lyers figure. How's the world looking from your ostrich hole, pretty cramped I would think ;)
-
Right, Jim. In those countries they blow 'em up with bombs or mow 'em down with trucks. That's even messier.
I don't know if this will be geoblocked or not (if it is, let me know):
http://www.smh.com.au/world/heres-why-australia-will-never-understand-the-us-obsession-with-guns-20171003-gyt7ys.html
I know which is messier, and it's not here.
-
And whilst this is satirical, the statistic about two decades without mass shooting following increased gun control is true:
http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/australia-enjoys-another-peaceful-day-under-oppressive-gun-control-regime/
Note, I can still get a licence for a gun and buy a gun - there are just more restrictions, checks, and controls. We also had an amnesty and buy back (and we've just had another one).
-
Tell that to the Paris concert goers - 90 murdered. In Oklahoma bombing, 168 murdered without a single bullet fired.
You're ignoring that the point being made was that it was unusual elsewhere, not that it never happened. It is literally now common in the US.
-
More research the NRA and its supporters don't like: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/)
-
59 people dead, 527 injured, with many critically so and we've already got some loons jesting in the worst possible taste and (an)other seeking to justify the patently absurd stance of the NRA (who still today are lobbying Congress to support measures that will allow gun owners to use silencers), with jaundiced statistics.
Slobodan quotes the NRA funded crimeresearch.org, and, based on selective exclusion, says that there are more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in EU than US between 2009-15.
Scientific American, that Pegelli has just referenced above, says
Mass shootings also took place in 25 other wealthy nations between 1983 and 2013.. The US had 78 mass shootings during that 30-year period. The highest number of mass shootings experienced outside the United States was in Germany – where seven shootings occurred. In the other 24 industrialized countries taken together, 41 mass shootings took place.
In other words, the US had nearly double the number of mass shootings than all other 24 countries combined in the same 30-year period
KInda lends a smidgeon of perspective ...
-
And however we compare or debate the mass-murder by gun statistics, the real tragedy in the US is the regular murder rate.
The 'Intentional Homicide Rate' shows in one year almost 16,000 people killed in the USA compared to 600 in the UK. Scaled up to the US population that would make 3500 murders in the US.
The mass shootings may make the headlines, but really it is the everyday killing that gun-control would help alleviate. Whatever other methods are available to kill - guns are too quick and easy and should be heavily restricted.
Jim
-
You are comparing apples and oranges by concentrating on guns only. In absence of guns, people in other countries use something else. Knife is a known problem in Britain, for instance.
Besides, we are talking here about mass shootings. Most other shootings in the States are intra- and inter-gang related. When it comes to mass shootings:
"There were 55% more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in EU than US from 2009-15"
(https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2016-04-05-at-Tuesday-April-5-1.05-AM.png)
(https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2016-04-05-at-Tuesday-April-5-1.06-AM.png)
Source: https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
Any reason Mexico isn't on the list and where it would be if it was?
-
I'm sure there are a hundred more ways by looking at artificial (and favourable for your cause) subsets of the data ...
I thought you are a fan of per-capita statistics? ;)
-
Any reason Mexico isn't on the list and where it would be if it was?
They'd have to swim realllllly long way to become Europeans ;)
-
They'd have to swim realllllly long way to become Europeans ;)
Maybe I should go back to sleep. :) Anyway, it would be interesting to see Mexico and other countries, not jus European.
-
OK here's a world list of per capita deaths by firearm. It seems the US is 94th highest out of 219 countries. That surprised me being so low. Surprisingly Greenland (Denmark) is higher at 31st and sunny and friendly Bermuda at 85th. European countries are a lot less. I guess they save up their anger for wars every few decades. At least the US's 94th beat out Kyrgyzstan at 93rd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
-
I thought you are a fan of per-capita statistics? ;)
As a denominator yes, but the problem in the analysis you linked is the numerator ;)
-
European countries are a lot less. I guess they save up their anger for wars every few decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Switserland is also pretty low, and they haven't been involved in any war for a very long time. So there must be another reason, and I guess the absence of a European equivalent of the NRA might have something to do with it ;)
-
You are comparing apples and oranges by concentrating on guns only. In absence of guns, people in other countries use something else. Knife is a known problem in Britain, for instance.
ability to use a knife, a crowbar, a bottle, a fist or whatever is not a reason not to limit access to guns and ammunition ...
-
Switserland is also pretty low, and they haven't been involved in any war for a very long time. So there must be another reason, and I guess the absence of a European equivalent of the NRA might have something to do with it ;)
There are two reason for American's love affair with guns. First, America's use of firearms owned by the citizenry was used against the British in 1776 to win our independence. Secondly, our Constitution's continuing protection of the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms to defend ourselves from any future attempt to replace our elected government with a dictatorship. The NRA defends us against those who would prefer the government have all the arms because their method of government resembles Cuba and the Soviet Union. They don't want an armed citizenry.
It's interesting you mention Switzerland where most households have guns which is required by Swiss law.
-
I kept checking back on this thread today hoping that this posting would have been removed.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bn8Xr5xIYAArZhf.jpg)
-
ability to use a knife, a crowbar, a bottle, a fist or whatever is not a reason not to limit access to guns and ammunition ...
Well, actually it is, because firearms would be a good method to defend yourself from such attacks.
Mind you, I am not a proponent of firearms for the public, I live in a country with guncontrol which for our culture and background is probably the right choice. Problem in our country seems to be that most shootings are executed by armypersonel with PTSD. This of course makes the discussion about guncontrol that much harder.
Note that even for armypersonel or police forces, gun ownership still has all kinds of restrictions. Toddlers inadvertently shooting their siblings is not something that could happen here.
-
ability to use a knife, a crowbar, a bottle, a fist or whatever is not a reason not to limit access to guns and ammunition ...
There are many, many laws that prevent the purchase of guns and regulate their use after purchase. The guy in Las Vegas appears to have had done nothing in his past history that would have restrained his legal ability to buy guns. You would have had to outlaw guns, period. That is unconstitutional.
-
Well, actually it is, because firearms would be a good method to defend yourself from such attacks.
Mind you, I am not a proponent of firearms for the public, I live in a country with guncontrol which for our culture and background is probably the right choice. Problem in our country seems to be that most shootings are executed by armypersonel with PTSD. This of course makes the discussion about guncontrol that much harder.
Note that even for armypersonel or police forces, gun ownership still has all kinds of restrictions. Toddlers inadvertently shooting their siblings is not something that could happen here.
Where is here?
-
It's interesting you mention Switzerland where most households have guns which is required by Swiss law.
it will be nice to have the same regulations for getting and carrying firearms and ammo as in Switzerland = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland ;)
-
Where is here?
The Netherlands
-
Well, actually it is, because firearms would be a good method to defend yourself from such attacks.
in your dreams only... just like owning a tuned car does not make you a race driver.
-
The guy in Las Vegas appears to have had done nothing in his past history that would have restrained his legal ability to buy guns.
the ability to buy and own multiple guns w as we have here shall be gone for a start ...
-
in your dreams only... just like owning a tuned car does not make you a race driver.
Well, yes I agree, but that's why you practice under controlled circumstances. I was just paraphrasing the general argument that proponents would make, though. I don't think I would personally be able to defend myself that way even with practice.
-
it will be nice to have the same regulations for getting and carrying firearms and ammo as in Switzerland = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland ;)
America has many of the same regulations although it does vary state by state since we are a Federal Republic. Regulations in cities such as NY are more restrictive, especially carry laws.
The fact is, with 240 million guns, Americans are pretty responsible for the most part and America has pretty restrictive purchase and use laws. Curious. Did Europe tighten up on leasing trucks after the truck terrorist killings?
-
America has many of the same regulations although it does vary state by state since we are a Federal Republic. Regulations in cities such as NY are more restrictive, especially carry laws.
The fact is, with 240 million guns, Americans are pretty responsible for the most part and America has pretty restrictive purchase and use laws. Curious. Did Europe tighten up on leasing trucks after the truck terrorist killings?
You're right. There is no problem. Just keep doing what you're doing, it's working so well.
-
Jim, I can't resist getting back in for one more shot: Look at it this way. All this shooting is practice for when we have to go overseas to Europe or Asia and bail their asses out of the hole they're in because they never learned to shoot straight.
My apologies. When I came back and read this I realized it came out wrong. By "all this shooting" I didn't mean murders. I meant the kind of shooting people learn to do by owning and using their guns -- usually on a range. It prepares us for the kind of nation-rescue operations we've been forced to do in Europe and Asia since 1917, and which, considering the kind of faux high-mindedness I'm reading here, I'm sure we'll have to do again. It's neat, guys, that not being allowed to own a gun keeps down the shootings in your societies (though it doesn't keep down the bombings, knifings, truck-rundowns, etc. that nobody wants to mention). But when a Hitler or a Stalin arms his army and teaches it to shoot, it leaves your population defenseless. Then that nasty U.S., with all its nasty guns, has to come to your rescue -- over and over and over again.
-
Then that nasty U.S., with all its nasty guns, has to come to your rescue -- over and over and over again.
I don't want to downplay the role the US played in ending WW2 but calling it "over and over again" for twice in the last 120 years (and I can't remember an instance before that) and especially the second time because you were attacked yourself first as well as doing it together with the Russians and others seems overly dramatic.
-
I meant the kind of shooting people learn to do by owning and using their guns -- usually on a range. It prepares us for the kind of nation-rescue operations we've been forced to do in Europe and Asia since 1917, and which, considering the kind of faux high-mindedness I'm reading here, I'm sure we'll have to do again.
I believe the US military does a very good job of firearms training for those soldiers who are deployed overseas. Civilian gun training is a very poor substitute for what you are claiming.
-
(though it doesn't keep down the bombings, knifings, truck-rundowns, etc. that nobody wants to mention).
You mentioned it and at your request I showed it was insignificant vs. homicides in the US. Don't play "victim" when in fact you're just eager to keep mentioning the same debunked arguments.
-
I believe the US military does a very good job of firearms training for those soldiers who are deployed overseas. Civilian gun training is a very poor substitute for what you are claiming.
I'd have to agree, Alan, since I was captain of the pistol team at Richards-Gebaur AFB for a while before I went to Vietnam. But I don't agree that civilian gun training is a poor substitute. I was brought up with guns and learned to shoot safely at an early age. When I was fourteen I even, for a few months, was Michigan state junior smallbore rifle champ. My high school had a rifle team. Horrors!
-
I don't want to downplay the role the US played in ending WW2 but calling it "over and over again" for twice in the last 120 years (and I can't remember an instance before that) and especially the second time because you were attacked yourself first as well as doing it together with the Russians and others seems overly dramatic.
Hi Pieter. Guess you missed the term "Asia." And yes, in WW II we were attacked ourselves. Why do you suppose that was so? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that except for Britain the whole Western world had demonstrated its wussiness. And as far as not wanting to downplay the role the US played in ending WW2, you CAN'T. If it weren't for the U.S. and its guns you'd be forced to become a member of the Nazi party.
-
Then that nasty U.S., with all its nasty guns, has to come to your rescue -- over and over and over again.
Yup, just like it did with it's own hostages in Iran in 1979 !
8 helicopters and elite crews and yet 3 choppers failed on mission (actually one crashed into its refuelling C-130).
Now compare that with how the British dealt with the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 - and you begin to understand that NO amount of civilian training is going to bring them up to SAS standard.
And let's not forget the UN / EU support for the US military intervention in both the Iraq wars.
-
ROTFL!!! Check who was president during the hostage crisis and check which president ended the hostage crisis. Yes, in that case we were as wussy as Europe during WW II. But what really got me ROTFL was your reference to UN support during the Iraq wars. Yep. They really turned up the pressure and talked even faster.
-
Hi Pieter. Guess you missed the term "Asia." And yes, in WW II we were attacked ourselves. Why do you suppose that was so? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that except for Britain the whole Western world had demonstrated its wussiness. And as far as not wanting to downplay the role the US played in ending WW2, you CAN'T. If it weren't for the U.S. and its guns you'd be forced to become a member of the Nazi party.
America came over to Europe for the final push against Hitler in the invasion of France (and Italy). But actually Hitler got beat by those pesky Russians ... ever heard of Stalingrad ?
-
Absolutely, Manoli. And we had nothing to do with the fact that Britain was losing ground in the Atlantic and the Pacific and by coming in we saved their ass. At least that's what Churchill believed, as he's made absolutely clear in his WW II books. Maybe you need to go back and refresh your grasp of history. But maybe you're right. Maybe we should have just stayed home. You guys probably would have been fine under either Nazi or Russian Communist rule.
Sorry if I sound passionate about all this, but I was around when all this crap went down. I was 15 when WW II ended. Missed that one, but didn't miss Asia just seven years later. Been there. Done that. And I get damn tired of hearing theories and feelings from people who've never come within sight of any of it.
-
Hi Pieter. Guess you missed the term "Asia." And yes, in WW II we were attacked ourselves. Why do you suppose that was so? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that except for Britain the whole Western world had demonstrated its wussiness. And as far as not wanting to downplay the role the US played in ending WW2, you CAN'T. If it weren't for the U.S. and its guns you'd be forced to become a member of the Nazi party.
Asia was in your first sentence, when you started to talk about Stalin and Hitler I thought you were specifically referring to Europe. And don't kid yourself, while the US played a major role you couldn't have done it without the other allies. There is no need to claim all the glory, and by the way I think shared glory with allies is much more honorable than claiming it all yourself. When you are 15 you tend to romanticise and believe all you read in the US press who claim it's all US and downplayed the role of other allies in WW2. Just like you recently "read" the homicide rate in France and Germmany was approaching that in the US. I'm sure there was a similar hidden agenda in that article ;)
-
I'd have to agree, Alan, since I was captain of the pistol team at Richards-Gebaur AFB for a while before I went to Vietnam. But I don't agree that civilian gun training is a poor substitute. I was brought up with guns and learned to shoot safely at an early age. When I was fourteen I even, for a few months, was Michigan state junior smallbore rifle champ. My high school had a rifle team. Horrors!
Yep, many of the famous U.S snipers like Hathcock come from a solid hunting background.
Don
-
yep, great practice is picking off varmits through the eye at 100+ yards with a 22 short.
-
No sweat, Grub, it just takes practice.
-
I don't want to downplay the role the US played in ending WW2 but calling it "over and over again" for twice in the last 120 years (and I can't remember an instance before that) and especially the second time because you were attacked yourself first as well as doing it together with the Russians and others seems overly dramatic.
You mention "twice" as if they were little gunboat skirmishes. They were the two largest wars in history, after all. Since then, American arms kept Western Europe safe from Communist aggression from the Soviets after the WWII as well. American arms still keeps Europe safe from the Russians today and western allies in the Pacific. I never can figure out whether it's Europe's ingratitude or embarrassment that many Europeans, not including you Pete, always feel it necessary to knock our help.
-
Absolutely, Manoli. And we had nothing to do with the fact that Britain was losing ground in the Atlantic and the Pacific and by coming in we saved their ass. At least that's what Churchill believed, as he's made absolutely clear in his WW II books. Maybe you need to go back and refresh your grasp of history. But maybe you're right. Maybe we should have just stayed home. You guys probably would have been fine under either Nazi or Russian Communist rule.
Sorry if I sound passionate about all this, but I was around when all this crap went down. I was 15 when WW II ended. Missed that one, but didn't miss Asia just seven years later. Been there. Done that. And I get damn tired of hearing theories and feelings from people who've never come within sight of any of it.
Then it was Japanese imperialism that the West blunted by cutting off oil and steel supply followed by Korean opportunism in a proxy war. Now it is resurgent Chinese imperialism, both economic and physical, that we will have to resist.
-
You mention "twice" as if they were little gunboat skirmishes. They were the two largest wars in history, after all. Since then, American arms kept Western Europe safe from Communist aggression from the Soviets after the WWII as well. American arms still keeps Europe safe from the Russians today and western allies in the Pacific. I never can figure out whether it's Europe's ingratitude or embarrassment that many Europeans, not including you Pete, always feel it necessary to knock our help.
I'm not knocking the US help, (see several of my posts), I'm just trying to put some of the dramatic overstatements in perspective. It's not like the US does this only out of their "good heart", there's a great deal of self interest in it as well, both financially as well as the power/status you get for being one of world's policemen.
-
I'm not knocking the US help, (see several of my posts), I'm just trying to put some of the dramatic overstatements in perspective. It's not like the US does this only out of their "good heart", there's a great deal of self interest in it as well, both financially as well as the power/status you get for being one of world's policemen.
I appreciate that. Regarding policeman, I think Americans are getting tired of it after Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. Many thought Trump would pull back. But that was an illusion. We're into NATO, the Pacific and the Middle East as much as ever. However, if there is another recession, I think Americans would insist we pull back. There's just not the money for it any more.
-
There's just not the money for it any more.
And then it will be the defense industry and its workers that will suffer most. That's what their Washington lobby is currently trying to protect.
-
Asia was in your first sentence, when you started to talk about Stalin and Hitler I thought you were specifically referring to Europe. And don't kid yourself, while the US played a major role you couldn't have done it without the other allies. There is no need to claim all the glory, and by the way I think shared glory with allies is much more honorable than claiming it all yourself. When you are 15 you tend to romanticise and believe all you read in the US press who claim it's all US and downplayed the role of other allies in WW2. Just like you recently "read" the homicide rate in France and Germmany was approaching that in the US. I'm sure there was a similar hidden agenda in that article ;)
I'm not claiming that the U.S. won the war single-handed, Pieter, as you well know. Without Britain the war would have been lost long before we came in. And of course, toward the end, de Gaulle marched in and cinched the French election. But none of that would have been possible if the U.S. hadn't gotten off its duff and declared war. You guys all would have been either under Hitler or under Stalin. Bottom line: don't denigrate the U.S. firearm situation. We're a free country because of our firearms, and we're not about to give them up. You should be happy about that.
And yes, there are way, way too many murders in the U.S., by firearms mostly. But it's interesting to see where those murders are taking place. Left-wing propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, in almost all cases it's not Hillary's "deplorables" doing the shooting.
And just as an aside, I haven't personally owned a gun since I came back from Southeast Asia in 1965.
-
And then it will be the defense industry and its workers that will suffer most. That's what their Washington lobby is currently trying to protect.
ROTFL again. Where do you guys get this incredible crap?
-
Let not divert from the discussion to WWII and other wars….
This thread will be long enough without…
Let me say that i am happy to live in a place were i do not feel any need to have a gun to protect myself for there is nobody threatening me with guns, at least the last 55 years.
That said
Once in Barcelona at night i had to give away my bag to somebody that threatened me with a knife.
It was a drugsrelated crime. I gave him my bag and he disappeared.
if i have had a gun…. If he had a gun….
Once at night in a park in Amsterdam i met a group of some teenagers that pushed me of my bicycle when i passed.
They wanted my money and threatened me with a large knive.
For me it was clear they did not know what they were doing and because of that very dangerous. I think they collected money in the park to go into town. Anyway i gave them the money. Then i asked some money back to be able to get a coke. They gave me some money back.
if i have had a gun…. If they had guns….
-
ROTFL again. Where do you guys get this incredible crap?
Maybe in the same paper where you read the France and German homicide rate was approaching the US ;)
I wouldn't laugh at others for posting crap if I were you, it's just the pot and the kettle. Trying to put reasonable arguments (and data) against it is much more useful.
Just a refresher :
From what I've been reading it sounds as if both France and Germany are having murder rates relative to their populations roughly equivalent to what we're experiencing.
-
it may go back to Eisenhower's warning against the "military industrial complex" influence in DC as he left office.
-
And then it will be the defense industry and its workers that will suffer most. That's what their Washington lobby is currently trying to protect.
How come European defense industries don't push spending on defense like America's?
-
How come European defense industries don't push spending on defense like America's?
Fair question, they probably do but I haven't got the foggiest why they aren't as successful.
EDIT: thinking about it more it might have to do with having to devide their attention between 20-25 governments (who all take autonomous decisions) vs. just one. But beware, this is just speculation from my side.
-
Let me say that i am happy to live in a place were i do not feel any need to have a gun to protect myself for there is nobody threatening me with guns, at least the last 55 years.
And why do you suppose you live in such a place, Pieter? Seems to me that 75 years ago you had a problem that gun-toting Americans came along and helped solve. You don't want to divert to WW II, but that's the crux of the situation. Guns gave you your freedom to stay away from guns. Looking at what's happening in Europe right now I'd suggest the future may not be so forgiving. The next guy with a knife may be yelling Allahu Akbar.
-
How come European defense industries don't push spending on defense like America's?
Especially when they're a part of NATO and signed an agreement to devote 2% of GNP to defense. With the exception of Poland and one or two others, their main contribution to their own defense mostly is military bands.
-
Maybe in the same paper where you read the France and German homicide rate was approaching the US ;)
I may have been off by a bit, but I suspect that considering the rate at which you're accepting Middle-East refugees the situation is going to even out in the not too distant future. I also suspect the accuracy of statistics about murders relative to population. On the other hand, I'll tell you this: The United States is a big place, and when you get away from population centers like Chicago you find that the murder rate by guns in the U.S. is comparable to the rate anywhere else. As I said earlier, it ain't Hillary's "deplorables" who are doing the shooting.
-
their main contribution to their own defense mostly is military bands.
Where do you find this crap? But I have a hunch ;)
-
I may have been off by a bit, but I suspect that considering the rate at which you're accepting Middle-East refugees the situation is going to even out in the not too distant future. I also suspect the accuracy of statistics about murders relative to population. On the other hand, I'll tell you this: The United States is a big place, and when you get away from population centers like Chicago you find that the murder rate by guns in the U.S. is comparable to the rate anywhere else. As I said earlier, it ain't Hillary's "deplorables" who are doing the shooting.
OK, you're talking about the future, not about today's numbers. Somehow I hadn't realised you were clairvoyant. ;)
Btw, any real data to back up your claim that outside centers like Chicago the homicide rate is like anywhere else, or have you also read that "somewhere"?
-
We're a free country because of our firearms, and we're not about to give them up. You should be happy about that.
...
And just as an aside, I haven't personally owned a gun since I came back from Southeast Asia in 1965.
I think that is certainly a debatable point. We had a revolution and got out from under England with significant help from personal firearms. If you look at other countries that also used to be under British rule, they are also all free countries now and they didn't all have a bloody revolution to get there. Canada is a good example.
Now I'm not saying the Revolutionary War wasn't a good thing but chances are we would be an independent nation by now anyway.
After that, the firearms that helped protect our freedom were military issued and deployed, like your time in SE Asia. Your average armed citizen really had nothing to do with maintaining freedom.
You could make the argument that they would be a deterrent, but like we just saw in Las Vegas, personal arms can't typically compete with military grade arms.
The only reason we really need personal guns today is that others have them but this generally doesn't hold water from a statistical standpoint. Firearms also make it so easy to commit murder in a moment of passion, or for toddlers to shoot each other or their parents too. That happens a lot more frequently than the "good guy with a gun" saving the day. They make their owners feel better but statistically it also puts them in more danger.
That being said I have two guns in our house that I reluctantly accepted from my father in law who was terrified at the thought of us being unarmed. We keep them locked away and unloaded which is the safest thing to do if I must have them. But I don't feel safer. I worry that one could fall into the wrong hands somehow and contribute to something horrible. I doubt it will happen but I know that is statistically more likely than the guns enabling me to protect my family from a criminal.
-
OK, you're talking about the future, not about today's numbers. Somehow I hadn't realised you were clairvoyant. ;)
Btw, any real data to back up your claim that outside centers like Chicago the homicide rate is like anywhere else, or have you also read that "somewhere"?
No.I'm talking about today's numbers. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and I'm very suspicious of the figures I saw popped up on here. I'd be the first to agree that Europe doesn't have the number of shootings that even Chicago has, but murders overall, that's a different subject and it depends on the definition of "murder." And I wouldn't exactly call being able to observe and recognize a trend clairvoyance.
-
I wouldn't exactly call being able to observe and recognize a trend clairvoyance.
Depends on who's doing the observing and where they go for their information. For example: Slobodan and his "Crime Prevention" site. Spare me.
When they woke up and glanced at their phones on Monday morning, Americans may have been shocked to learn that the man behind the mass shooting in Las Vegas late on Sunday was an anti-Trump liberal who liked Rachel Maddow and MoveOn.org, that the F.B.I. had already linked him to the Islamic State, and that mainstream news organizations were suppressing that he had recently converted to Islam.
They were shocking, gruesome revelations. They were also entirely false ...
In other words, "Fake News".
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/business/las-vegas-shooting-fake-news.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
-
From the Economist: (https://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2017/10/guns-and-god)
Guns and God
Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest who is editor-at-large of America magazine, responded to the Las Vegas killings with a kind of prayer-poem that included the lines:
I am tired, God.
I’m tired of the unwillingness to see this as an important issue.
I’m tired of those in power who work to prevent any real change.
I’m tired of those who say that gun violence can’t be reduced.
Either end of this religious-ideological spectrum can go to funny extremes. An approach that puts overwhelming emphasis on the structural or regulatory context of violence can leave itself open to mockery by seeming to deny that individuals have moral choices. But whatever you may think about the causes of badness in the world, it seems manifestly absurd to suggest that the legislator should not try, at least, to reduce the scope for evil to prevail. (My emphasis)
-
I wonder why there was no outcry to ban fertilizers?
-
From the Economist: (https://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2017/10/guns-and-god)
Guns and God
Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest who is editor-at-large of America magazine, responded to the Las Vegas killings with a kind of prayer-poem that included the lines:
I am tired, God.
I’m tired of the unwillingness to see this as an important issue.
I’m tired of those in power who work to prevent any real change.
I’m tired of those who say that gun violence can’t be reduced.
Either end of this religious-ideological spectrum can go to funny extremes. An approach that puts overwhelming emphasis on the structural or regulatory context of violence can leave itself open to mockery by seeming to deny that individuals have moral choices. But whatever you may think about the causes of badness in the world, it seems manifestly absurd to suggest that the legislator should not try, at least, to reduce the scope for evil to prevail. (My emphasis)
And how is the "legislator" to do that, Chris? By banning guns? Everybody acts as if the guns get up and decide to go out and shoot people. Fact is, people shoot people. People also knife people. People also blow up people. People also drive trucks into people. The guns don't do it by themselves. The knives don't do it by themselves. The bombs don't do it by themselves. The trucks don't do it by themselves.
So is the idea that if we get rid of guns people no longer will kill people? Uh uh. As I said in an earlier post, making a bomb is easy as pie. If you don't know how to do it you can google it. The problem in the U.S. isn't guns. It's people. When I was young just about everybody had a gun, but they weren't shooting people. In areas of the U.S. away from crowded population centers -- especially in the deep south -- an awful lot of people have guns, but they aren't shooting people. Want to know the highest murder rates by city? The first 13 aren't even in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate. Then we finally get to St. Louis.
I think the prayer is right on, except the part about government. As Slobodan says, why aren't we banning fertilizer? You can make bombs from it. It's more dangerous than guns.
-
I may have been off by a bit, but I suspect that considering the rate at which you're accepting Middle-East refugees the situation is going to even out in the not too distant future.
No.I'm talking about today's numbers.
What is it Russ, are you reading today's numbers or those in the (not too distant) future.
Contradicting your own words and not disclosing any numbers behind your claims about "how safe" the US outside the left hotspots is makes them suspicious at least.
-
Read what I just posted about murder rates by city, Pieter.
-
I wonder why there was no outcry to ban fertilizers?
Access to AN fertilizer is more controlled than before. But, like most controls, it is not impossible to get around.
-
And how is the "legislator" to do that, Chris? By banning guns?
Here I agree with you, the problem is not the government, it's the NRA gun lobby and the people who believe guns means freedom and less crime. When the will of the (majority of) the people is to make gatting and carrying guns easy the government will follow the majority. It's the will of the US people that is up for discussion here, not the government.
-
How come European defense industries don't push spending on defense like America's?
Because they are too busy trying to push Airbus as the dominant passenger carrier at Boeing's expense.
-
Here I agree with you, the problem is not the government, it's the NRA gun lobby and the people who believe guns means freedom and less crime. When the will of the (majority of) the people is to make gatting and carrying guns easy the government will follow the majority. It's the will of the US people that is up for discussion here, not the government.
And the NRA does not represent a significant portion of the citizens ? i think some of this goes back to the decades or centuries old power struggle between the urban financial centers and the open country agriculture driven portions of the country and is a proxy for that fight. In some sense gun owning and use is a symbol of standing independently and being responsible for ones own welfare.
-
Read what I just posted about murder rates by city, Pieter.
Well maybe this is a better list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)
There you'll see that 95% of the US cities on this list have a murder rate higher then most European countries, didn't know there were so many left hotspots where things go awry.
And if you exclude all kind of cities should we also exclude the gang shootings in Antwerp/Amsterdam/Hamburg/Marseille etc. That will drop the European murder rates too. I'm not in favour of that, for me that's too much of "figures don't lie, but liars figure", too much excluding enough unfavourable data so the final answer supports the point one wants to make.
-
And the NRA does not represent a significant portion of the citizens ?
I never said that. My point is that as long as the majority of the US population is in favour not to change any of the gun laws it's not going to happen. If you don't like it don't blame the government but try to have a discussion with this majority to change their their opinion. But this thread proves that is a difficult task and very few people will be swayed by what is posted here. But at least the understanding of both sides position will hopefully be more clear.
-
And how is the "legislator" to do that, Chris? By banning guns?
there are some things that could be done to control the number and types of guns a single individual can own. I've done a lot of bird hunting and only need a nice shotgun for that purpose. In the 'old' days police used 5 or 6 shot revolvers and that was deemed sufficient for them (can't remember what the magazine capacity is for the Glocks that are now ubiquitous but it's higher). Does anyone other than the NRA and its minions think that high capacity assault rifles serve any sporting purpose? Does someone really need 19 guns in their possession?
Another thing that could be done is to eliminate the various laws that shield these companies from liability. Apparently one of the weapons used in the Las Vegas shootings had a stock attachment ($40 is the cost according to the Washington Post) that allowed it to fire in a rapid burst mode that is prohibited by the 'machine gun' ban. Why is this even sold? Can this manufacturer be sued by the shooting victims?
We all have to register our cars with the various state MVAs. Why should there not be a similar system in place for guns? Alternatively, the NRA could run a national database to track those who try to stockpile weapons though I suspect the NRA thinks that it is just fine for people to own miniature arsenals in their homes.
As Slobodan says, why aren't we banning fertilizer? You can make bombs from it. It's more dangerous than guns.
As already noted, pure ammonium nitrate fertilize is regulated as are a lot of other compounds that can be used for making explosives.
Finally, just because there are those who would circumvent the law in terms of any firearms regulation does not mean that we should not try. We regulate cars and a bunch of other stuff and nobody seems to object the same way they do about guns.
-
fair enough. my interpretation of the sentence.
-
And the NRA does not represent a significant portion of the citizens ?
The NRA has about 5 million members. There are estimated to be about 50 million gun owners in the US. The NRA represents about 10% of the gun owners in the US.
I have been a gun owner for almost 40 years and I have never been an NRA member. Even when I was shooting in competition, I paid higher entry fees because I was not an NRA member.. fees that totaled many more times what an NRA membership would have cost. The NRA does not represent me in my form of responsible gun ownership.
The NRA is political influential only because politicians choose to allow the NRA to be politically influential.
-
We regulate cars and a bunch of other stuff and nobody seems to object the same way they do about guns.
Yes, few are opposed to regulating "others" such as corporations. When it starts to directly affect personal privileges is when it gets sticky.
-
And why do you suppose you live in such a place, Pieter? Seems to me that 75 years ago you had a problem that gun-toting Americans came along and helped solve. You don't want to divert to WW II, but that's the crux of the situation. Guns gave you your freedom to stay away from guns. Looking at what's happening in Europe right now I'd suggest the future may not be so forgiving. The next guy with a knife may be yelling Allahu Akbar.
Sorry Russ,
I find this reference completely of topic.
I could start about our heroic war against Spain in 1600 but i will not.
on topic:
put 10 people in a room A
put 10 people in a room B all armed
Put 10 children in a room C
put 10 children in a room D all armed
put 10 people in a room E with the las vegas shooter
put 10 people in room F with the las Vegas shooter all armed…
come back after sometime and watch the results.
and then we have this
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html
My take is simple: GUNS/ WEAPONS KILL - accidentally or not and should be removed from the public space.
-
I'm not following much of this illogic. Are people saying that because you can still buy fertilizer, kitchen knives and rent trucks then we should allow people to buy as many guns as they want? What for, so they can shoot at rampaging U-Hauls?
The assertion that Europe and Asia were saved because a large number of American civilians learned how to shoot as kids is the funniest line I've read this month (so far). As if American youth were the only ones who used firearms growing up. And what percentage of the enemy were shot by American riflemen anyway?
Besides that, the idea that Asia was saved is controversial at best. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos may have different views. Come to that, those Viet Cong were pretty good with weaponry, weren't they? They didn't learn to shoot in the Kentucky hills.
In general, I would say that this American-centric view of world affairs has more to do with Hollywood movies than history books. Go to libraries, forget Disney.
That a joint effort during the second world war, bolstered in very large measure by American involvement in both logistical and military support is uncontested. No one sane doubts it. The importance of the American contribution in WW1 is less than that. Let's not treat the two as equivalent.
American foreign forays since 1945 have been less than stellar, it seems to me. And things are not trending your way. Economic and population centres of influence are shifting elsewhere. Your own corporations are establishing themselves elsewhere (assuming it even makes sense to talk about multinational corporations as being part of one country). And with a man in office now who can't organize his own white house staff and departmental appointees, I suspect the rest of the world is not very impressed.
Allan made an unintentionally funny statement about how America may be getting tired of playing policeman in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. No kidding. Do you view those interventions as successful? I doubt those countries do. And do you feel safer because of those involvements? Because it certainly doesn't appear that way to me. Your civilian population is heavily armed, you have the most number of people in prisons anywhere, hundreds of thousands of people working in security, and to listen to your public statements, you talk as if you were living in one of the most dangerous places on earth. Shouldn't crime be WAY down by now, and shouldn't you feel safe? Why don't you? To listen to your talk, you sound as if you're all living in Kabul.
If having a lot of armed civilians really did thwart crime, shouldn't there be ample evidence of that? At the very least, shouldn't things be trending in that direction?
I detect a note in your responses to comments. You seem to act as if we're making attacks on the USA and you continually respond defensively. No one is gloating here. I'm not. Your decline in some international areas are not a good thing for the world. You need new thinking because the world has changed, and I'm not detecting any. And I don't mean the contributors to this thread, since we all don't really matter anyway, I am talking about your political leadership. You should do something useful about it instead of wasting your time and energy trying to pass gun silencer legislation because the NRA is funding the retirements of some of your paid-for politicians. That kind of thing invites ridicule and deservedly so. For f**k's sake, do you REALLY think it's important that it be easier to buy firearm suppressors?
Rant over.
-
My take is simple: GUNS/ WEAPONS KILL - accidentally or not and should be removed from the public space.
I dont own a gun nor do I intend to (however I have gone to the range several times). So I am not going to disagree with you just because we are on opposite sides of the equation.
What you are suggesting is a slippery slope though. What do we consider to be weapons vs. tools? Are knives weapons? If so, should we ban knives from public space?
I cook nearly every day and keep my kitchen knives very sharp. Frequently I walk my chef knife, which has an 11 inch blade, 16 inches overall if you include the handle, to get sharpened a few blocks from where I live.
Should I be banned from doing that?
Or maybe we should just agree that although large and scary to some, it is a tool. So, not all things that could be considered weapons, in my opinion, should be banned from public space.
However, certain objects that are created for the sole purpose of killing people should be limited.
Going back to my knife example, a dagger (a knife with a blade on both sides) are only meant for fighting, and are therefore heavily banned/regulated. Handguns are only meant to kill people; you can't hunt with a handgun. So I think handguns should be regulated.
I consider rifles like knives though, they are a tool with purposes other then killing a human.
-
Did Europe tighten up on leasing trucks after the truck terrorist killings?
Can't speak for Europe (which is a continent comprising multiple different countries, seemingly to the surprise of many Americans), but in England, I think the answer to your question is yes.
Jeremy
-
Can't speak for Europe (which is a continent comprising multiple different countries, seemingly to the surprise of many Americans), but in England, I think the answer to your question is yes.
Jeremy
And carrying knives in Britain is also a no-no that can get you seriusly into trouble - as it should.
-
I dont own a gun nor do I intend to (however I have gone to the range several times). So I am not going to disagree with you just because we are on opposite sides of the equation.
What you are suggesting is a slippery slope though. What do we consider to be weapons vs. tools? Are knives weapons? If so, should we ban knives from public space?
I cook nearly every day and keep my kitchen knives very sharp. Frequently I walk my chef knife, which has an 11 inch blade, 16 inches overall if you include the handle, to get sharpened a few blocks from where I live.
Should I be banned from doing that?
Or maybe we should just agree that although large and scary to some, it is a tool. So, not all things that could be considered weapons, in my opinion, should be banned from public space.
However, certain objects that are created for the sole purpose of killing people should be limited.
Going back to my knife example, a dagger (a knife with a blade on both sides) are only meant for fighting, and are therefore heavily banned/regulated. Handguns are only meant to kill people; you can't hunt with a handgun. So I think handguns should be regulated.
I consider rifles like knives though, they are a tool with purposes other then killing a human.
I wouldn't feel a whole lot better getting my throat cut by a single-edged knife than by a double-edged one. Frankly, if I was going to be killed, I'd prefer a single bullet in the head. From a rifle or a pistol is immaterial.
Why can't you sharpen your own knives? It's very easy to do if you get a good stone. That way, your kitchen tool comes home once, wrapped and safe and probably in an expensive box, and never sees the street again.
-
Where do you find this crap? But I have a hunch ;)
Not from me. I never said European defense spending is mainly for marching bands. But he makes an interesting point. I'll have to think about for awhile. :)
-
Access to AN fertilizer is more controlled than before. But, like most controls, it is not impossible to get around.
but gladly it is more difficult... there is no reason not to make getting guns, ammo and trucks, planes, nitro more difficult and controlled
-
However, certain objects that are created for the sole purpose of killing people should be limited.
Going back to my knife example, a dagger (a knife with a blade on both sides) are only meant for fighting, and are therefore heavily banned/regulated. Handguns are only meant to kill people; you can't hunt with a handgun. So I think handguns should be regulated.
I consider rifles like knives though, they are a tool with purposes other then killing a human.
There was proposed language to limit magazine fire arms to only 10 bullets. Anyone skilled with a handgun could drop an intruder with a simple old Smith and Wesson revolver. If you can't stop someone with six shots you don't deserve to own a firearm. Same goes for high capacity rifles. As I noted, they are not for sporting purposes. Let the army and police have such weapons as there is a need; civilians have no such need.
-
..
What you are suggesting is a slippery slope though. What do we consider to be weapons vs. tools? Are knives weapons? If so, should we ban knives from public space? ..
go figure Weapons are tools too.. made to...
yes, for some it is a slippery slope, we should ban bananas as well ;)
-
Well maybe this is a better list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)
There you'll see that 95% of the US cities on this list have a murder rate higher then most European countries, didn't know there were so many left hotspots where things go awry.
And if you exclude all kind of cities should we also exclude the gang shootings in Antwerp/Amsterdam/Hamburg/Marseille etc. That will drop the European murder rates too. I'm not in favour of that, for me that's too much of "figures don't lie, but liars figure", too much excluding enough unfavourable data so the final answer supports the point one wants to make.
The issue in the USA is the high murder rate for black Americans. It's 11.2 per 100,000. Overall murder rate for all races is 2.99 per 100,000. For whites, it's 1.7 per 100,000. So the national average is skewed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
-
there are some things that could be done to control the number and types of guns a single individual can own. I've done a lot of bird hunting and only need a nice shotgun for that purpose. In the 'old' days police used 5 or 6 shot revolvers and that was deemed sufficient for them (can't remember what the magazine capacity is for the Glocks that are now ubiquitous but it's higher). Does anyone other than the NRA and its minions think that high capacity assault rifles serve any sporting purpose? Does someone really need 19 guns in their possession?
Another thing that could be done is to eliminate the various laws that shield these companies from liability. Apparently one of the weapons used in the Las Vegas shootings had a stock attachment ($40 is the cost according to the Washington Post) that allowed it to fire in a rapid burst mode that is prohibited by the 'machine gun' ban. Why is this even sold? Can this manufacturer be sued by the shooting victims?
We all have to register our cars with the various state MVAs. Why should there not be a similar system in place for guns? Alternatively, the NRA could run a national database to track those who try to stockpile weapons though I suspect the NRA thinks that it is just fine for people to own miniature arsenals in their homes.As already noted, pure ammonium nitrate fertilize is regulated as are a lot of other compounds that can be used for making explosives.
Finally, just because there are those who would circumvent the law in terms of any firearms regulation does not mean that we should not try. We regulate cars and a bunch of other stuff and nobody seems to object the same way they do about guns.
The 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms have nothing to do with hunting. There is no Constitutional protection for hunting. States grant hunting licenses and impose requirements as they see fit. Hunting and the 2nd Amendment is a red herring used to change the meaning of the Constitution and fool people. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is personal defense and as a protection against tyranny. That's why the NRA opposes any restrictions. They see any limitations as a slippery slope to eventually take guns away from citizens and make them defenseless against oppressive government.
Also, there is no constitutional protection for driving a car. That's a privilege granted by each state as they see fit, just like hunting.
Having said all that, there are plenty of checks regarding gun ownership that do not violate the constitution's 2nd amendment.
-
Here I agree with you, the problem is not the government, it's the NRA gun lobby and the people who believe guns means freedom and less crime. When the will of the (majority of) the people is to make gatting and carrying guns easy the government will follow the majority. It's the will of the US people that is up for discussion here, not the government.
The NRA is not a "problem". You may or may not agree with it's point of view. But, we live in a country where citizens can petition (lobby) Congress to enact or not enact laws. That's what democracy is all about. The fact they have 5 million members is actually huge, Most groups who lobby Congress are tiny by comparison. In any case, the NRA has a right to push their point of view and support or oppose legislators depending on how they expect them to vote. That's what democracy is all about, isn't it?
Also, see my last post. The right to bear arms is Constitutionally protected, like freedom of speech. A majority of states (I think 75%) would have to amend the constitution to change the 2nd Amendment.
-
Catalonians may soon wish they had more guns.
(http://www.metronews.ca/content/dam/thestar/2017/10/02/catalonia-urges-mediation-with-spain-in-secession-dispute/XFD107-102-2017-120555.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg)
-
Can't speak for Europe (which is a continent comprising multiple different countries, seemingly to the surprise of many Americans), but in England, I think the answer to your question is yes.
Jeremy
What did England do to tighten up on leasing trucks?
-
What did England do to tighten up on leasing trucks?
A guy shows up to a hotel with close to two dozen weapons and shoots nearly 600 people, and now we're talking about the dangers of truck leasing.
Russ waas right about one thing, this thread is going nowhere useful.
-
I wonder why there was no outcry to ban fertilizers?
Or my 70-200 f2.8 It would make an excellent club.
-
A guy shows up to a hotel with close to two dozen weapons and shoots nearly 600 people, and now we're talking about the dangers of truck leasing.
Russ waas right about one thing, this thread is going nowhere useful.
More people were killed by truck in the last 13 months than in Las Vegas. Why shouldn't we look into how trucks are being used by terrorists? You're willing to address gun control.
Truck terrorism last 13 months.
August 17, 2017, Barcelona, Spain — A van plowed into pedestrians in the Las Ramblas tourist area, killing 13 and injuring more than 100, according to officials.
June 3, 2017, London, England — A van was driven into crowds on London Bridge, after which the attackers left their vehicle and stabbed several people in the area. Seven people were killed and nearly 50 injured.
April 7, 2017, Stockholm, Sweden — A truck was driven into a Swedish department store, killing four people.
March 22, 2017, London, England — An SUV drove into crowds in London near Parliament. Four people were killed by the vehicle, and one police officer was stabbed after the driver left the vehicle.
December 19, 2016, Berlin, Germany - A truck was driven into crowds at a Christmas market, killing 12 people.
July 14, 2016, Nice, France — A truck was driven into crowds on Bastille Day, killing 86 people.
-
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is personal defense and as a protection against tyranny.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a defence force in the absence of a standing army, hence the "well-regulated militia" bit. A standing army was seen as a threat to freedom. You've gone way past that.
-
Or my 70-200 f2.8 It would make an excellent club.
In your case, it would be a much better use :P
-
The 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms have nothing to do with hunting. There is no Constitutional protection for hunting. States grant hunting licenses and impose requirements as they see fit. Hunting and the 2nd Amendment is a red herring used to change the meaning of the Constitution and fool people. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is personal defense and as a protection against tyranny. That's why the NRA opposes any restrictions. They see any limitations as a slippery slope to eventually take guns away from citizens and make them defenseless against oppressive government.
Also, there is no constitutional protection for driving a car. That's a privilege granted by each state as they see fit, just like hunting.
Having said all that, there are plenty of checks regarding gun ownership that do not violate the constitution's 2nd amendment.
The exact language of the 2nd amendment is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Those who wrote these words had no idea of how 'arms' would evolve to they types of firearms we have today. The NRA originally started out as an organization for firearms education and training. In the mid-1980s there was a takeover of the organization and the current hard line lobbying began. The by-laws were changed to make it almost impossible for moderates to bring the organization back to its original organizational goal. A variety of US courts have come to contradictory conclusions about the meaning of these words as did some of the original framers.
You and I are in total disagreement about whether there are lots of checks regarding gun ownership that don't violate the 2nd amendment. The few checks that we do have are insufficient.
-
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a defence force in the absence of a standing army, hence the "well-regulated militia" bit. A standing army was seen as a threat to freedom. You've gone way past that.
I prefer the interpretations of our Founders of the Constitution over yours regarding the right to bear arms.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
See the rest:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
-
"Hmmm, an opportunity in the midst of horror to dig into the actual nitty gritty of what drives such behavior. And then maybe to consider ways to confront it."
"Nah, I'd rather yank my ideological weenie to the tunes of my favorite mantras."
-Dave-
-
The exact language of the 2nd amendment is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Those who wrote these words had no idea of how 'arms' would evolve to they types of firearms we have today. The NRA originally started out as an organization for firearms education and training. In the mid-1980s there was a takeover of the organization and the current hard line lobbying began. The by-laws were changed to make it almost impossible for moderates to bring the organization back to its original organizational goal. A variety of US courts have come to contradictory conclusions about the meaning of these words as did some of the original framers.
You and I are in total disagreement about whether there are lots of checks regarding gun ownership that don't violate the 2nd amendment. The few checks that we do have are insufficient.
Yes, weapon violence has increased. But the Supreme Court has allowed only single shot weapons as being protected under the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. Machine guns as apparently used in Las Vegas, rocket propelled launchers, grenade launchers, etc can be and are outlawed.
The fact that the NRA changed its political operation is allowed. I don't understand your point other than you don't like that they have change their operation and are very effective politically. No one is forcing you to join their organization. Start or join one that opposes them if you're upset about them. That's what free speech and democracy are all about, isn't it?
-
"Hmmm, an opportunity in the midst of horror to dig into the actual nitty gritty of what drives such behavior. And then maybe to consider ways to confront it."
"Nah, I'd rather yank my ideological weenie to the tunes of my favorite mantras."
-Dave-
Extreme God-feeling narcissism, ego centric insanity. Something we all suffer from in one degree or another but control for the main part. Ever have road rage when you want to run that guy off the road who cut you off? "Thou shall not kill" isn't one of the Ten for no reason.
The Las Vegas fellow other than what he did seems like a regular guy, more or less. No criminal record, a gambler but hey, this happened in Las Vegas. Who doesn't gamble there? He probably got that suite for no cost as a comp because he gambles there a lot. A regular guy with a girl friend. Apparently a millionaire. How do you protect yourself from a nut like that who looks like everyone else? All terrorists seem to have this need to play God. Something is going to come out that will explain what made him lose all moral scruples and resort to real evil.
-
I wouldn't feel a whole lot better getting my throat cut by a single-edged knife than by a double-edged one. Frankly, if I was going to be killed, I'd prefer a single bullet in the head. From a rifle or a pistol is immaterial.
Why can't you sharpen your own knives? It's very easy to do if you get a good stone. That way, your kitchen tool comes home once, wrapped and safe and probably in an expensive box, and never sees the street again.
My point was that daggers sole purpose is to kill, or seriously wound, another person.
Although a single edge knife can kill someone, their main purpose is as a cutting tool. You can't use a dagger like a normal knife either since you often place your hand on the bolster or spine when using a knife for many purposes.
Daggers have no other purpose then to kill, which is why I feel they should be regulated, whereas knives I feel should not. I have the same feelings for handguns and rifles/shotguns, respectively.
-
More people were killed by truck in the last 13 months than in Las Vegas. Why shouldn't we look into how trucks are being used by terrorists? You're willing to address gun control.
Truck terrorism last 13 months.
August 17, 2017, Barcelona, Spain — A van plowed into pedestrians in the Las Ramblas tourist area, killing 13 and injuring more than 100, according to officials.
June 3, 2017, London, England — A van was driven into crowds on London Bridge, after which the attackers left their vehicle and stabbed several people in the area. Seven people were killed and nearly 50 injured.
April 7, 2017, Stockholm, Sweden — A truck was driven into a Swedish department store, killing four people.
March 22, 2017, London, England — An SUV drove into crowds in London near Parliament. Four people were killed by the vehicle, and one police officer was stabbed after the driver left the vehicle.
December 19, 2016, Berlin, Germany - A truck was driven into crowds at a Christmas market, killing 12 people.
July 14, 2016, Nice, France — A truck was driven into crowds on Bastille Day, killing 86 people.
As long as we're off on an irrelevant tangent about terrorists, which is NOT what this thread is about, how many NRA members have stopped terrorists lately?
How many times has an American militia had to stop a totalitarian take-over of the USA lately? Or ever. Or even come close. I don't mean in novels or movies, I mean in real life.
Since all the stats seem to indicate that there are more guns around than there is population, how are more guns going to make you safer? Do you need one in each hand?
But like I said in a couple of previous posts, go ahead and buy all the guns you want or think you need, and go ahead and buy suppressors for them too if you think you need to. There is no problem if you don't think there is one. The system is working well, keep doing what you're doing, don't change a thing. The rest of the world has it wrong, all the stats they're collecting are wrong and they're trying to lead you astray. It's not true that they don't shoot as many people as Americans do, it's the fake media trying to con you out of your constitutional right because, well, just because.
I apologize, I cannot take this discussion seriously any longer.
-
Hi Pieter. Guess you missed the term "Asia." And yes, in WW II we were attacked ourselves. Why do you suppose that was so? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that except for Britain the whole Western world had demonstrated its wussiness. And as far as not wanting to downplay the role the US played in ending WW2, you CAN'T. If it weren't for the U.S. and its guns you'd be forced to become a member of the Nazi party.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand - those that immediately come to mind. How were they wussy? At its peak during WWII, Australia had the 4th largest air force in the world. Considering the population and economic capacity at the time, that was an enormous effort. How is that not contributing?
The guns of the average citizen had nothing to do with the US impact on the war - it was the US economic and industrial capacity and if it had not been hamstrung by internal politics and entered the war sooner, it would have been over sooner.
-
Leftists say it's ok to ban nonviolent psychiatric patients from owning guns, but it's not ok to ban unvetted Wahabi Muslims from immigration.
What ever happened to the argument: "Not all [fill in the blank] are terrorists."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/the-gop-is-making-it-easier-for-mentally-ill-people-to-buy-guns-they-have-a-point/?utm_term=.66826bc98c1b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/the-gop-is-making-it-easier-for-mentally-ill-people-to-buy-guns-they-have-a-point/?utm_term=.66826bc98c1b)
(http://www.psychiatrytalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1a-246x300.jpg)
-
How do you protect yourself from a nut like that who looks like everyone else?
Easy if everyone else has 20 shoguns... ;)
-
Canada, Australia, New Zealand - those that immediately come to mind. How were they wussy? At its peak during WWII, Australia had the 4th largest air force in the world. Considering the population and economic capacity at the time, that was an enormous effort. How is that not contributing?
The guns of the average citizen had nothing to do with the US impact on the war - it was the US economic and industrial capacity and if it had not been hamstrung by internal politics and entered the war sooner, it would have been over sooner.
An armed American citizenry is not to fight in foreign wars. That's what the standing army does as also required by the Constitution. An armed citizenry is to protect the country from invasion from foreign armies (like Switzerland) and from tyranny from its own government if it becomes tyrannical. The fact it hasn't had a need to rise up against our government is a tribute to the founders brilliant writing of the constitution. It also comes from the trust citizens have in the constitution which has limited the power of those who would try to take over. The Civil War and Roosevelt's failed attempt to pack the Supreme Court with his quislings were the two times I can think of when things became really serious.
-
Easy if everyone else has 20 shoguns... ;)
Well, there are gun collectors, sword collectors, automobile collectors, sculpture, etc. The gun collectors often never or rarely shoot them. But they talk incessantly about their attributes, power, and technical specifications.
I've even heard there are people who collect cameras and never shoot them. But they talk incessantly about their attributes, power, and technical specifications. Maybe we should lock up gun and camera collectors. You never will know when they'll break down and go crazily off the reservation. :)
-
A couple of years ago in Michigan two guys both licensed to carry a concealed weapon got into a road rage incident. They ended up killing each other which begs the question who was the good guy!
In NY we have the SAFE Act which bans assault weapons and those that had them before the law have a certain amount of time to register them. This of course has led to many attempts to repeal the SAFE Act which have all failed. I find that most people against the law have never even read it, are totally misinformed on how it was passed, and just listen to NRA talking points about it. The Act was passed in response to the murders of the kids in Connecticut. NY is one of the few states that actually did something! The law isn't perfect but then what law is! Nevada needs to consider it's own SAFE Act there is no reason for anyone to own the weapons that shooter had. The whole premise of the government coming to get you is just an excuse by some, let's be honest, sick, paranoid idiots to have thousands of rounds of ammunition and 50 guns. If the government did go rogue that moron with an assault gun will be ground under the treads of an M1 Tank or turned to dust by a drone! The very act of collecting all that stuff is the mark of someone that shouldn't have access to weapons. Oh and then there's the if everyone had a gun the Vegas shooting wouldn't have happened crowd. Imagine twenty-two thousand people pulling out guns in the dark not knowing who the shooter was, there would be hundreds dead! I was born in Spanish Harlem in the 50's and even as a young kid had to learn to fight but to this day have never owned a gun.
-
Alan made a good point, that there are 400+ million guns in the U.S.
Now, let's compare mass shootings per gun in Europe and here! I am sure that per gunita™ number would make Pieter's head totally explode :P
-
...They ended up killing each other which begs the question who was the good guy!...
Darwin?
-
+1
-
This thread is going to put Trump II to shame in the stupidity contest.
-
This thread is going to put Trump II to shame in the stupidity contest.
So who are the stupid ones? And why are they stupid?
-
What did England do to tighten up on leasing trucks?
Made it illegal under penalty of 20 years imprisonment in the Tower of London.
No parole but, on the plus side, no beheading.
-
Made it illegal under penalty of 20 years imprisonment in the Tower of London.
No parole but, on the plus side, no beheading.
Made what illegal? How does that tighten up anything? Doesn't the fact you killed someone get you at least 20 years anyway. Tightening up to me means that some form of background investigation is done before you can lease.
-
i respectfully request that we close this thread.
We have been down this rabbit hole before.
-
i respectfully request that we close this thread.
We have been down this rabbit hole before.
Why do you want to shut down others right of free speech? If discussing these things upsets you, then stop looking at the thread.
-
not upset.
-
Made what illegal? How does that tighten up anything?
Just jesting with you, Alan. There's no imprisonment in the Tower of London anymore. But you are correct, they did place restrictions on leasing/renting vans and trucks. I'm not sure what the heightened security checks are.
-
Just jesting with you, Alan. There's no imprisonment in the Tower of London anymore. But you are correct, they did place restrictions on leasing/renting vans and trucks. I'm not sure what the heightened security checks are.
You mean England stopped drawing and quartering people?
-
You mean England stopped drawing and quartering people?
Yup - it failed the Health & Safety regulations [/in-jest]
But, on a more serious note, the penalty was 'hung, drawn and quartered'. And, if you can face the gory details, Wikipedia gives a good precis of what that exactly entailed.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered
-
It seems the shooter did not have a machine gun but modified semi-automatic rifles with a "bump stock" which is legal. A bump stock allows the finger to operate the trigger hundreds of times a minute simulating an automatic machine gun. What's interesting is that the shooter spent months putting the attack together. It was planned in great detail with cameras set up in the hotel hall to watch for cops approaching, picking out the right room with a good view of the country and western music show, ammunition and dozens of arms bought in different stores over many months all with legal background checks. He also set up a transfer of $100,000 to his girlfriend in the Philippines. He apparently planned to kill himself at the end as he shot himself in the mouth with a handgun, not with his rifle. So it wasn't some recent flipping out due to drugs or psychological breakdown where he acted impulsively. Everything was planned in great detail over a long period of time.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-las-vegas-shooter-had-device-allowing-gun-to-fire-like-an-automatic/
-
It seems the shooter did not have a machine gun but modified semi-automatic rifles with a "bump stock" which is legal...
Since fully automatic weapons are already illegal, "bump stock" should be made illegal too.
-
Yup - it failed the Health & Safety regulations [/in-jest]
But, on a more serious note, the penalty was 'hung, drawn and quartered'. And, if you can face the gory details, Wikipedia gives a good precis of what that exactly entailed.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered
Pretty gory. At least they cut the head of before quartering. I thought they quartered while alive. This is the point I was making before that there's evil in everyone. Think of the people at the highest stations of power carrying out these acts of what we consider evil today. ISIS does it regularly. Maybe that's why this guy did what he did. There's been so much gore and inhuman treatment lately. We become inured to it so it doesn't seem so terrible after awhile. There use to be a show on radio when I was a kid called The Shadow. The announcer at the intro would come on and say, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows......"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDTquiIB3vU
-
Researchers in the United States have determined that the world is flat.
Despite the fact that it is technically possible to have a world series and not invite other countries, apparently other countries do exist.
US citizens are therefore cautioned about visiting other countries in case they go off the edge.
Indeed it is recommended that they do not visit even other states, but remain in the safety of a few miles from where they were born.
The following are some tips if you do travel.
Travel reportedly has dangerous effects.
Travel may expand the mind, causing pressure on the eye balls.
You may find other strange problems, such as US coins not fitting in vending machines without force.
You may find a more complicated language called English and even other languages altogether.
Highly unhealthy food (but in smaller portions) may be obtained from McDonalds. What US citizens call coffee is obtainable from Starbucks.
These are unfortunately in most cities.
Grilled Cheese and Macaroni is not a vegetable in most countries.
It is not necessary when you do travel to announce that you are from the US.
They will figure it out.
You can be recognised at airports as the ones carrying your shoes.
-
Why do you want to shut down others right of free speech? If discussing these things upsets you, then stop looking at the thread.
You constantly tell foreigners not to talk about US politics.
-
Now, let's compare mass shootings per gun in Europe and here! I am sure that per gunita™ number would make Pieter's head totally explode :P
So you are saying that if there are more guns around that it is OK to kill more people. You might be right, I think the US is the living proof of that. ;)
q.e.d
-
This thread is going to put Trump II to shame in the stupidity contest.
+1, everybody we don't agree with is stupid, pretty positive outlook in life I'd say ;)
-
I prefer the interpretations of our Founders of the Constitution over yours regarding the right to bear arms.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
See the rest:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
Nothing there contradicts my comment. A standing army was seen as a threat to the nation and to the rights of individual states. The 2nd Amendment was argued about by southern states who feared interference by an over-arching union, which is why the reference is to state not country or nation. The idea of having an armed populace is something Marx and Lenin argued for so that the people would not be subject to the tyranny of the state (which is why I always laugh when states like the former USSR or China call themselves Communist - Marx would turn in his grave).
-
I prefer the interpretations of our Founders of the Constitution over yours regarding the right to bear arms.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
See the rest:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
I like your argument: if we have to base today's reality on the 1700s, and it's perfectly sound to apply, today, laws made then within the weapon parameters of then, I can see how NK feels it's got inalienable rights to be a nuke state. Just think of a nuclear device as a large fire cracker. You see, you're absolutely right and there's nothing to worry about at all!
Man, do you need a holiday!
-
i respectfully request that we close this thread.
We have been down this rabbit hole before.
Hear hear!!!!!!!!
-
Since fully automatic weapons are already illegal, "bump stock" should be made illegal too.
BATF already made a determination that it could not regulate "bump stocks"
-
I like your argument: if we have to base today's reality on the 1700s, and it's perfectly sound to apply, today, laws made then within the weapon parameters of then, I can see how NK feels it's got inalienable rights to be a nuke state. Just think of a nuclear device as a large fire cracker. You see, you're absolutely right and there's nothing to worry about at all!
Man, do you need a holiday!
Let's also not forget that slavery was OK at the time the Constitution was written (remember the 3/5 of a person rule?) and women were not permitted to vote. The Constitution and laws evolve over time to deal with things. No reason that the 2nd amendment cannot be reinterpreted.
-
Neither slavery, nor women voting, are part of the constitution, the way guns are. You are welcome, however, to attempt to change or amend it.
-
Neither slavery, nor women voting, are part of the constitution, the way guns are. You are welcome, however, to attempt to change or amend it.
This statement is just too weird. There was far more debate about the clauses relating to slavery than the 2nd amendment during the framing of the Constitution.
-
Neither slavery, nor women voting, are part of the constitution, the way guns are. You are welcome, however, to attempt to change or amend it.
We have no written Constitution in GB, AFAIK, but we do have zillions of laws. It took a while for women to get the vote here, too, and it's obvious why: men in power are terrified that women are often a lot smarter. But, just as many men are idiots, so too are some women, or they wouldn't marry the assholes that some of them do.
In the goode olde days, disputes at home were settled by a straight right or even a left hook to the face. No complications, just results. But what's a poor chap to do today, when such a natural solution is denied him? Had a great idea: buy an arsenal and go shoot at targets bearing giclée prints of the little lady!
(Guess I'd better state, just in case anyone missed it, that the latter paragraph really is tongue-in-cheek, folks - not a new departure of yours truly's mindset.)
-
You constantly tell foreigners not to talk about US politics.
Your post is a non-sequitur.
-
Let's also not forget that slavery was OK at the time the Constitution was written (remember the 3/5 of a person rule?) and women were not permitted to vote. The Constitution and laws evolve over time to deal with things. No reason that the 2nd amendment cannot be reinterpreted.
The 3/5 rule and the right for women to vote was not a re-interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution was formally and Amended to eliminate those constraints. Enough people and states felt the law should be changed. They followed the Amendment process as written in the Constitution. They didn't declare it meant something different than what it said.
If you re-interpret the Constitution to mean whatever is convenient at the time, then you have no Constitution based on written law but law determined by man. We dangerously become a government of man rather than a government of law. The freedoms protected by the Constitution will be washed away over time as has happened to a great extent already. The government becomes more powerful than it ever has been, a great fear of the Founders. If you don't like gun rights, then Amend the Constitution like we did when we gave women the right to vote.
-
Nothing there contradicts my comment. A standing army was seen as a threat to the nation and to the rights of individual states. The 2nd Amendment was argued about by southern states who feared interference by an over-arching union, which is why the reference is to state not country or nation. The idea of having an armed populace is something Marx and Lenin argued for so that the people would not be subject to the tyranny of the state (which is why I always laugh when states like the former USSR or China call themselves Communist - Marx would turn in his grave).
But without an armed citizenry, you have no militia. Also, if you read the comments by the founders that I posted previously, they were really concerned about freedom from centralized government as well as having an armed citizenry to afford personal protection against crime. They feared a powerful central government like we've become. It's the centralized power they saw in Europe and what they were revolting from against England's King George III. That's why they gave most of the power to the States and People. Regarding Communism, those states removed the right of people to be armed for the most part. That's what dictatorial regimes do to protect their rule.
As an aside, you saw in the Brexit vote something similar. Brits see their power to run their own lives diminished by the gnomes in Brussels. Outside forces who decide how they should live rather than themselves. So like American patriots who once revolted against their own King, they revolted too. Isn't Scotland voting to leave the Britain? Look what's happening in Spain? Do you think there will be civil war there?
-
I like your argument: if we have to base today's reality on the 1700s, and it's perfectly sound to apply, today, laws made then within the weapon parameters of then, I can see how NK feels it's got inalienable rights to be a nuke state. Just think of a nuclear device as a large fire cracker. You see, you're absolutely right and there's nothing to worry about at all!
Man, do you need a holiday!
Weapons have evolved, that's true. But man's base character, his ego, pride and desire to rule others has not. The 2nd Amendment and the right to be armed is a protection against men who would want to rule over you rather than allow you to have your liberties. Never forget that.
-
A top lawyer for CBS said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/02/top-cbs-lawyer-no-sympathy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html
-
A top lawyer for CBS said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/02/top-cbs-lawyer-no-sympathy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html
Why did you leave out the fact that she was fired for saying that?
-
If you re-interpret the Constitution to mean whatever is convenient at the time, then you have no Constitution based on written law but law determined by man.
Yup, ain't that the truth. So now the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean nothing like what it was originally intended. You've hit the nail on the head.
-
BATF already made a determination that it could not regulate "bump stocks"
Oh, bump stocks could be made the sacrificial lamb but I doubt it.
This is bump fire (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DTjSla-O8)
Don
-
But without an armed citizenry, you have no militia. Also, if you read the comments by the founders that I posted previously, they were really concerned about freedom from centralized government as well as having an armed citizenry to afford personal protection against crime. They feared a powerful central government like we've become. It's the centralized power they saw in Europe and what they were revolting from against England's King George III. That's why they gave most of the power to the States and People. Regarding Communism, those states removed the right of people to be armed for the most part. That's what dictatorial regimes do to protect their rule.
Everything you say reinforces my point - the 2nd Amendment was about ensuring the states could protect themselves against attack, whilst still avoiding the potential abuses by central government that a standing army could lead to. A well-regulated militia - a citizens' army, not a government's army. It is the same argument that Marx & Lenin used. But you've already gone down the road of having a hugely powerful standing army, whilst your armed population is far from being a well-regulated militia. Either bin the standing army & have that citizen militia or do something to amend the 2nd Amendment.
As an aside, you saw in the Brexit vote something similar. Brits see their power to run their own lives diminished by the gnomes in Brussels. Outside forces who decide how they should live rather than themselves. So like American patriots who once revolted against their own King, they revolted too. Isn't Scotland voting to leave the Britain?
What we saw in the case of Brexit was people voting without necessarily having a clue what they were actually voting for. We've had decades of the right-wing press spreading lies & misinformation about the EU, and we had politicians spreading more lies & making false promises, and the vote reflected that. We have always had the power to run our own lives, all we did with the EU was join others in a project to offer some greater unity across Europe. We all get to elect members of the European Parliament, and our governments get to appoint the various functionaries. As for Scotland - it voted to remain part of the UK.
Look what's happening in Spain? Do you think there will be civil war there?
I hope not.
-
Why did you leave out the fact that she was fired for saying that?
Well that was in the linked article. But ok. She was fired. My main point is what many smart, educated liberals think of "deplorables", other Americans who they disagree with. They talk concern but would cut your heart out in a minute.
-
Yup, ain't that the truth. So now the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean nothing like what it was originally intended. You've hit the nail on the head.
THIS! Hey look we can agree on something across the isle.
A well regulated militia
-
What the second amendment says is clear, and the Supreme Court agrees. The 18th amendment was revoked because people wanted a drink. The second's not going to be revoked because people want their guns. It's as simple as that. To those who are all shook up I say: fuggidaboudit. Yeah, shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back. In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.
-
What the second amendment says is clear, and the Supreme Court agrees. The 18th amendment was revoked because people wanted a drink. The second's not going to be revoked because people want their guns. It's as simple as that. To those who are all shook up I say: fuggidaboudit. Yeah, shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back. In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.
Fuggidaboudit, Russ. You can't argue with the religious zealots of the alt-left. Remember Lenin, Stalin, Sanders, Warren, etc? Obviously, you belong in gulag ;)
-
Weapons have evolved, that's true. But man's base character, his ego, pride and desire to rule others has not. The 2nd Amendment and the right to be armed is a protection against men who would want to rule over you rather than allow you to have your liberties. Never forget that.
Seems to me that in both your expressions you are talking about the same Man. But on the one hand you distrust him, where on the the other you desire to arm him. How bleedin' strange. Or were you thinking about arming only your kind of Man?
As for Civil Wars in Spain: been there, did that last century. Now they know how it works: these days, you fib through your teeth; hijack an already organised union-sponsored march for that day and proclaim it your own. The rest might follow naturally.
Police violence? Of course: how else do you control, a crowd of crazed marchers? By sweet songs and kisses and bunches of flowers? The flowers are scripted always to come after the event. Old folks getting pushed aside and falling to the ground doesn't ever look good - and don't those oldies just know that! It's their decision to go to make a crowd, a mob with flags and songs and hotheads and assorted anarchists, communists (many of 'em in this country) and pickpockets too, and be at the interface of the two sides. Age brings a pension, it does not and should not bring absolution and protection from your own stupidity, and certainly not special riot rights.
I have noticed over recent years that whenever there's trouble, there is ever a condemning voice (guess in which direction) from the human rights brigade. Yes, the same crowd that tells the French it's wrong to focus on dark skin and Moslem people in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Jesus C, isn't that the logical place to look? It's not friggin' white Christians that are blowing up aircraft and shooting French people. Should there be a quota system in crime fighting, and for every Moslem you interrogate you must also interrogate a Christian, a Jew and/or some other guy of alternative Pantone characteristics? These bleeding heart people are sometimes more absurd than the "injustices" they presume to fight.
Anyway, back to my liberties: I won't feel my liberties are proteced if the guy beside me is carrying a gun in his pocket as I have a coffee somewhere, or as he sits beside me in traffic. Especially if my car is nicer than his car. Were it the other way around, he might feel sorry for me and just smile or, better yet since it doesn't require what may be a misinterpreted response, ignore me. You know, just as you do every inconvenient post that destroys your arguments.
;-)
Rob
-
... shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back.
Because shooting back at a gunman firing from a hotel window would have made all the difference
In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.
That'll be those dictatorships like the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, Australia ...
-
The 3/5 rule and the right for women to vote was not a re-interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution was formally and Amended to eliminate those constraints. Enough people and states felt the law should be changed. They followed the Amendment process as written in the Constitution. They didn't declare it meant something different than what it said.
If you re-interpret the Constitution to mean whatever is convenient at the time, then you have no Constitution based on written law but law determined by man. We dangerously become a government of man rather than a government of law. The freedoms protected by the Constitution will be washed away over time as has happened to a great extent already. The government becomes more powerful than it ever has been, a great fear of the Founders. If you don't like gun rights, then Amend the Constitution like we did when we gave women the right to vote.
What a crock of BS. The Constitution is interpreted and re-interpreted every single year by Federal Courts at various levels and then ultimately the Supreme Court as necessary. Look at the Miranda Decision about legal rights and Griswold v. Connecticut that established a right to privacy and of course one can go all the way back to Marbury v Madison that established judicial review which was never enumerated in the Constitution (don't even start about various interpretations of the Commerce Clause). I'm sorry but this post is just wrong. Things can be done short of amending the Constitution.
-
That'll be those dictatorships like the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, Australia ...
Ah! I see you got the point, Bill. Dictatorial regimes don't actually need to have designated dictators.
-
Can we agree on banning Bump Stocks modifications on rifles? I'm not advocating for gun banning, just some common sense small-time gun control to prevent your rifle to become a much deadlier machine gun, something that it wasn't intended to be in the first place.
Can someone meet me half-way on this one, or am I dreaming?
-
It's become oh so predictable.
Democrats: "Terrorism is the price for diversity."
Republicans: "Terrorism is the price for liberty."
Country: "Pray for the victims. What's for lunch?"
(http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/brokenRecord.jpg)
-
Can we agree on banning Bump Stocks modifications on rifles? I'm not advocating for gun banning, just some common sense small-time gun control to prevent your rifle to become a much deadlier machine gun, something that it wasn't intended to be in the first place.
Can someone meet me half-way on this one, or am I dreaming?
I'd agree with you Raul. I've spent enough time overseas having to carry around an M16 that I can't see any reason why a civilian would need a machine gun.
-
Your post is a non-sequitur.
No, it isn't. You constantly contradict yourself because it simply suits your reply-de-jour. You lack any genuine understanding of most of the topics at hand. Indeed, it was your participation that has largely thrown this thread "down the rabbit hole".
-
What the second amendment says is clear, and the Supreme Court agrees. The 18th amendment was revoked because people wanted a drink. The second's not going to be revoked because people want their guns. It's as simple as that. To those who are all shook up I say: fuggidaboudit. Yeah, shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back. In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.
And yet I live in a democracy where, in fact, it's easier to use public opinion and pressure to change the government than it is in the US. We have guns, but we have far greater controls, and we are more than ten times less likely to be shot but have overall similar crime statistics - we're just far less likely to be killed.
-
Phil, As I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I'll tell you that unless you're bent on suicide, belong to a gang, or live in a place like the Chicago ghetto, you're very unlikely to die by gunshot in the U.S. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up."
In 1964 I was stationed at Ubon Ratchathani, across the runway from an Australian fighter squadron detachment. The game those guys used to play in their O' club, a game called "carrier landing," was a lot more dangerous to life and limb than living in the U.S.
-
Can we agree on banning Bump Stocks modifications on rifles? I'm not advocating for gun banning, just some common sense small-time gun control to prevent your rifle to become a much deadlier machine gun, something that it wasn't intended to be in the first place.
Can someone meet me half-way on this one, or am I dreaming?
The ATF regulations have to be changed as they currently do not cover gun parts. Bump stock is not a firearm but a part and hence not regulated. This was the finding back in 2010. It highlights the difficulty what limited US regulations exist.
-
Did Gun Control Stop Mass Shootings in Australia? The Latest Research Says Yes—Probably. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/03/did_gun_control_stop_mass_shootings_in_australia_probably.html)
After every gun massacre in the United States, gun control advocates hold up Australia (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-looking-at) as an example of how things could be different. The analogy isn’t perfect, and there is an ongoing debate about how exactly to interpret Australia’s experience. Still, a close look at the evidence supports the view that the country’s gun control policies have been successful—especially when compared to ours.
As I recounted in a Slate story that went viral after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, Australia’s government responded to 1996’s Port Arthur massacre—in which 35 people were killed—by enacting sweeping measures aimed at preventing a repeat of that national nightmare. The most dramatic of these was a buyback program in which the government purchased and destroyed more than 600,000 long guns, nearly halving the number of gun-owning households in the country.
The precise effects of those measures can never be fully understood because we can’t study the counterfactual scenario in which no such laws were passed.
Still, the past five years have brought some additional clarity. And one core fact has remained strikingly unchanged: In the 18 years before Port Arthur, Australia witnessed 13 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which five or more people were killed. In the 21 years since, there have been none.
-
Guess where this "article" is from...
This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut (http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/shooting-isnt-about-gun-control-we-refuse-pass-its-57095?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing)
(http://images2.onionstatic.com/onion/5874/6/1x1/200.jpg)
Paul Ryan
As our nation struggles to come to grips with the horrible tragedy in Las Vegas, it’s only natural for people to search for an explanation of how an atrocity like this could have happened and to call on their elected officials to take measures to prevent such terrible bloodshed from occurring again in the future. Unfortunately, however, we’ve seen enough of these incidents to know that some people will rush to blame firearms for this carnage and will demand that Congress enact sweeping gun restrictions, engaging in misguided efforts that completely miss the underlying reasons behind the violence we’re seeing.
The simple truth is, mass shootings like this aren’t about gun control we refuse to pass. They’re about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.
You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I won’t allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our country’s inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund.
The reason we have tragedies like this is because of how our healthcare system that I am dead set on undermining fails to serve Americans in desperate need of psychological treatment. Not because of a lack of gun ownership regulations, the slightest toughening of which will never even receive a single second of debate on the floor of the House on my watch.
In humor is often found uncomfortable truth...
-
Phil, As I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I'll tell you that unless you're bent on suicide, belong to a gang, or live in a place like the Chicago ghetto, you're very unlikely to die by gunshot in the U.S. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up."
Russ, why do you keep spreading debunked arguments, see the link I posted in reply #124, most US cities have a murder rate significantly higher then any European country. Those numbers exclude suicide so that's a non-issue. And if you don't belong to a gang or live in a criminal hot-spot your chances are also much better then average in European countries. So in like-for-like comparison you don't even come close. Wake up and see that the homicides in the US are much higher then in Europe, no matter how much you figure by excluding data that are unfavouvorable to what you are trying to prove. If you (and the US) accepts that these numbers are fine that's OK, but don't pretend you're as safe as or safer then where I live, because that's crap.
-
Russ, why do you keep spreading debunked arguments, see the link I posted in reply #124, most US cities have a murder rate significantly higher then any European country. Those numbers exclude suicide so that's a non-issue. And if you don't belong to a gang or live in a criminal hot-spot your chances are also much better then average in European countries. So in like-for-like comparison you don't even come close. Wake up and see that the homicides in the US are much higher then in Europe, no matter how much you figure by excluding data that are unfavouvorable to what you are trying to prove. If you (and the US) accepts that these numbers are fine that's OK, but don't pretend you're as safe as or safer then where I live, because that's crap.
Let's not forget a couple of things. Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities. Secondly, there are children injured or killed from playing with firearms that they should not have access to or are "collateral damage" in shootings that would otherwise be preventable with reasonable regulations.
-
Guess where this "article" is from...
This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut (http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/shooting-isnt-about-gun-control-we-refuse-pass-its-57095?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing)
In humor is often found uncomfortable truth...
Interesting article and I was surprised to see where it was published. I kept on reading it looking for the punch line; just the results of what that publication has conditioned me to expect.
However, I don't how access to the mental health has anything to do with this situation. By all accounts, this individual had no prior issues with mental health or violence, he was unknown to the police, and his family are completely mystified by his actions here.
If I missed the news article that explained the giant flashing red sign that screamed he needed help, please post it.
-
Let's not forget a couple of things. Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities. Secondly, there are children injured or killed from playing with firearms that they should not have access to or are "collateral damage" in shootings that would otherwise be preventable with reasonable regulations.
What kind of regulations are you suggesting?
Although certainly tragic, I don't see how regulations could keep idiots from leaving loaded firearms out for their kids to play with.
Laws and regulations, and punishments, often do not prevent negligence, especially in the privacy of someone's home. Not to mention I am sure most kids end up hurting or killing themselves with handguns. Since we spend so much time on trying to regulate "assault rifles," I doubt the regulations that could be passed would even put a dent in child deaths from guns since they probably would not effect handguns.
I kind of equate this to the parents who leave their children in cars in the summer. Research has shown that no matter what steps are taken to prevent this, some people, across all spectrums, just neglect their children and forget about them being in the back seat.
Events like this are tragic, not just because of the immediate consequences, but because it makes politicians focus on the wrong kind of gun control. By far, more people are killed with handguns then assault rifles, but since it is only one or two people at a time, no one ever brings up handguns.
I am all for better gun control, but by looking at the statistics on gun deaths, regulating "assault rifles" is nothing but window dressing.
-
No, it isn't. You constantly contradict yourself because it simply suits your reply-de-jour. You lack any genuine understanding of most of the topics at hand. Indeed, it was your participation that has largely thrown this thread "down the rabbit hole".
There you go again insulting instead of providing cogent arguments. I didn't realize an Australian who lives 10,000 miles on the other side of the earth knows more about the US Constitution, gun laws and how Americans feel about them. Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.
-
Russ, why do you keep spreading debunked arguments, see the link I posted in reply #124, most US cities have a murder rate significantly higher then any European country. Those numbers exclude suicide so that's a non-issue. And if you don't belong to a gang or live in a criminal hot-spot your chances are also much better then average in European countries. So in like-for-like comparison you don't even come close. Wake up and see that the homicides in the US are much higher then in Europe, no matter how much you figure by excluding data that are unfavouvorable to what you are trying to prove. If you (and the US) accepts that these numbers are fine that's OK, but don't pretend you're as safe as or safer then where I live, because that's crap.
Okay, Pieter, I'll agree with you that in most European cities, people simply die of boredom rather than gunfire.
-
Okay, Pieter, I'll agree with you that in most European cities, people simply die of boredom rather than gunfire.
Come to Amsterdam, you won't be bored (and much safer to boot), even Alan's daughter survived and had a great time :P
-
Let's not forget a couple of things. Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities. Secondly, there are children injured or killed from playing with firearms that they should not have access to or are "collateral damage" in shootings that would otherwise be preventable with reasonable regulations.
Right, Alan, but how about telling us where in those cities that "collateral damage" takes place. Reasonable regulations won't help in the ghettos where gangs are shooting each other up, with bullets whizzing into neighborhood houses. That's collateral damage.
-
Come to Amsterdam, you won't be bored (and much safer to boot), even Alan's daughter survived and had a great time :P
Love to, Pieter, but I'm not quite as mobile as I used to be. I like hanging out at home and writing crap on LuLa. ;D
-
Interesting article and I was surprised to see where it was published. I kept on reading it looking for the punch line; just the results of what that publication has conditioned me to expect.
However, I don't how access to the mental health has anything to do with this situation. By all accounts, this individual had no prior issues with mental health or violence, he was unknown to the police, and his family are completely mystified by his actions here.
If I missed the news article that explained the giant flashing red sign that screamed he needed help, please post it.
The guy was on Valium:
"Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium in June, a drug that has aggressive behavior as a possible side effect.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was prescribed the medication in June. He was supposed to take one pill per day and fulfilled the prescription on the same day it was written.
"If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive," said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, told the newspaper. "It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. ... It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people ... they become aggressive instead of going to sleep."
...
Questions remain over why Paddock wired $100,000 to the Philippines just before the shooting. The island nation is the home country of his girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.
He also reportedly gambled with more than $10,000 during the day before the shooting."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-months-before-killing/article/2636485
This is wacky stuff. Why would someone gamble during the day when later on he plans to blow his brains out after shooting a bunch of people? Did Valium make him nuts?
-
Why would someone gamble during the day when later on he plans to blow his brains out after shooting a bunch of people? Did Valium make him nuts?
Why would anyone who's rational gamble in a casino anyway? Evidently they're people who can't do math.
-
Let's not forget a couple of things. Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities.
Right, Alan, but how about telling us where in those cities that "collateral damage" takes place.
Pretty hard to do if you can't find the data because government agencies are not allowed to collect them, maybe that's where they need to start.
On the other hand, ignorance is bliss 8)
-
Come to Amsterdam, you won't be bored (and much safer to boot), even Alan's daughter survived and had a great time :P
Yes, she had a great time. I'm still working on the Henri Willig Dutch Honey Syrup Waffles in a blue tin can she gave me from her trip there. I add a little grape jam to the top of the waffle before munching on it with a cup of coffee. Yum. (I hope that's an acceptable thing to do? :)
-
The guy was on Valium:
"Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium in June, a drug that has aggressive behavior as a possible side effect.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was prescribed the medication in June. He was supposed to take one pill per day and fulfilled the prescription on the same day it was written.
"If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive," said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, told the newspaper. "It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. ... It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people ... they become aggressive instead of going to sleep."
...
Questions remain over why Paddock wired $100,000 to the Philippines just before the shooting. The island nation is the home country of his girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.
He also reportedly gambled with more than $10,000 during the day before the shooting."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-months-before-killing/article/2636485
This is wacky stuff. Why would someone gamble during the day when later on he plans to blow his brains out after shooting a bunch of people? Did Valium make him nuts?
Okay, but all that does not necessarily prove that better access to the mental health care would have solved this. I still have not seen conclusive evidence of him having an underlying aggression problem. So the person prescribing the Valium would have not reason to believe it could have an adverse side effect.
On top of that, your reference states that some can become more aggressive, implying that it does not always happen. Considering he was on Valium for a short period of time, it is possible that it just had not been noticed yet if the Valium did have that side effect.
I think the article Jeff posted may have some credence in it, but premature at this point. It came across as someone with a Mental Health Access agenda deciding to jump on the bandwagon.
-
Okay, but all that does not necessarily prove that better access to the mental health care would have solved this. I still have not seen conclusive evidence of him having an underlying aggression problem. So the person prescribing the Valium would have not reason to believe it could have an adverse side effect.
On top of that, your reference states that some can become more aggressive, implying that it does not always happen. Considering he was on Valium for a short period of time, it is possible that it just had not been noticed yet if the Valium did have that side effect.
I think the article Jeff posted may have some credence in it, but premature at this point. It came across as someone with a Mental Health Access agenda deciding to jump on the bandwagon.
I was just posting additional facts about the killer that I didn't know about earlier. I have no idea if he was nuts, the Valium made him so, or maybe it was a gambling debt? Who knows? I do know that changes in the laws years ago emptied out mental institutions. Many were put on drugs to control their impulses. But many stop using them. Fortunately, most do not turn to murder. Now this guy was certainly smart to have planned this whole thing in such detail over a long period of time. Maybe there is a terrorist connection that's being hidden until the FBI grabs others. It just seems such an awful event for no reason yet discovered. There has to be one.
-
I was just posting additional facts about the killer that I didn't know about earlier. I have no idea if he was nuts, the Valium made him so, or maybe it was a gambling debt? Who knows? I do know that changes in the laws years ago emptied out mental institutions. Many were put on drugs to control their impulses. But many stop using them. Fortunately, most do not turn to murder. Now this guy was certainly smart to have planned this whole thing in such detail over a long period of time. Maybe there is a terrorist connection that's being hidden until the FBI grabs others. It just seems such an awful event for no reason yet discovered. There has to be one.
Pointed noted; I did not mean to come off as confrontational.
I would love to know the point too, however I am not of the opinion there was one. Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK for no apparent reason.
-
Maybe he had a brain tumor like the Texas tower shooter. I highly doubt mother's little helper talked about on Infowars Lol was why he mowed down all those poor people.
Don
https://www.infowars.com/las-vegas-gunman-was-prescribed-drug-linked-to-violent-outbursts/
-
Ah! I see you got the point, Bill. Dictatorial regimes don't actually need to have designated dictators.
I suspect my interpretation of the term 'dictatorship' is different to yours.
-
Phil, As I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I'll tell you that unless you're bent on suicide, belong to a gang, or live in a place like the Chicago ghetto, you're very unlikely to die by gunshot in the U.S. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up."
In 1964 I was stationed at Ubon Ratchathani, across the runway from an Australian fighter squadron detachment. The game those guys used to play in their O' club, a game called "carrier landing," was a lot more dangerous to life and limb than living in the U.S.
Russ, I'm not saying it's a death-trap going to the US. I've been many times and spent weeks at a time travelling around. It is, however, more than 10 times more likely that I will get shot in the US than in Australia, and we are no dictatorship. Less guns and more controls don't make us less free or more endangered, mate.
Carrier Landing - I've heard about that - I don't think it was limited to Aussies, though. And, frankly, just living with our wildlife is more dangerous than most places on earth :-)
-
There you go again insulting instead of providing cogent arguments. I didn't realize an Australian who lives 10,000 miles on the other side of the earth knows more about the US Constitution, gun laws and how Americans feel about them. Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.
Not an insult, a statement of demonstrable fact.
As to my knowledge about anything due to distance, there's this thing called the internet, and travel, and listening to lots of other people, and so on. But there you go with your xenophobia again.
-
You are all wrong, sorta.
He killed many. This suggests he was a psychopath.
He killed himself. This suggests he was depressed.
However, psychopaths rarely get depressed. With one exception: when the psychopath is old and has a high IQ, a profile which he fits.
Typical depression is linked to loss of something with which someone is attached or to feelings of guilt and unworthiness. Psychopaths are rarely attached with something or someone, and they never feel guilty or unimportant. So they never get depressed. When high IQ psychopaths get old, they understand that grandiosity is illusory and self-satisfaction through omnipotent striving is unreachable. This leads to atypical anhedonic depression.
So he wasn't depressed in the usual sense of the word. One can say he was nihilistically bored, a condition that can turn an intelligent psychopath into a mass murderer.
In short, he killed himself and 59 others because he was understimulated and out of time. No brain tumor, no adverse reaction to anxiolytics, no political or religious extremism, no rage disorder, no psychotic breakdown, no grief or chronic physical or emotional pain. Just boredom.
The only thing that might have stopped him is having no access to guns capable of mass casualties.
Democrats score a political point this time around.
-
I think the article Jeff posted may have some credence in it, but premature at this point. It came across as someone with a Mental Health Access agenda deciding to jump on the bandwagon.
Joe, let me ask you as delicately as I can, you DO know that The Onion (http://www.theonion.com) is a satire website that does parodies and other outrageous stories...but they do look real. But the story I posted hit a lot closer to home because it was ironically so close to being accurate and real...the GOP does want to scale back Medicaid particularly for mental health.
But there's no way this guy wasn't loony toony because who in their right mind buys nearly 50 guns and plans on taking out as many people he can down to outfitting his semis with bump stocks to reach nearly fully auto rate of fire.
Can anybody claim this guy wasn't nuts? And yes, he flew under the fruitcake radar and mental health check wouldn't have helped...but outlawing ANY gun that could shoot or be modified to shoot in an nearly automatic rate is also completely nuts.
We have back to back wingnutz, the guy in Vegas and the guy shooting at congressmen that decaided to do crazy things and they had guns...how nuts is that?
-
Joe, let me ask you as delicately as I can, you DO know that The Onion (http://www.theonion.com) is a satire website that does parodies and other outrageous stories...but they do look real. But the story I posted hit a lot closer to home because it was ironically so close to being accurate and real...the GOP does want to scale back Medicaid particularly for mental health.
But there's no way this guy wasn't loony toony because who in their right mind buys nearly 50 guns and plans on taking out as many people he can down to outfitting his semis with bump stocks to reach nearly fully auto rate of fire.
Can anybody claim this guy wasn't nuts? And yes, he flew under the fruitcake radar and mental health check wouldn't have helped...but outlawing ANY gun that could shoot or be modified to shoot in an nearly automatic rate is also completely nuts.
We have back to back wingnutz, the guy in Vegas and the guy shooting at congressmen that decaided to do crazy things and they had guns...how nuts is that?
Yes, I am aware of what the Onion is and their point. However, as you stated, it was "ironically so close to being accurate and real." So, for intents and purposes, it could have been a real article. It surely read like one; I saw no satirical language being used, which is why I was surprised of the publication.
My point though is that using this occurrence to promote increases in Mental Health is not justifiable since for all we know it would not have mattered. I agree, he must have been unstable and mentally ill, however he has no history of it nor a history of trying to get help.
Those pushing for better mental health care, which I agree with, would be better suited if they used examples that were applicable.
Insofar as the gun control debate, I would rather spend the political energy and capital on getting something that would have the greatest effect.
Rifles are modular by nature. They can be altered easily and parts can easily be made if not obtained, so outlawing "assault rifles," which is a loosely defined term, is not going to prevent them from existing. Not to mention, assault rifles, although sensational, only account for a small amount of gun deaths.
I would rather expend the political capture on measures effecting handguns, which account for the vast majority of gun deaths.
Pick your battles; you only get one, realistically. Would you rather have a feel good policy that does virtually nothing or enact policy that effects the most prevalent, although mundane, cause of gun deaths?
-
We have no written Constitution in GB, AFAIK, but we do have zillions of laws.
Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution. We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.
The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.
It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event. The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.
It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.
-
Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution. We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.
The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.
It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event. The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.
It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.
You're picking and choosing here. Although the last (27th) amendment added to our constitution was originally proposed in 1789 and took more then 200 years to get ratified, there have been several others proposed, debated and ratified in a relatively short period of time. Many of them within the 20th century.
-
Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution.
GB doesn't have a written, single document constitution. Constitutional matters are the history of numerous documents, decisions, laws, processes, etc. in GB.
We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.
Well, plenty of people have read it or at least portions of it. We don't have a simple bill of rights like the US, but it's still quite readable.
The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.
It's far more than that. It is what defines what powers a government(s) and the people have. It is the authority from which all other authority flows.
It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event.
Again, not really. It provides the basis upon which authority is granted to parties to enact laws and what those laws may cover and to what extent. It doesn't prescribe that a certain act covers a certain event.
The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.
Yes, and the Westminster Parliamentary system is particularly good regarding those debates because every single sitting day the government is held accountable by the opposition. At times it looks like a circus, but it's really a very important theatre.
It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.
Well, not 200 years - not by a long shot. But constitutions are meant to be difficult to change to avoid the tyranny of the majority, among other things. The problem is that by defining those rights that are special, it tends to de-emphasise any other even though the US constitution specifically grants all other rights to the people! Whereas in our case, there is no constitutional freedom of speech, but there is a constitutional right of political expression and the High Court (equivalent of the SCotUS for our US friends), has taken that, plus the lack of a denial of freedom of speech through the constitution, to rule that there is a significant freedom of speech. So, you can't slander or libel people and you can't talk about classified information and so on, but generally speaking you are free to say what you want if it doesn't incite crime. It's not as strong as the US right, but it is a bit more flexible which is the point Bob has made well.
But to each their own. We had 114 years of additional history and experience to draw upon when we created ours compared to the US.
-
Mate, I don't live in GB, but I would guarantee that you have a constitution. We have one in Australia too, but few have ever read it.
The thing about a good constitution is that it is a just a framework for how government operates, is elected, is dismissed etc.
It has no laws, however it may state that a law or "Act" will cover some event. The fantastic reason for that is the government of the day makes laws that fit the current day by debating them in parliament and getting them approved by the Head of State (Queen, Governor General, Governor etc). The judiciary then interprets the laws and the police enforce them. If they make a mistake or a law becomes silly over time, you can change it.
It usually is very difficult to change the constitution in comparison to changing a law. It usually requires almost universal support. That is the problem in the US. They have laws IN the constitution. The last change to their constitution took 200 years to get approved. In short, they are stuck in the 18th century.
I believe they have the "common law" rather than a constitution in the usual sense that we in the US have.
-
Well, not 200 years - not by a long shot.
Apparently the 27th and last amendment according to wiki took 202 years 7 months 10 days, but who's counting.
Yes, I have read the Oz Constitution and happy with your clarification. I was sort of summarising the effect.
A Bill of Rights tells you what you can do, forever.
A law tells you what you can't do. So if there is no law against it then you can do it, which includes free speech. i think that is a better system.
-
Apparently the 27th and last amendment according to wiki took 202 years 7 months 10 days, but who's counting.
Yes, I have read the Oz Constitution and happy with your clarification. I was sort of summarising the effect.
A Bill of Rights tells you what you can do, forever.
A law tells you what you can't do. So if there is no law against it then you can do it, which includes free speech. i think that is a better system.
You're in rare company, Bob ;) This was the essentially the exact point made by some of our (the USA) founders in arguing AGAINST the inclusion of a "bill of rights." The fear was (in part) exactly as you said - that by enumerating these specific rights it was feared that other rights not so enumerated could be argued not to exist.
Obviously they lost the day, but I'd argue that when our Constitutional "originalists" resort to purely textual arguments against things like a right to privacy, those who feared that the Bill of Rights could actually *limit* our rights have been proven to be at least partially correct.
Read more here. (http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter09/rights.cfm)
-
You're in rare company, Bob ;) This was the essentially the exact point made by some of our (the USA) founders in arguing AGAINST the inclusion of a "bill of rights." The fear was (in part) exactly as you said - that by enumerating these specific rights it was feared that other rights not so enumerated could be argued not to exist.
Obviously they lost the day, but I'd argue that when our Constitutional "originalists" resort to purely textual arguments against things like a right to privacy, those who feared that the Bill of Rights could actually *limit* our rights have been proven to be at least partially correct.
Read more here. (http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter09/rights.cfm)
You also have, what I consider absurd, views being presented along the lines of "there's no right to education" to block attempts at laws to mandate provision of education. Seriously.
There's a very clear case to show that the bill of rights has over-emphasised many of those ahead of other things and prevented additional rights being acquired or exercised because the general "and all else" clause is often ignored.
-
The Constitution is not God bestowed. It can be changed when it should be.
Why do people (Rand Paul, et al.) care what its authors would have intended if alive today? They're dead!
(https://i.imgur.com/QT8TKy1.gif)
-
You also have, what I consider absurd, views being presented along the lines of "there's no right to education" to block attempts at laws to mandate provision of education. Seriously.
There's a very clear case to show that the bill of rights has over-emphasised many of those ahead of other things and prevented additional rights being acquired or exercised because the general "and all else" clause is often ignored.
Agreed. There's a bit more to it but I'm on a mobile device ;)
-
The Constitution is not God bestowed. It can be changed when it should be.
Why do people (Rand Paul, et al.) care what its authors would have intended if alive today? They're dead!
(https://i.imgur.com/QT8TKy1.gif)
Because their (the authors, not the textualists) enlightenment philosophies inform the basic understanding of the source of our fundamental rights.
-
Agreed. There's a bit more to it but I'm on a mobile device ;)
I know the pain when you have a lot you want to say - tiny screens are not so great :-)
-
Because their (the authors, not the textualists) enlightenment philosophies inform the basic understanding of the source of our fundamental rights.
So we are suppose to engage in philosophical necromancy to divine whether James Madison would be down with bump stocks? Who cares, he's dead? Besides, for all we know, he may have changed his mind by now.
(https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/jsullum/2017_10/BFS-13-1-cropped.jpg?h=263&w=350)
-
This article seems to summarise the situation:
https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/10/02/mass-shootings-unsolvable-problem-says-country-mass-shootings-problem/
-
Okay, let's look at mass shootings that are an unsolvable problem in the U.S., "the only country with a mass shooting problem" (Vegas is going to raise the U.S. total a bit, but not enough to change the comparisons):
Norway: 67 dead, total vics 100, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 1.94.
Switzerland: 14 dead, total vics 32, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 .40.
U.S.: 487 dead, total vics 992, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 .31.
I could go on with this, citing places like Mexico where the figures are out of sight.
Clearly we've got to keep those guns from going out and shooting up the place. If we can't get the guns to cooperate we need to jail them.
Hard as it may be to believe, this thread may actually be dumber than Trump II.
-
The US Constitution doesn't grant rights to people. The people have these "inalienable rights" as "God given". Rather it limits the power of government. For example, the 1st Amendment says: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Or in the gun case: 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In both Amendments, you see that it is the government that is limited. Nothing is granted to the people. They have these rights to begin with. That's a powerful message. It reminds government officials that they don't give anything to people. They take things away, only if the constitution allows them that power.
The Constitution enumerates powers that the federal government (national in DC) has. Such things as maintaining an Army, making treaties, regulating interstate commerce. It then says that those remaining powers not granted to the national government are left to the individual sovereign States, now 50, and then to the people themselves. So the individual states which are also sovereign can have their own Constitutions and issue laws for state taxes, highway speed limits, state taxes, etc. As long as the state law doesn't conflict with rights in the Consitution, the State follows the majority rules through their own legislatures. All remaining power is left with the individual to do whatever they want to do.
As Phil posted above, you don't want a Congress or legislature to change these laws by popular vote because then these rights can be washed away during a crisis or under emotional appeal of the majority. The restriction and rights are there to protect the minority. Majorities don't need protection because they have the vote to change the law. That's why Nazi's can speak their mind even if 99.9% of the country disagree with what they have to say. Or in the Las Vegas situation, if let's say 75% of the people in the country want to ban guns, the 2nd Amendment prevents Congress or the individual States from doing that. The emotions of Las Vegas will not allow gun owners, a minority, to lose their arms. An Amendment to the Constitution is required.
I think the Constitution has been interpreted or mis-interpreted taking rights away from people in certain areas while limiting government more in other areas. On balance, the Constitution seems to be working for us. Our government hasn't been over thrown and we're still running strong after 230 years.
-
There is nothing sacred about laws and regulations. They must constantly evolve because our societies evolve. We should not discard codified laws that have withstood the test of time but nor should we accept them without question either.
We no longer hang horse thieves. We don't imprison people who drink alcohol, but we continue to treat drug users as criminals. Inherent contradictions like that lead to all kinds of problems, just look around.
We shouldn't need to go to late night comedians for thoughtful comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxAsHhex10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxAsHhex10).
-
There is nothing sacred about laws and regulations. They must constantly evolve because our societies evolve. We should not discard codified laws that have withstood the test of time but nor should we accept them without question either.
We no longer hang horse thieves. We don't imprison people who drink alcohol, but we continue to treat drug users as criminals. Inherent contradictions like that lead to all kinds of problems, just look around.
We shouldn't need to go to late night comedians for thoughtful comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxAsHhex10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaxAsHhex10).
There's a difference between rights protected in the constitution and laws and regulations that effect people. Nothing is stopping us from changing law that effect drug addicts or drunks. We actually have done that. In the case of addicts, there is more rehabilitation encourages so the laws have gotten less strict criminally. On the other hand, drunk drivers now go to jail where before they were often let go with a slap on their wrist. . So there the laws have gotten stricter, criminally because demnocratially, people have had their legislature change the law. But these laws can be changed because there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government from restricting drug and alcohol use and applying penalties if used in a way that the people, democratically, decide they cannot be used as voted in their legislatures. That right to use alcohol or drugs is not an "inherent right" as defined by the Constitution. If you don't like the law, then change it. That's what a democracy is all about.
By the way, you can still hang a horse thief if a state legislates that into law as a penalty. It may be challenged constitutionally as "cruel and unusual punishment". But that's another story. Now if someone stole my camera...
-
There's a difference between rights protected in the constitution and laws and regulations that effect people.
I realize that there are legal differences that affect how easily (or not) they can be changed. Step and look at the bigger picture. They are all laws invented by man at a particular place and time, so of course they can be changed by people under which they are governed. None of those codified laws are sacred. It's your personal choice to treat them as sacred, nothing more.
As I have stated previously in another thread, the US Constitution did not prevent slavery or the genocide of American Indians and the 14th amendment did not prevent Jim Crow. These are not small things that just need a little tweaking.
-
Hard as it may be to believe, this thread may actually be dumber than Trump II.
You're doing your best, that's for sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/
-
What kind of regulations are you suggesting?
1.) Mandatory background checks for all gun purchase irrespective of where they are bought (close the gun show loophole)
2.) Mandatory registration of all firearms going forward so that someone who is purchasing 19 weapons in one month can be identified (does anyone really need that many?)
3.) Ban all weapons capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a single loading (does anyone need to fire more than 10 rounds for either sporting or self defense purposes; police officers did quite well for a lot of years with six shot S&W revolvers)
These are the ones that quickly come to mind. I am not advocating a limitation on the number of firearms one can own, only documenting things. #1 was tried after Sandy Hook but the Senate Republicans filibustered it despite the fact that it got 54 votes (including some Republican votes).
Remember the 2nd Amendment was written during the time of muzzle loading rifles and hand guns that were neither accurate or safe. the world has changed.
-
I realize that there are legal differences that affect how easily (or not) they can be changed. Step and look at the bigger picture. They are all laws invented by man at a particular place and time, so of course they can be changed by people under which they are governed. None of those codified laws are sacred. It's your personal choice to treat them as sacred, nothing more.
As I have stated previously in another thread, the US Constitution did not prevent slavery or the genocide of American Indians and the 14th amendment did not prevent Jim Crow. These are not small things that just need a little tweaking.
Bob, I don't understand your point. Slavery was ended through modification of the Constitution (14th Amendment) and the blood of the Civil War. It took many more years for Jim Crow laws to be ended, but they were ended. The fact is that the country held together due to the respect of the Constitution despite all the problems ego-centric man has to deal with. The Constitution isn't perfect because man isn't perfect. But it's done a pretty good job so far.
Regarding American Indians, the Constitution wasn't written to prevent wars between the us and the Indian Nations or anyone else for that matter. Although morally we may be queasy about some of what we did, there's nothing in our Constitution that prevents the country from being aggressive towards others including war. Also, a lot of the Indian nations were defeated before the country became a nation during the period when we were under British or other nation's rule. So you can blame Europeans. Look at the mess in the Middle East we're still trying to straighten out created by former European colonial rule.
-
1.) Mandatory background checks for all gun purchase irrespective of where they are bought (close the gun show loophole)
2.) Mandatory registration of all firearms going forward so that someone who is purchasing 19 weapons in one month can be identified (does anyone really need that many?)
3.) Ban all weapons capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a single loading (does anyone need to fire more than 10 rounds for either sporting or self defense purposes; police officers did quite well for a lot of years with six shot S&W revolvers)
These are the ones that quickly come to mind. I am not advocating a limitation on the number of firearms one can own, only documenting things. #1 was tried after Sandy Hook but the Senate Republicans filibustered it despite the fact that it got 54 votes (including some Republican votes).
Remember the 2nd Amendment was written during the time of muzzle loading rifles and hand guns that were neither accurate or safe. the world has changed.
If I'm protecting my family against a home invasion by a bunch of thugs or during a riot, which the 2nd Amendment allows me to do, why should I be limited to 10 rounds? Especially since the law prevents me from taking the weapon out of the home. So because someone using guns illegally and harms someone, 99.9% of the people who protect their homes and families in a responsible manner have to be punished?
People "soup" up their cars so they can drive 180mph way over the legal limit anywhere in the country. Thousands of people are killed every year because of it. Yet no one is suggesting laws that that stop people from modifying their cars or in fact buying them "souped" up directly from the manufacturer. Dodge autos are "souped up" as the American "muscle" car. And why is it necessary to have a Ferrari that goes 225 mph? People drag race these cars both legally at race tracks but they also do it illegally on the street. Again thousands are killed. Why aren't you pushing for laws to stop it? Cars have no constitutional protection like guns do. It seems people are more concerned about cars polluting than running people over due to speed.
-
Cars have no constitutional protection like guns do. It seems people are more concerned about cars polluting than running people over due to speed.
But really, they do. All other rights are retained by the states and the people. So since the constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to ban cars or their top speed, the right to those things exists due to the constitution. The only difference is this problem that we've been discussing wherein you give special prominence to certain rights and that effectively reduces the protection of all others contrary to the intent of the constitution.
Also, cars is a very good analogy if you take our local experience. People who want very high powered weapons here can own them for recreational use at range or competitions and so on, but they can't use them out on the street. Just as you can't drag race legally on the streets but can at a race track. So we let people own such weapons but don't let them take them home or carry them around except for the stated purpose. Typically, they are secured at their clubs or local ranges except when there's a legitimate need to transport them. Similarly, race cars don't drive on the road. It's not so difficult.
-
Las Vegas Shooting: N.R.A. Supports New Rules on ‘Bump Stock’ Devices
I'm surprised they support a ban only because they're usually afraid of the slippery slope. They may regret it. In any case, I guess they figured this relatively minor change in the law won't effect gun law if no other changes are included. So they're trading off potential changes that are more restrictive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/las-vegas-shooting.html?_r=0
-
But really, they do. All other rights are retained by the states and the people. So since the constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to ban cars or their top speed, the right to those things exists due to the constitution. The only difference is this problem that we've been discussing wherein you give special prominence to certain rights and that effectively reduces the protection of all others contrary to the intent of the constitution.
Also, cars is a very good analogy if you take our local experience. People who want very high powered weapons here can own them for recreational use at range or competitions and so on, but they can't use them out on the street. Just as you can't drag race legally on the streets but can at a race track. So we let people own such weapons but don't let them take them home or carry them around except for the stated purpose. Typically, they are secured at their clubs or local ranges except when there's a legitimate need to transport them. Similarly, race cars don't drive on the road. It's not so difficult.
Both your claims are deficient. First, cars and driving are not constitutionally protected. You are mistaken. The US Constitution does not prevent the States from imposing restrictions on cars and driving and most things. Those privileges are granted to the States where as freedom of speech, for example, is guaranteed not to be taken away by either the Federal or State governments. The States can Constitutionally and in fact do regulate who can drive a car and at what speed. There are no constitutional protections. The part of the Constitution that grants the States the right to do these restrictions and impose penalties for violating them is: 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So the States have the power to do what they want. But that's wonderful because that allows the states who are democratically controlled by the people to decide how they want to live. So if NYS allows a maximum speed of 65mph other states can allow top speed limits to whatever they want. Each state makes its own regulations according to how the people want to live. That's why some states allow "carry" laws for guns and others don't. Each state regulates itself.
As an aside, the Federal government does enforce certain rules under the "Regulate Interstate Commerce" clause of the Constitution. So interstate highway rules, interstate truck regulations and the like are regulated Federally as well. But again, there is no constitutional protection like arms protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Your second point is deficient because Ferraris, which can be taken home, drive at over 200mph. They don't have to remain at the race track. In fact most people who own them never even race them at a track. Yet you want guns to remain at the gun range. You trust people with 200mph Ferraris. But, you don't trust people to take their guns home from the shooting range without shooting a couple of fellow citizens on their way.
-
1.) Mandatory background checks for all gun purchase irrespective of where they are bought (close the gun show loophole)
2.) Mandatory registration of all firearms going forward so that someone who is purchasing 19 weapons in one month can be identified (does anyone really need that many?)
3.) Ban all weapons capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a single loading (does anyone need to fire more than 10 rounds for either sporting or self defense purposes; police officers did quite well for a lot of years with six shot S&W revolvers)
So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think? Actually, the only people who'd be in the state's sights would be honest people who follow the law. Do you really believe people who don't follow the law wouldn't be able to find a way around that kind of requirement? The fact is there's no law that's going to solve this problem.
-
Bump stocks were approved for sale in 2010 by Barack Obama’s ATF and as a hunter owner of guns could care less if they are banned.
Don
https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf
-
So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think?
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly about ensuring states had a 'well-regulated' militia, i.e. a citizens' army, to offer protection for the nation in the absence of a standing army. Being well regulated implies a knowledge of who has what.
-
Bump stocks were approved for sale in 2010 by Barack Obama’s ATF and as a hunter owner of guns could care less if they are banned.
Don
It's more nuanced than that. They technically were not approved as they were not a firearm and therefore not subject to the current regulations. It's a loophole and the manufacturer was just seeking clarification. All this is publicly available.
-
https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf
They can ban them with a bill in Congress but I doubt that will happen when the Dems overplay their hand.
Don
-
So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think? Actually, the only people who'd be in the state's sights would be honest people who follow the law. Do you really believe people who don't follow the law wouldn't be able to find a way around that kind of requirement? The fact is there's no law that's going to solve this problem.
I said "going forward" as it will be very difficult if not impossible to track the existing gun owners. This is a simple database problem and thus an easy technical solution. Gun dealers would have to register each sale. This is currently done for automobiles. It is the only way that one can determine whether someone is accumulating a small arsenal and of what type of weapon. Law abiding citizens would have no worry other than those that harbored paranoid thoughts about the government.
-
Bob, I don't understand your point. Slavery was ended through modification of the Constitution (14th Amendment) and the blood of the Civil War. It took many more years for Jim Crow laws to be ended, but they were ended. The fact is that the country held together due to the respect of the Constitution despite all the problems ego-centric man has to deal with. The Constitution isn't perfect because man isn't perfect. But it's done a pretty good job so far.
But those Jim Crow laws were grounded in the legal "separate but equal" provisions that the court found and were not settled until Brown v Board of Education in 1954. Even then it took a long time to equalize things (some would argue that things are not equal today).
Regarding American Indians, the Constitution wasn't written to prevent wars between the us and the Indian Nations or anyone else for that matter. Although morally we may be queasy about some of what we did, there's nothing in our Constitution that prevents the country from being aggressive towards others including war. Also, a lot of the Indian nations were defeated before the country became a nation during the period when we were under British or other nation's rule. So you can blame Europeans. Look at the mess in the Middle East we're still trying to straighten out created by former European colonial rule.
I don't think your comment about most Indian nations being defeated before the country was a nation is true. Certainly the Plains' Indians were not finally subjugated until the late 1800s when they were forced onto reservations. Same thing for the Indians of the Southwest. The Spanish who controlled Florida did not fight the Seminoles, nor did the French who controlled the Louisiana territory (in fact most of the French footprint was in New Orleans). Your comment highlighted is also questionable. Are you saying that Indians who either lived in the original 13 states that were signatory to the Constitution or those that were subsumed into the United States following territorial acquisitions did not have any rights as citizens?
-
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly about ensuring states had a 'well-regulated' militia, i.e. a citizens' army, to offer protection for the nation in the absence of a standing army. Being well regulated implies a knowledge of who has what.
A militia comes under State law not federal. The militia would be controlled by each of the 50 States to defend the sovereign State and its residents. If you're concerned about a tyrannical federal government, you don't want the national government to know where the weapons are and who got them.
By the way, this is really the elephant in the room that people dance around. The whole issue with the NRA's concern is the fear that only the government in Washington will have guns if guns are outlawed or controlled for personal use and ownership. There will be no protection against a regime that grabs power as we have seen throughout history and something the Founders feared as well, hence the 2nd Amendment. An armed citizenry is the last defense against that tyranny. (The Civil War was a reaction to that. Personally armed southern citizens, state militias, fought to maintain their state rights whether you agree with the reasons or not. Of course, the southern states eventually joined together in to a common army. But the armed populace originally provided the muscle).
That's why dictators take away guns as the first things they do. Look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. You also see it in rightist regimes as well. Dictators come in all varieties. The liberal left should remember that. They could protect against a fascist government too. This is why the Heller decision in the Supreme Court was monumental. It cleared up the argument that people have the constitutional right be bear arms personally. The fight to limit that right will continue however so the NRA will stay busy.
-
But those Jim Crow laws were grounded in the legal "separate but equal" provisions that the court found and were not settled until Brown v Board of Education in 1954. Even then it took a long time to equalize things (some would argue that things are not equal today).
I don't think your comment about most Indian nations being defeated before the country was a nation is true. Certainly the Plains' Indians were not finally subjugated until the late 1800s when they were forced onto reservations. Same thing for the Indians of the Southwest. The Spanish who controlled Florida did not fight the Seminoles, nor did the French who controlled the Louisiana territory (in fact most of the French footprint was in New Orleans). Your comment highlighted is also questionable. Are you saying that Indians who either lived in the original 13 states that were signatory to the Constitution or those that were subsumed into the United States following territorial acquisitions did not have any rights as citizens?
Regarding Jim Crow laws, my point agrees with yours, so I'm not sure of your point. I said it took a long time to reverse them and you gave the date 1954. OK I agree.
Regarding Indian Wars, a huge number were fought in the territories that made up the original 13 colonies that became the first states after our independence declared in 1776. Those wars were controlled by the European powers, mainly England, as we were their colonies. It is true that afterwards, many wars were fought by America against the indigenous Indians. ll I said was that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevented us from making war on Indians or anyone else for that matter. All it requires is a 51% majority vote in Congress to declare war. No reason even has to be given. By the way, Indians were not strangers to war. They made war on each other continuously, long before the "white man" arrived. They conquered territory of other Indians, killed their men and took the women and children as slaves. So to make them out as some sort of victims doesn't truly reflect history just another thing to make us feel guilty.
-
So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think?
Not at all. It's irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment, which says nothing about the mechanism for protecting the right. In fact, I could argue that because the 2nd Amendment demands a "well-regulated" (meaning, in 18th century language, effective and efficient, basically) citizen militia, registration/certification of weapons might be the only way to ensure that.
It's also consistent with the interpretations of other Constitutional protections over time. That is to say, courts have repeatedly held that the rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute and are open to limitation (yelling "fire" in a theatre, incitement of violence, kiddie porn etc.)
Actually, the only people who'd be in the state's sights would be honest people who follow the law. Do you really believe people who don't follow the law wouldn't be able to find a way around that kind of requirement? The fact is there's no law that's going to solve this problem.
This (laws only hurt honest people, criminals break them anyway) is an argument against law in general. It's silly.
-
This (laws only hurt honest people, criminals break them anyway) is an argument against law in general. It's silly.
Indeed. Any given law will dissuade a certain percentage of people who were otherwise inclined or open to behaving in a certain way from doing so. The level of behaviour modification relies on many things ranging from the perception of equity, probability of being caught, the level and type of possible sanction, community or public opinion and support, likely long term impact, and the overall risk versus potential reward (and the reward itself has numerous variables, of course).
-
Not at all. It's irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment, which says nothing about the mechanism for protecting the right. In fact, I could argue that because the 2nd Amendment demands a "well-regulated" (meaning, in 18th century language, effective and efficient, basically) citizen militia, registration/certification of weapons might be the only way to ensure that.
It's also consistent with the interpretations of other Constitutional protections over time. That is to say, courts have repeatedly held that the rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute and are open to limitation (yelling "fire" in a theatre, incitement of violence, kiddie porn etc.)
This (laws only hurt honest people, criminals break them anyway) is an argument against law in general. It's silly.
The right to bear arms is an individual right not a group right as determined by the Supreme Court. Individuals form militias not under the control of the government. They have their own leadership. They are entirely separate from government armies, state national guards, or state reserve units. To force them to provide the government what their makeup is and the arms they have could prevent them to act as a bulwark against the government becoming tyrannical. Militias have been used in the past to fight wars. Although there use may not be prevalent today, the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of them. So the 2nd Amendment still stands as regards to militias. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment allows individual right to be armed to provide personal protection to the individual in his premises. However, SCOTUS also determined that there are limits that can be enforced.
Regarding arguments against laws in general and laws regarding arms as being "silly", there is a difference between a law against bank robbery and a law to register your gun. An honest person doesn't rob a bank. However, an honest person would be forced to register his arms or not allowed to use arms that might be more protective for him, his family and home even though he isn't using it to break any other law. The terrorist would avoid all such restraints. To compare bank robbery to arms restrictions is "silly". There's a huge difference.
-
In another conversation elsewhere, I was told that the legislation that was designed to make silencers (dumb name for them, but I'll continue to use it since it's what everyone seems to be using) also had language to make armour-piercing ammunition easier to obtain.
What kind of madness is this? Is there anyone who thinks that it's a good idea to have this stuff out there for sale?
I presume that the only explanation for any of this is money. The NRA must simply be a shill organization for the gun manufacturers, no other explanation makes any sense. There is no way this is about constitutional rights or citizens' ability to defend themselves, that's got to be just a plausible con.
Silencers and armour-piercing ammunition? Really? Am I alone in thinking that all this is just batsh*t crazy?
-
If only they were just shills. Instead, they're often religiously fanatical about the subject and there's a large cross-over with the conspiracy theory nutters :(
-
One last point for today. You have to admire the NRA strategy. The news sites are reporting how the NRA is backing down on the "bump stock" ban. Alan, in an earlier thread post, was surprised by this move and was surprised because the NRA would normally have regarded this as a slippery-slope. Which caused me to laugh out loud, btw. They are elsewhere backing legislation to make silencers and armour-piercing ammo easier to buy, but a concession on bump stock might be seen as a slippery slope. Slippery slope down into what, exactly?
I am just expressing my admiration for the ability of the NRA to frame the debate in this way. There is a public discussion under way about insane topics but everyone is behaving as though this is all normal.
Humans must really enjoy doing this to ourselves. During Prohibition, most everyone probably knew how to get a drink. During my lifetime, any number of drugs have been illegal, but most everyone knew how to get some. Reality isn't anything like what we think it is, is it?
-
The right to bear arms is an individual right not a group right as determined by the Supreme Court.
Yes - You may be surprised to know that I think Heller was probably decided accurately, if with an almost willful ignorance of practical ramifications.. That said, I think it's grossly anachronistic and stands only on a literal reading of the original document, the modern world be damned.
Individuals form militias not under the control of the government. They have their own leadership. They are entirely separate from government armies, state national guards, or state reserve units.
No. If we're staying consistent in agreeing with Heller based on a strictly originalist basis, the militia as referenced in the 2nd Amendment was clearly meant to be in the place of a standing army, and a tool of the state to be used for common defense. The founders did not envision a random rabble of individuals running amok and either opposing or supporting the government as they saw fit. Further, if I recall correctly (don't hold me to this) the militia's officers, material etc. were meant to be determined by the state (literally - as in Virginia, Georgia or whatever, as opposed to the generic "state" or the federal government). If you want, I can figure out what I remember that's making me thing that...
Although there use may not be prevalent today, the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of them. So the 2nd Amendment still stands as regards to militias. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment allows individual right to be armed to provide personal protection to the individual in his premises.
Again, we agree. I think the Constitution is quite clear in granting that right. I'm just not sure that the rationale for that right is applicable today. I'm not sure where that leaves us.
Regarding arguments against laws in general and laws regarding arms as being "silly", there is a difference between a law against bank robbery and a law to register your gun. An honest person doesn't rob a bank. However, an honest person would be forced to register his arms or not allowed to use arms that might be more protective for him, his family and home even though he isn't using it to break any other law. The terrorist would avoid all such restraints.
As would a bank robber despite the law against robbing banks. My point stands ;)
-
If I'm protecting my family against a home invasion by a bunch of thugs or during a riot, which the 2nd Amendment allows me to do, why should I be limited to 10 rounds?
Alan, you're watching way too many Hollywood movies. :)
-
One last point for today. You have to admire the NRA strategy. The news sites are reporting how the NRA is backing down on the "bump stock" ban. Alan, in an earlier thread post, was surprised by this move and was surprised because the NRA would normally have regarded this as a slippery-slope. Which caused me to laugh out loud, btw. They are elsewhere backing legislation to make silencers and armour-piercing ammo easier to buy, but a concession on bump stock might be seen as a slippery slope. Slippery slope down into what, exactly?
I am just expressing my admiration for the ability of the NRA to frame the debate in this way. There is a public discussion under way about insane topics but everyone is behaving as though this is all normal.
Humans must really enjoy doing this to ourselves. During Prohibition, most everyone probably knew how to get a drink. During my lifetime, any number of drugs have been illegal, but most everyone knew how to get some. Reality isn't anything like what we think it is, is it?
the NRA is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to handle the bump stock issue. In 2010, under Obama, the ATF OKed bump stocks as add-on's that do not violate any laws. By getting the ATF to review it and make it a violation, the NRA won't have to worry about Congress getting into the act to formalize it. That would open them up to congressmen who might want to add additional restrictions - the slippery slope. If ATF does it, it will be a sop. Everyone will get on-board on both sides of the aisle and be pleased with themselves. Then we all can get onto other things to argue about rather than gun regulation.
Of course, the NRA is taking a chance if it does become part of legislation. Who knows what might happen. Apparently they figure ATF is worth the chance to put the whole thing to sleep again.
-
1. Yes - You may be surprised to know that I think Heller was probably decided accurately, if with an almost willful ignorance of practical ramifications.. That said, I think it's grossly anachronistic and stands only on a literal reading of the original document, the modern world be damned.
2. No. If we're staying consistent in agreeing with Heller based on a strictly originalist basis, the militia as referenced in the 2nd Amendment was clearly meant to be in the place of a standing army, and a tool of the state to be used for common defense. The founders did not envision a random rabble of individuals running amok and either opposing or supporting the government as they saw fit. Further, if I recall correctly (don't hold me to this) the militia's officers, material etc. were meant to be determined by the state (literally - as in Virginia, Georgia or whatever, as opposed to the generic "state" or the federal government). If you want, I can figure out what I remember that's making me thing that...
3. Again, we agree. I think the Constitution is quite clear in granting that right. I'm just not sure that the rationale for that right is applicable today. I'm not sure where that leaves us.
4. As would a bank robber despite the law against robbing banks. My point stands ;)
I numbered your responses for clarity.
1. Certainly the right to protect oneself , your family and home with personal arms is not anachronistic, even if militias are.
2. Since militias were tools of the state and the state also had an interest in protecting its own state's rights against a powerful national government such as what happened in the Civil War, both the individual states and their militias have an interest in protecting their ability to form and arm a militia. That part may seem anachronistic. However, SCOTUS did not consider it so. They understood that the Constitution stands as it is, as it should. You don't change any of its meaning, or you shouldn't, based on what someone thinks is anachronistic and no longer necessary. Amend it formally. Otherwise, everything becomes open to loose interpretation. Then you have the whole country fighting over the political philosophies of propose justices rather than appointing people who will understand the Constitution as it is written. Oh, so that's the problem we have now. We've turned life-time appointed justices into non-elected legislators.
3. No comment.
4. I don't understand your point. Mine was that the honest person who would use his gun to protect himself in a legal manner, would comply with onerous rules that he should not (added) have too while the terrorist would ignore the very same rules issued to stop the terrorist. The laws would encumber honest people with little or nor advantage to stop murder.
-
the NRA is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to handle the bump stock issue. In 2010, under Obama, the ATF OKed bump stocks as add-on's that do not violate any laws. By getting the ATF to review it and make it a violation, the NRA won't have to worry about Congress getting into the act to formalize it. That would open them up to congressmen who might want to add additional restrictions - the slippery slope. If ATF does it, it will be a sop. Everyone will get on-board on both sides of the aisle and be pleased with themselves. Then we all can get onto other things to argue about rather than gun regulation.
Of course, the NRA is taking a chance if it does become part of legislation. Who knows what might happen. Apparently they figure ATF is worth the chance to put the whole thing to sleep again.
Excuse my ignorance (from a Canadian perspective), but when does one need a bump stock? To shoot a herd of deer or bisons?
How are the bump stocks rated? in bps (bullets or bisons per second)?
-
Excuse my ignorance (from a Canadian perspective), but when does one need a bump stock? To shoot a herd of deer or bisons?
How many people really need an 850hp Ferrari that goes 225mph? Bump stocks are used on gun ranges because people get a kick out of firing what seems like an automatic weapon. They also have bragging rights. Like that Ferrari. Or a 36mp Nikon.
-
Alan, you're watching way too many Hollywood movies. :)
I am?
"An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization"
-
How many people really need an 850hp Ferrari that goes 225mph? Bump stocks are used on gun ranges because people get a kick out of firing what seems like an automatic weapon. They also have bragging rights. Like that Ferrari. Or a 36mp Nikon.
Ferrari I can understand, even a 36MP Nikon. However, they are more expensive than a bump stock.
-
Ferrari I can understand, even a 36MP Nikon. However, they are more expensive than a bump stock.
Since Las Vegas, I understand that bump stocks are being sold out all over the country. Everyone's buying them before they are made illegal. Usually you can keep things you bought as it's "grandfathered" in as legal for previous purchases. The same thing happened with the AR-15 rifle.
-
I am?
"An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization"
Maybe you should move to Mexico, it's probably safer. :)
In how many of those home invasions was the homeowner able to stop the crooks using the 10-round magazine in their AR-15?
-
Maybe you should move to Mexico, it's probably safer. :)
In how many of those home invasions was the homeowner able to stop the crooks using the 10-round magazine in their AR-15?
Mexico isn't safer for me. I've been there twice and nearly died twice from Montezuma's Revenge. Well, I thought I wanted to die anyway. :)
I suppose you feel safer with a 15 or 30 round magazine than a 10 round. It's probably overkill, :) On he other hand, if you're a poor shot, you might need those extra rounds. Also, a burglar's going to think twice if he sees you with an AR-15 rather than a sissy handgun. The loudest sound he'll ever hear is when you load that first round in the chamber. You won't need to fire the gun. He'll be gone.
-
When are you guys going to stop that obsession with the Constitution clause and its interpretation? It is not the Constitution, it is not sacred, it can be changed. It is not NRA. What you need to understand is a simple truth: the people of the United States want guns. The majority. Period. End of story. That's why it is difficult to change the Constitution. Not because it is sacred. Not because of the NRA. But because the people of the United States do not want it changed.
-
When are you guys going to stop that obsession with the Constitution clause and its interpretation? It is not the Constitution, it is not sacred, it can be changed. It is not NRA. What you need to understand is a simple truth: the people of the United States want guns. The majority. Period. End of story. That's why it is difficult to change the Constitution. Not because it is sacred. Not because of the NRA. But because the people of the United States do not want it changed.
Actually, a majority want some form of improved/increased gun controls from the latest polls I saw. But not enough to amend the constitution.
You are 100% correct, though, that the underlying driver is that many Americans want their guns and they aren't going to let anyone take their toys away no matter what.
-
It will be interesting to see if the manufacturer of the Bump Stock is sued by victims of the Las Vegas shooting. Most firearms are exempt from tort liability because of various legislative actions but I don't believe those apply in this case. It's a small company with sales of $10M/year. Would not surprise me at all to see him sued.
-
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly about ensuring states had a 'well-regulated' militia, i.e. a citizens' army, to offer protection for the nation in the absence of a standing army. Being well regulated implies a knowledge of who has what.
Bill, you really need to read up a bit on U.S. history before you make a statement like this one. The second amendment had nothing to do with protecting the U.S. with a "well-regulated militia."
-
I said "going forward" as it will be very difficult if not impossible to track the existing gun owners. This is a simple database problem and thus an easy technical solution. Gun dealers would have to register each sale. This is currently done for automobiles. It is the only way that one can determine whether someone is accumulating a small arsenal and of what type of weapon. Law abiding citizens would have no worry other than those that harbored paranoid thoughts about the government.
So if I become a dictator, I'll know exactly who owns weapons, and I'll be able to send my brownshirts around to those folks and either collect their arms or shoot them. If that sounds paranoid then you need to read up on German history.
-
So if I become a dictator, I'll know exactly who owns weapons, and I'll be able to send my brownshirts around to those folks and either collect their arms or shoot them. If that sounds paranoid then you need to read up on German history.
+1
Of course, those on the left only want the government to have weapons for exactly that reason. Of course, they won't talk about the real reasons they want to ban weapons for people. They only talk about how dangerous weapons are. It's a head fake.
Most people today don't know that it was President Franklin Roosevelt who tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 with his cronies so he can rule the government. Fortunately he failed. Congress stopped him. Then one realizes that the nicest people can turn out to be the biggest autocrats or dictators if you give them a half a chance. One can only tremble thinking about what this country would look like if he was successful. Of course those on the left call him a great president. Well, they're the ones who believe in an all-powerful central government, a government who has all the weapons. Protecting the 2nd Amendment is an investment in future liberty.
Oh, it was Roosevelt's 4 terms as President, something no president ever dared to do before (2 was the max), that encouraged the country to Amend the Constitution to limit a president to two terms of four years each. Washington, our greatest president, humbly refused to run for a third term even though he would have won. He felt that presidents are not kings, should not become president for life, and others should lead. He set a great example that was followed by every president afterwards until the narcissist and autocrat Franklin Roosevelt.
-
So if I become a dictator, I'll know exactly who owns weapons, and I'll be able to send my brownshirts around to those folks and either collect their arms or shoot them. If that sounds paranoid then you need to read up on German history.
Yes, just like we will be in danger of having our cars seized because the government knows that we own a particular make and model. It's always easy to draw out false equivalences when looking at controversial issues such as gun ownership. I would ask you the simple question, should an individual be able to own an unlimited number of guns? The Supreme Court has never said this. If one carefully reads Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller v District of Columbia one is struck by the following:
On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
The doors are open to gun regulation but of course this is unlikely to happen because of the NRA's desire to permit unlimited ownership
-
It's too late.
You can't cancel millions of weapons even if you do render them illegal, which no government, either state or federal appears to have the will to do.
Oh yes you can.
Australia did it in 1996.
They started by getting all the states together with the federal government after a mass shooting in Tasmania. They agreed to outlaw many weapons, and much tough regulations for those that were still available.
It took three and half months after Port Arthur, for those gun control laws to be passed, with a groundswell of bipartisan support from all sides of politics.
This happened because of the exact sentiment that's being expressed right now over Las Vegas. The exact same despair at the pointless and preventable loss of life that happened at a mass shooting gave politicians the will to change the law.
There was at first a straight gun buy back program. The federal government PAID people to return their guns before they outlawed them. They were then destroyed. There was an amnesty on any illegal weapons as well. You could just walk into a police station and over over a weapon no questions asked. Thousands of weapons were turned in.
And since then, there haven't been any mass shootings in Australia. None. ZERO. Is it really worth the price of you having the freedom to own a weapon to defend yourself when the cost is school shootings, the highest incidence of gun violence in the entire western world ? It's not talked about at all, but self harm in the US by gun is astonishingly higher than anywhere else in the world too. How would you having a gun to defend yourself have made diddly squat difference in a scenario like Las Vegas ?
None.
Why does the US have a gun problem ? Why do these numbers not horrify Americans even before Las Vegas ?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
Here's a comic take that tells that story. But it's essentially VERY relevant to this debate. You'll hear the exact same arguments from Australian pro gun sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA
As a dual Australian US citizen, that was born in the US, grew up in Australia and remembers very well the time that gun control changed in Australia, I can only hope that we don't loose more people in horrific acts of violence like this for common sense to come to those in the US that can make this change.
Rocket Launchers are very tightly controlled. We don't have mass rocket launcher massacres.
Hand Grenades are tightly controlled. We don't have hand grenade killings.
Military assault rifles are freely available and guess what....
JB
-
Yes, just like we will be in danger of having our cars seized because the government knows that we own a particular make and model.
Exactly, Alan. As long as the government has a registry of things we own that might be useful to the state, we're always in danger of having those things confiscated for use by a dictatorial regime.
I think it's incredibly naive to believe our nation is immune to this kind of thing. I was stationed in Canada in 1959. A couple of my troops went hunting one winter morning and did something that at least on the face of it was illegal. Their guns were confiscated on the spot along with the car they'd driven. At that time, no such thing could have happened in the U.S., at least until after a trial and conviction. Now, check what's happening in our own country with civil forfeiture. In 1959 I wouldn't have believed this. That's called naivety. Big time!
-
So if I become a dictator, I'll know exactly who owns weapons, and I'll be able to send my brownshirts around to those folks and either collect their arms or shoot them. If that sounds paranoid then you need to read up on German history.
Russ, as a student of German history, are you not then concerned about the rise of nationalist fervor and divisive rhetoric in American politics? Were those tactics not, in large part, responsible for Hitler's success? If, as has been reported, the Russians sought to sow social discord, fear and chaos through fake social media accounts, it seems that candidate/President Trump was/is willingly complicit with that strategy.
+1
Of course, those on the left only want the government to have weapons for exactly that reason. Of course, they won't talk about the real reasons they want to ban weapons for people. They only talk about how dangerous weapons are. It's a head fake.
Most people today don't know that it was President Franklin Roosevelt who tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 with his cronies so he can rule the government. Fortunately he failed. Congress stopped him. Then one realizes that the nicest people can turn out to be the biggest autocrats or dictators if you give them a half a chance. One can only tremble thinking about what this country would look like if he was successful. Of course those on the left call him a great president. Well, they're the ones who believe in an all-powerful central government, a government who has all the weapons. Protecting the 2nd Amendment is an investment in future liberty.
Alan, do you really think "the left" in America wants gun control because they crave a dictator? Are Jews, who have a longstanding aversion to guns -- the lowest rate of gun ownership among all religious groups -- and who voted overwhelmingly for Roosevelt, BTW, hoping for a new Hitler? I think not. And, as you have already pointed out, there are checks and balances to abuse of power long before citizen militias would be necessary.
Speaking of militias, there are quite a few in the US already.
-
They started by getting all the states together with the federal government after a mass shooting in Tasmania. They agreed to outlaw many weapons, and much tough regulations for those that were still available.
It took three and half months after Port Arthur, for those gun control laws to be passed, with a groundswell of bipartisan support from all sides of politics.
Hi John, The difference is that even with a "groundswell of bipartisan support" you can't do it in the U.S. You'd have to change the Constitution, and that ain't easy. "A groundswell of bipartisan support" managed to bring on prohibition, the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution, but it takes a huge majority in both the House and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called by two thirds of the states even to get an amendment on a ballot. The amendment then requires approval by a three-fourths majority of the states to pass. Ain't gonna happen!
-
Russ, as a student of German history, are you not then concerned about the rise of nationalist fervor and divisive rhetoric in American politics? Were those tactics not, in large part, responsible for Hitler's success?
You betcha, Rare. Antifa is doing their best to ape the brownshirts, as is Black Lives Matter. The difference is that they're not facing a defeated, economically ruined people.
-
I think it's incredibly naive to believe our nation is immune to this kind of thing. I was stationed in Canada in 1959. A couple of my troops went hunting one winter morning and did something that at least on the face of it was illegal. Their guns were confiscated on the spot along with the car they'd driven. At that time, no such thing could have happened in the U.S., at least until after a trial and conviction. Now, check what's happening in our own country with civil forfeiture. In 1959 I wouldn't have believed this. That's called naivety. Big time!
In the USA, if you're black, unarmed, and not committing a crime, the cops just shoot you dead. :)
-
You're not helping Canada to look very informed, Robert.
-
You are 100% correct, though, that the underlying driver is that many Americans want their guns and they aren't going to let anyone take their toys away no matter what.
Exactly, Phil. And they want their beer too. That's why the 18th amendment finally went down in flames.
Another thought: any time you prohibit people from having something, it increases their desire for that something. As one gun dealer pointed out: Obama was the most effective gun salesman of all time. Why? Because he kept talking about prohibiting certain kinds of gun sales.
Keep it up left-wingers. Gun sales already are rising.
-
Another thought: any time you prohibit people from having something, it increases their desire for that something. As one gun dealer pointed out: Obama was the most effective gun salesman of all time. Why? Because he kept talking about prohibiting certain kinds of gun sales.
Keep it up left-wingers. Gun sales already are rising.
Then why does the NRA fight so hard to keep gun manufacturers exempted from tort liability?
-
How about some actual evidence for that, Alan. Just saying it doesn't make it so, though there are plenty of people who'd like things to work that way.
-
Okay, let's look at mass shootings that are an unsolvable problem in the U.S., "the only country with a mass shooting problem" (Vegas is going to raise the U.S. total a bit, but not enough to change the comparisons):
Norway: 67 dead, total vics 100, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 1.94.
Switzerland: 14 dead, total vics 32, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 .40.
U.S.: 487 dead, total vics 992, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 .31.
I could go on with this, citing places like Mexico where the figures are out of sight.
Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.
-
Quote from: RSL on Today at 10:59:24 AM
Another thought: any time you prohibit people from having something, it increases their desire for that something. As one gun dealer pointed out: Obama was the most effective gun salesman of all time. Why? Because he kept talking about prohibiting certain kinds of gun sales.
Keep it up left-wingers. Gun sales already are rising.
Then why does the NRA fight so hard to keep gun manufacturers exempted from tort liability?
Alan G.: Your question to the post you quoted makes no sense. It's a non-sequitur. What did you mean?
-
Alan G: My question is what does exempting manufacturers from tort liability have to do with prohibitions? They're separate issues. Prohibitions prevent gun owners from legally purchasing certain guns or add ownership or use impediments of one kind or another. Exempting tort reliability keeps manufacturers in business. It's in the NRA and gun owners interest to keep arms and bullet manufacturers in business. Without them there would be no access to guns or ammunition. Of course, that's something the left wing wants to accomplish if they can't get the Supreme Court or Congress to eliminate guns. If people sue just over the fact they make these things because nut jobs use them illegally and put manufacturers out of business, then that would not serve the NRA or gun owners. Using tort lawsuits is just a sneaky way of the left accomplishing what they cannot do democratically. But then the left isn't really interested in democracy or free speech, only power.
-
Hey, no worries guys. It's all good. The USA has no gun problems and Canada, France, Germany, etc. are dictatorships. I get it.
It's a long weekend here in Canada (our Thanksgiving), colours are late this year, almost none here in Ottawa this year yet, highly unusual autumn, but I'm going to enjoy the weekend anyway.
Keep your eyes open for that totalitarian take-over. Be sure to give us an early head's up in between re-loads if you can. ;)
-
Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.
Of course they don't want to talk. They'll have to acknowledge that it's nut jobs who kill people, not guns. All these laws are answers to the last attack. When access to planes won't work anymore, they switch to individuals using guns. When guns might not work, they switch to trucks. People will always find a way around current protection. We're fighting the last battle all the time. Does anyone really think that getting rid of bump stocks is going to slow down attacks? OK, it's a good idea to ban them. But dozens would have been killed anyway. All the laws against filing, background searches, stopping crazy people, none of these worked although they were in effect. We had a "normal" guy who turned out crazy. Even if we were able to prevent this guy from not getting any guns, he had explosives and would have used those. Or a truck or whatever.
-
Hey, no worries guys. It's all good. The USA has no gun problems and Canada, France, Germany, etc. are dictatorships. I get it.
It's a long weekend here in Canada (our Thanksgiving), colours are late this year, almost none here in Ottawa this year yet, highly unusual autumn, but I'm going to enjoy the weekend anyway.
Keep your eyes open for that totalitarian take-over. Be sure to give us an early head's up in between re-loads if you can. ;)
Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Union, Eastern European countries under Communism, Nazi Germany, etc.
By the way, I was up in Massachusetts, the Berkshire Mountains, last week and everything was green. I was very disappointed no fall colors to shoot.
-
Says it all (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2017/article36394260/#c-image-0)
-
I was very disappointed no fall colors to shoot.
Good one...
-
Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.
Number of victims per capita is a poor measurement since the victims really only measure the efficiency of the shooter, or the random number of victims at any given scene . Number of shooters, incidents or frequency would be a better indicator since those numbers are more directly related to the likelihood of violence.
They may show similar ratios - I have no idea. But the numbers would be more convincing either way.
-
U.S.: 487 dead, total vics 992, mass shooting total victims per 100,000 .31.
[..]
Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.
Gun violence in the US (wikipedia) 2013: 33,363 deaths 73,505 non-fatal firearm injuries.
So victims per 100,000 isn't 0.31 (ignoring your disingenuity), but
23.2 injuries per 100,000 and 10.6 deaths per 100,000
*/ 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days
*/ 6 other mass shootings this week alone
*/ Of the approximate 33,000 gun violence deaths that take place each year, only about 500 (or 1.5%) come from mass shootings.
Since 1968, when these figures were first collected, there have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths on US territory. Since the founding of the United States, there have been 1,396,733 war deaths. That figure includes American lives lost in the revolutionary war, the Mexican war, the civil war (Union and Confederate, estimate), the Spanish-American war, the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, as well as other conflicts, including in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti.
(Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1994 (gun death data), Congressional Research Service, 2010 (conflict deaths). Numbers updated by Politifact in 2015)
Even if you deduct the suicide rate, you still get 3.5 per 100,000 against your selectively refined 0.31 ..
-
Manoli, evidently you missed the "mass shootings" part.
-
Manoli, evidently you missed the "mass shootings" part.
No, Russ, I didn't - I said I was 'ignoring your disingenuity'.
-
Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.
That's because they're crap and lack any reference or credible basis.
And you're not paying attention when it's pointed out to you, see post # 258:
You're doing your best, that's for sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/
-
No, Russ, I didn't - I said I was 'ignoring your disingenuity'.
In other words you don't want to deal with the statistics. Well, that's okay. The fact is that mass shootings take place even in countries where guns are closely controlled and people aren't allowed to defend themselves. I can understand why you don't want to deal with that fact.
-
And you're not paying attention when it's pointed out to you, see post # 258:
Oh yeah. That one that plucks stuff out of the air and pretends to deal with the U.S. without mentioning mass attacks elsewhere. That the one, Pieter?
-
Apparently, homemade bump stocks are easy to make. What do we ban now?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EFRwxKMWTgQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EFRwxKMWTgQ)
-
Interesting. Nobody seems to want to talk about these statistics. All they want to talk about is how few guns there are in places like Norway and Switzerland.
Compared to the US, everywhere else has fewer guns per person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
The thing with small populations is that a single incident has a huge impact, but it creates these little meme-worthy pockets of stats for people to try to say "ah ha! gotcha!", but any reasonable analysis of the situation to contextualise the numbers soon puts that to rest.
-
You can believe that if you want to, Phil. Anyone can believe anything, or, as the Duke said to the lady: "If you believe that, madam, you will believe anything." Proportionality is important, and the most important thing about what happened in Norway was that there was nobody within reach with a gun who might have stopped that massacre.
I'm spending too much time spinning wheels on this idiocy, so I'm gonna quit and leave you guys to Trump howevermany and other similar entertainments here on LuLa. By by. Sawadee.
-
You can believe that if you want to, Phil. Anyone can believe anything, or, as the Duke said to the lady: "If you believe that, madam, you will believe anything." Proportionality is important, and the most important thing about what happened in Norway was that there was nobody within reach with a gun who might have stopped that massacre.
I'm spending too much time spinning wheels on this idiocy, so I'm gonna quit and leave you guys to Trump howevermany and other similar entertainments here on LuLa. By by. Sawadee.
Come on, Russ. This is basic stats. Small sample groups fail to show long term trends. It's a demonstrable fact that the US has far more guns per person yet it has about twice the level of violent crime as, say, Australia (around 0.38% per capita compared to 0.20%) but you have a 4:1 (almost 5:1) level of armed citizens compared to us. No amount of personal weapons would have helped in Vegas unless someone happened to be outside the door and was able to break in, assuming they even knew what was happening. Most Israeli's do national service and carry weapons regularly, but it doesn't stop attacks or crime.
Instances of armed citizens preventing crimes or actively engaging other criminal shooters is so rare it makes national and international headlines compared to the actual events in the US that are so common they don't always even make the local news.
Also, what happens when someone opens fire and then someone opens fire on them and then someone reacts and opens fire on the person opening fire on the original shooter and so on?
-
In the USA, if you're black, unarmed, and not committing a crime, the cops just shoot you dead. :)
This thread is degenerating from merely stupid to colossally idiotic.
-
Then why does the NRA fight so hard to keep gun manufacturers exempted from tort liability?
Beacuse the very idea is idiotic. The only time a gun manufacturer is responsible is if the gun malfunctions due to a production or design defect and explodes in the shooter face.
-
That's because they're crap and lack any reference or credible basis...
And you have any reference to disprove that credibility ?
-
Beacuse the very idea is idiotic. The only time a gun manufacturer is responsible is if the gun malfunctions due to a production or design defect and explodes in the shooter face.
Or if they do something to otherwise deliberately enable someone to circumvent the law (which they're not). Manufacturing a legal thing without in any way misleading people shouldn't be any problem.
They shouldn't need tort protection, of course (any attempt should be laughed out of court), but the US tort system is broken.
-
The amendment then requires approval by a three-fourths majority of the states to pass. Ain't gonna happen!
Doesn't something HAVE to change ?
How can you just let preventable injustice like this stand ? Do we just keep going with the same mentality ?
Why is it OK to shrug your shoulders and say too hard ?
Only Americans seem to think their gun culture is normal. It's only in America you get phrases like "price of freedom" and " to defend my home"
America has an all-pervading gun problem.
The answer isn't to arm everyone. It's only in the US where this insane logic pervades.
In London, the vast majority of police aren't even armed ! Imagine that. A whole police force that has kept the peace, dealt with terrorism attacks and open urban warfare on home soil for decades that largely gets by somehow without guns !? And still be highly respected ? How can it be ?
In 2016 UK police fired 7 bullets (not including those fired accidentally or to put down dangerous or injured animals.)
"The Metropolitan Police carried out some 3,300 deployments involving firearms in 2016. They didn't fire a single shot at a suspect. It's a world away from the United States, where cops killed 1,092 people in 2016, according to figures compiled by The Guardian."
What I found fascinating in this NBC article (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551) was the same idea being kicked around here about preventing a police state by NOT having armed police.
"In a free and democratic society, there is going to be a balance between democracy, freedom and openness, and a police state — and none of us want to live in a police state," said Brian Dillon, former head of the Met's firearms command who now runs the counterterrorism consultancy Rubicon Resilience.
Police don't need to be armed if the very vast majority of those they confront aren't armed. What a weirdo logic that must be for Americans who prefer to kill their citizens first and then check if they're armed later.
JB
-
And you have any reference to disprove that credibility ?
Just look at the post I'm refering to, no timeframe, no source, cherry picking events etc. etc. Too much figuring makes the figures he posted lack credibility.
-
I'm spending too much time spinning wheels on this idiocy, so I'm gonna quit and leave you guys to Trump howevermany and other similar entertainments here on LuLa. By by. Sawadee.
You already promised that several days ago in post #21, I wonder when you'll be back :P
But I can see that this is thread is going to degenerate into Trump II type mental retardation, so I'm outta here.
-
Why do folks still want to establish a precise, understandable motive for the LasV massacre that will fit into terrorism, political or religious boundaries and definitions? Can't anyone accept the concept that a lifetime of being an accountant might be all that it takes to utter that final, devastating scream of explosive emotion, however meticulous or not the planning may have been?
I can understand perfectly that success doing something can become its own prison, and the greater the success the more inescapable the noose. Who knows how many people out there are slowly losing their minds to year upon year of boredom and the treadmill? Give 'em guns and thereby the easy mode to go violently crazy becomes theirs, in a very dramatic way...
Regarding armed police: there, I think the UK has it wrong. The job of the police is to win confrontation, at whatever cost, in defence of the citizen and the laws of the land.
Falling Down with Michael Douglas worked because it had something to say.
Spain has visibly armed police in the streets, and in 36 years I have never seen a policeman draw his gun nor have I felt concerned that he has one. If anything, I believe it will allow him to overcome somebody trying to do me or anyone else harm. Why? Because the public doesn't carry arms under its coat and so a shootout is highly unlikely. The police gun, if anything, should be assurance to the citizen that a big thug won't beat a small cop or force him to look the other way at the wrong time. Of course, all cops should be highly trained marksmen, just in case.
10 cents.
-
Spain has visibly armed police in the streets, and in 36 years I have never seen a policeman draw his gun nor have I felt concerned that he has one. If anything, I believe it will allow him to overcome somebody trying to do me or anyone else harm. Why? Because the public doesn't carry arms under its coat and so a shootout is highly unlikely. The police gun, if anything, should be assurance to the citizen that a big thug won't beat a small cop or force him to look the other way at the wrong time. Of course, all cops should be highly trained marksmen, just in case.
Yes, but given that the police there has forcibly attempted to block people from entering a referendum, which according to my totally irrelevant personal opinion can never be considered illegal no matter how hard a government is trying to convince us otherwise, it kind of plays into the argument of the proponents that an armed public can stand up to dictatorship.
Again, I am NOT a proponent of armed public, but merely paraphrasing the arguments. I personally do not believe with current state of warfare, that an armed public is in any way a match for a military willing to oppress a people.
-
Beacuse the very idea is idiotic. The only time a gun manufacturer is responsible is if the gun malfunctions due to a production or design defect and explodes in the shooter face.
Maybe that's an idea, a kind of built-in Russian Roulette. One in 10.000 guns is guaranteed to explode in your face, as a design feature...
That should have an effect on trigger-happy Americans. And one could exempt guns for export, to not hurt international trade, or not.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Compared to the US, everywhere else has fewer guns per person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
The thing with small populations is that a single incident has a huge impact, but it creates these little meme-worthy pockets of stats for people to try to say "ah ha! gotcha!", but any reasonable analysis of the situation to contextualise the numbers soon puts that to rest.
Yes, one can hope for some sensible logic, but these subjects revolve more around 'feelings' by ordinary people, and a huge lobby by the NRA to influence the minds/feelings of the people and to finance/bribe legislators. The media of course also have an influence as a messenger, and a big factor remains CULTURE.
Since our cultural mindset is formed in the first 10 years of our life, it is amazing that things like education and properly raising kids doesn't get more emphasis. But maybe one needs to become aware first?
They raise the world's happiest children - so is it time you went Dutch?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/raise-worlds-happiest-children-time-went-dutch/
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why do folks still want to establish a precise, understandable motive for the LasV massacre that will fit into terrorism, political or religious boundaries and definitions? Can't anyone accept the concept that a lifetime of being an accountant might be all that it takes to utter that final, devastating scream of explosive emotion, however meticulous or not the planning may have been?
I can understand perfectly that success doing something can become its own prison, and the greater the success the more inescapable the noose. Who knows how many people out there are slowly losing their minds to year upon year of boredom and the treadmill? Give 'em guns and thereby the easy mode to go violently crazy becomes theirs, in a very dramatic way...
Regarding armed police: there, I think the UK has it wrong. The job of the police is to win confrontation, at whatever cost, in defence of the citizen and the laws of the land.
Falling Down with Michael Douglas worked because it had something to say.
Spain has visibly armed police in the streets, and in 36 years I have never seen a policeman draw his gun nor have I felt concerned that he has one. If anything, I believe it will allow him to overcome somebody trying to do me or anyone else harm. Why? Because the public doesn't carry arms under its coat and so a shootout is highly unlikely. The police gun, if anything, should be assurance to the citizen that a big thug won't beat a small cop or force him to look the other way at the wrong time. Of course, all cops should be highly trained marksmen, just in case.
10 cents.
Absolutely correct! Not providing guns to cops might have worked for a long time in UK, but in these times to let them wander the streets without an effective defense is at best shortsighted. It will take a real tragedy before they act.
In eastern Canada, in 2014 Justin Bourque, a 24-year-old from Moncton, dressed in camouflage and carrying a rifle, shotgun, and 3 boxes of ammunition shot five officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), killing three and severely injuring two. The officers were on a routine patrol, equipped just with the service pistols that were no match for Bourqe's long rifle and shotgun.
The RCMP was prosecuted on four Labour Code charges stemming from that shooting spree. It was accused of failing to provide officers and supervisors with the appropriate equipment and training in an active-shooter event. Just last month the judge ruled that the national police force failed to provide its members with adequate use-of-force equipment and user training.
There was a similar case in 2009 in Alberta which left four RCMP officers dead; the report recommended officers be immediately given training and equipped with high-powered firearms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/29/rcmp-found-guilty-of-violating-labour-code-in-2014-moncton-shooting.html
-
Earlier in this thread Slobodan asserted that the entire gun discussion was pointless because the basic truth was that Americans love guns, and that was the end of it. Everyone keeps saying that Americans love guns and that guns were present in American culture right from the start. My question is, is this actually true? How do we know this for a fact?
But assuming that it is true, and it could easily be true, why would that preclude controls on gun sales?
It has been asserted that Americans need guns for self-protection. But NRA-backed legislation prevents CDC from studying anything to do with guns. If people truly believed that guns prevent crime and are useful for self-protection, shouldn't they encourage studies by respected research organizations? Wouldn't it be useful to the cause to have some CDC research to back those claims.
-
It boggles the mind that anyone sane would think that something like the Center for Disease Control (CDC) would be the proper place to study anything related to guns. Except, perhaps, skin rash or allergies from expousure to metal. Mental allergies, however, don't count.
-
... a lifetime of being an accountant might be all that it takes to utter that final, devastating scream of explosive emotion...
...10 cents.
Ouch, Rob! That hurts! Being a finance manager is the closest thing to an accountant, so too close to home ;D ;D ;D
Then again, "Most men lead a life of quiet desperation." And some are bound to explode.
By the way, how do you know it is "10 cents" and not 9 or 11? You better hire an accountant, Rob! 😉
-
It boggles the mind that anyone sane would think that something like the Center for Disease Control (CDC) would be the proper place to study anything related to guns. Except, perhaps, skin rash or allergies from expousure to metal. Mental allergies, however, don't count.
So why pass legislation to block them from doing the research. Let them compile the data. Once it's out there, including how they collect and analyze it, which is standard operating procedure, everyone could have a look at it, criticize it, agree with it, etc.
You, and others, seem to have formed a preconceived notion of what they can or can't do.
-
So why pass legislation to block them from doing the research. Let them compile the data. Once it's out there, including how they collect and analyze it, which is standard operating procedure, everyone could have a look at it, criticize it, agree with it, etc.
You, and others, seem to have formed a preconceived notion of what they can or can't do.
Of course I did. They are federally funded with a specific purpose, clear from their name. As a tax payer, through Congress, I have every right to see that they spend their money on things they are paid to do, and not spend their resources on things that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Short of skin rashes from gun handling being a contagious disease.
-
It boggles the mind that anyone sane would think that something like the Center for Disease Control (CDC) would be the proper place to study anything related to guns. Except, perhaps, skin rash or allergies from expousure to metal. Mental allergies, however, don't count.
Do you even know what the CDC is responsible for? This has to rank up there as one of the more ill-informed comments on this thread.
-
For those interested in digging into some of the existing data and polling, the Pew Research Foundation has a very good website: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/ Of course it is doubtful that anyone who will post in response to this website is unlikely to go and read some of the postings. Too bad really.
-
Do you even know what the CDC is responsible for? This has to rank up there as one of the more ill-informed comments on this thread.
Please educate us. I tend to derive the purpose from the name, silly me.
-
Americans and Europeans come from different backgrounds. Personal guns helped Americans conquer its territories, provided protection to the home and family from other dangerous humans and hungry animals and put meat on the table to feed their families. By the time guns came around, Europe was long conquered and developed, basically an agrarian society. If guns were used in combat, it came from European governments making war on other European governments. It was more personal with Americans.
So growing up with guns, many Americans especially in rural areas think nothing of them. They would no more think of getting rid of them as most Americans would think of giving up their dangerous autos. You have a bigger chance of getting killed or maimed by autos than guns. Yet, we love our cars. I know I do. Also, the founders who wrote the Constitution experienced first hand in the American revolution how a citizen army could throw off the yoke of British tyranny, who at that time had the most powerful army in the world. They feared centralized government and understood an armed citizenry was the last hope against a centralized government intent on ruling over everything. Hence the 2nd Amendment.
Does anyone believe Catalan will gain independence without an armed people. It's not only that guns in the hand of regular people would be needed to overthrow a tyrannical regime. Just the fact the populace is armed prevent regimes from resorting to dictatorial rule. What do you think the Kurds would say if the government in Iraq mandated that the Kurds have to turn in their weapons and comply with all rule from Baghdad? Whether you agree with Sunni Iraqi terror against Shias or not, do you think they would be treated better if the Shia Iraqis removed their personal weapons? Do you think they would have more or less independence? Does anyone think that the unarmed Chinese or Cubans will get a multi-party political system anytime soon?
Interestingly, the gun "mystique" and culture is supported by a liberal Hollywood. While producers make movies supporting the glory of the gun culture to get rich, its members hypocritically argue that guns should be outlawed. They're a joke.
So Americans will tweak the laws here and there. But not much is going to change because enough Americans want to keep their guns.
In the end in America, European history, culture, experience and beliefs don't matter. America has a constitution that protect an armed citizenry. Right now, there is not a desire to do away with that
-
Americans and Europeans come from different backgrounds...
Europeans have a serfdom mentality in their genes. They are still only Queen or King's "subjects." ;)
-
Europeans have a serfdom mentality in their genes. They are still only Queen or King's "subjects." ;)
You raise another reason for American feelings about guns. And that's the independent spirit of Americans. It's not just the fact they fought for independence and conquered a continent. It's that immigrants, like yourself, left their original homes to comes here. It must require huge faith and an independent spirit to leave your ancestral home. To take risks and gamble like that requires a special personality. Millions of immigrants did exactly that and had that kind of risk-taking mentality that added to the American gene pool. So even if an immigrant wound up in urban NYC, like my grandparents did, where guns weren't a normal part of the household, the frontier spirit still remained. So someone like myself who was sheltered in an urban setting surrounded by millions of people and few dangerous animals could still want to maintain that independent "cowboy" thinking, a frontier mentality that includes personal protection with guns even if I only owned a toy cap pistol. Do American kids still play cowboys and Indians?
-
Europeans have a serfdom mentality in their genes.
Genes ???
Which would mean that non-Native Americans (i.e. everybody except American Indians) are no different, since most came from Europe ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Of course I did. They are federally funded with a specific purpose, clear from their name. As a tax payer, through Congress, I have every right to see that they spend their money on things they are paid to do, and not spend their resources on things that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Short of skin rashes from gun handling being a contagious disease.
If it was the case that the CDC is not mandated to do this kind of research, then there was no need for the NRA to back specific legislation to ban them from doing so.
-
Genes ???
Which would mean that non-Native Americans (i.e. everybody except American Indians) are no different, since most came from Europe ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
Read my last post. Europeans that came to America had different genes than most who stayed in Europe. They were the risk takers as well as smart people. Combined with an expanding population and territory, great natural resources and good guns, America, mostly made up of former Europeans at the time, was able to surpass Europe itself. We got the cream of the European crop. Thank you.
-
Read my last post. Europeans that came to America had different genes than most who stayed in Europe. They were the risk takers as well as smart people. Combined with an expanding population and territory, great natural resources and good guns, America, mostly made up of former Europeans at the time, was able to surpass Europe itself. We got the cream of the European crop. Thank you.
Some of them were risk-takers, some of them were starving because they lacked job opportunities and they fled. When one has nothing to lose, why not take a gamble? Nothing to do with genes, more to do with culture.
Cheers,
Bart
-
We got the cream of the European crop. Thank you.
Right, brilliantly immortalised by your current president! ;-/
( Or should that read "immortified"?)
-
Right, brilliantly immortalised by your current president! ;-/...
Gene mutation? ;)
-
Europeans have a serfdom mentality in their genes. They are still only Queen or King's "subjects." ;)
Pleeeze! "Subject" has many more meanings than that! I don't recall anybody in my "old country" feeling under any royal thumb; it's so far removed today (that thumb) that all it does do is provide a sense of country, of continuity and of a ceremonial figurehead that's less likely to need or indulge in corruption. I do not speak for other monarchs in other lands. I'd rather a contemporary model of British King or Queen than any US president. You already know what I feel about processes like democratic elections: you get the lowest common denominator buying into the best and biggest lies.
Royalty today is great for tourism (the French can no longer offer current royalty, much to their chagrin) and sells many holidays in London and the home counties. Britain will never be a hot, summer beach location despite wishful lies to the contrary from a variety of PR officials in rainy northwestern "resorts" with little Eiffels. Mother Nature has decreed that it can never become a popular sun, sea and sexy beach destination. (I exclude here crazed landscape photographers and old ladies permanently on tour on watercolour seminars.) Well, perhaps the sex beach bit is possible as final act in an alcoholic night in some promenade bar, another reason to avoid those same sands even in daylight.
Now insofar as serfdom being genetic: in that case, as much of the American population derives from European roots - relatively close ones - then I guess the mentality exists there too, to this day. Having no royal ass to kiss, it presumably fixates upon the Kardashian Collection instead.
Takes your money, makes your choice...
;-)
-
Some of them were risk-takers, some of them were starving because they lacked job opportunities and they fled. When one has nothing to lose, why not take a gamble? Nothing to do with genes, more to do with culture.
Cheers,
Bart
I disagree with some of your point. During the Nazi era, many Jews who should have seen the handwriting on the wall refused to flee because they couldn't imagine leaving their place of birth. The fear of the unknown was scarier than the fear of the known. Other, risk-taking Jews, threw in the towel and took their chances knowing they would have to start over again making a new life. When Castro took over Cuba, most of the industrious, business minded Cubans, doctors, etc. fled Cuba to start over here. America received the most talented Cubans to our benefit. That's the point I was making that America because it is the land of opportunity and freedom has attracted the best and the smartest from around the world from all societies. While there is more incentive to come here if you're being abused, the chance of a better life has attracted millions even from countries where there are no real impediments for living a good life. It's jus that America attracts extra-special people from Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere.
-
Read my last post. Europeans that came to America had different genes than most who stayed in Europe. They were the risk takers as well as smart people. Combined with an expanding population and territory, great natural resources and good guns, America, mostly made up of former Europeans at the time, was able to surpass Europe itself. We got the cream of the European crop. Thank you.
Did you not know that parts of colonial America served as a penal colony? Did you not know that all the Irish and Italian immigrants were looked down upon as not worthy of admittance. A lot of the really innovative immigrants came to America during the 20th century.
-
...
Now insofar as serfdom being genetic: in that case, as much of the American population derives from European roots - relatively close ones - then I guess the mentality exists there too, to this day. Having no royal ass to kiss, it presumably fixates upon the Kardashian Collection instead.
Takes your money, makes your choice...
;-)
My wife is fascinated by the current royalty, especially Harry and his brother, wives and children. She cares not for the Kardashians, really just low-lifes. I think if Harry came to America and ran for King, my wife would vote for him. She'd have me out on weekends watching him parade by in the royal coach. Of course, I could use it to my advantage. I'd insist I get a new long range zoom to shoot his picture. And I'd need a new photo printer to print out and frame his royal highness on the wall. Would I have to give up my Bronx accent? :)
-
Did you not know that parts of colonial America served as a penal colony? Did you not know that all the Irish and Italian immigrants were looked down upon as not worthy of admittance. A lot of the really innovative immigrants came to America during the 20th century.
Very few immigrants who came here were criminals. Most of those were sent to Australia. :)
Regarding innovative immigrants, I don't understand your point. Maybe you can explain it. The immigrants who came were smart and industrious and risk takers whether the people living here wanted them or not. These new people helped make America great and were eventually accepted like all other immigrants.
-
Absolutely correct! Not providing guns to cops might have worked for a long time in UK, but in these times to let them wander the streets without an effective defense is at best shortsighted. It will take a real tragedy before they act.
I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation. That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!
I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice. They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it. A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it. The numbers don't lie.
It's a notion called "policing by consent". Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"
Police are citizens in uniform.
They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate. And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios. They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed. Pretty simple idea really...
Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...
Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?
It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.
JB
-
I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation. That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!
I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice. They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it. A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it. The numbers don't lie.
It's a notion called "policing by consent". Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"
Police are citizens in uniform.
They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate. And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios. They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed. Pretty simple idea really...
Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...
Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?
It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.
JB
British police: yes, I know about that argument; my next-door-neighbour out here in Mallorca was a retired Superintendent in a Midlands force, and he was an avid watcher of the Dixon of saga... he used to regale us with tales of the bad lads that they used to catch and the old "fair cop!" statement from them when they were caught. He was as far behind the times today as you can imagine. I don't believe he ever deat with a gentleman from the Caribbean, the Middle East or from the African continent in his entire career.
I've also watched the occasional cop on Sky TV (I have given up on that channel at breakfast because for them, it's a chat show) declaring exactly what you stated: they don't want to be armed. I'm not sure if they mentioned the policing by consent bit, but that's a concept almost amusing in its naivety were it not for the fact that thugs are not that naive themselves. Quensbury Rules form not a part of the service the poor old public expects and needs. An armed response unit is always going to be several minutes after the fact on the very best of days; isn't that obvious? Too late is too late, however many armed guys turn up too late. It may have been on France24 tv that somebody on this topic of armed US citizens pointed out that in many places, especially in the sticks, even if you can call a cop, he could be forty minutes away, by which time your family has been butchered, so guns at home do make sense.
Times and criminal minds have changed. If the cops of today can't keep up with or accept the way of today's world then they should be moved aside, and people found who can understand where we are today. I can only reiterate my Spanish experience re cops: they are often armed and have never made me feel in danger from them. Were I a criminal, then I think it would be very different and I would be watching my step rather carefully. Which I think is the whole idea.
-
Times and criminal minds have changed. If the cops of today can't keep up with or accept the way of today's world then they should be moved aside, and people found who can understand where we are today.
I'm glad your opinion is formed by watching a brit TV series and talking to your neighbour.
Here's the numbers.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/number_of_justifiable_homicides/192
It's a staggering difference. Why can't you accept that it works ? That's what the numbers say ?
Fear.
You're playing the fear card. "Too late is too late" and "40 mins away from cops so you're going to be butchered"
This paranoia about not being able to meet force with force is really the heart of the American fear....Not being able to bring a gun to a gun fight.
British coppers do it all the time and don't get killed and don't kill their criminals either.
I used the MET as an example of a culture that doesn't not celebrate guns, where criminals DO carry guns and cause violence and yet are dealt with routinely by police that don't bear arms.
This is proof that it does work. It has worked better than it does in the US for many years. Instead you see that it won't work in the near future. Fear.
Not sure if you're aware, but some parts of Australia have individual cattle stations that are larger than some european states. And it's longer than 40 mins. before the police may turn up. We're remote in many ways.
Australian police are armed, but they still don't kill like US police do. Here's the Australian numbers.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/number_of_justifiable_homicides/10
I'm using police as an example of gun culture response as a bigger issue. Policing isn't the issue.
Guns are the issue.
-
I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation. That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!
I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice. They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it. A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it. The numbers don't lie.
It's a notion called "policing by consent". Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"
Police are citizens in uniform.
They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate. And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios. They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed. Pretty simple idea really...
Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...
Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?
It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.
JB
I agree with some of the things you said. First that Americans want guns and are willing to except the damage caused by them. Others may not understand this view. But I explained it in one of my earlier posts.
I'm not clear on your point about the police, "It's a notion called "policing by consent". Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"
Police are citizens in uniform."
In democracies such as GB and the US, unlike Cuba let's say, the power of the state comes from democratically elected officials who represent us. We define the kind of police we want, whether they should be armed, how they act or whatever. For example, when general "stop and frisk" police procedures in NYC for concealed guns became politically opposed by the black community, it was stopped. When criminals became better armed than the police, they switched from revolvers with 6 shots to semi-automatic handguns with 15 shots. Most of the public accepts that and feel as I do it was the right thing to do. However, it's abhorrent to me when I see NYC police carrying sub-machine guns in areas open to terrorist attack. It reminds me we're not so safe. But the public so far is accepting police armed that way due to the times. I've accepted it too. But I just don't like that it has to be done.
Additionally, GB has been a homogenized society of centuries. Cultural procedures regarding criminals and police are more ingrained. However, it has changed. Many GB police carry guns when they didn't before because of past IRA terrorism, I believe. With so many non British immigrants, the police may have to arm up more. So things change, even in GB.
-
I guess this kind of comment really exemplifies the US mindset about guns and the need for defense or dealing with confrontation. That it's inevitable that they'll need to carry guns !!
I doubt you'll see this change, because the MET (london police) have no guns by choice. It's an active informed choice. They have a different policing philosophy and they're proud of it. A police culture that embraces the idea of de-escalating conflict even if it's armed, rather than leaping immediately to a forceful response. They do this KNOWING that it may well put them in harm's way and yet society as a whole is better for it. The numbers don't lie.
It's a notion called "policing by consent". Put another way ""the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"
Police are citizens in uniform.
They do have armed police that can respond when needed and appropriate. And yet they don't need to shoot as many of their citizens in the face of very similar criminal scenarios. They're also much less likely to have to deal with citizens that are armed. Pretty simple idea really...
Blowing past the staggering statistic that UK (or Australian or Canadian or New Zealand if we're anti Euro) police don't kill their citizens in the huge numbers that happen in the US is disingenuous to the idea being posited about the number of accessible guns in a community...
Why is it acceptable to have so many gun deaths in the US ?
It's because American citizens want guns and they really are happy to pay the price of gun violence.
JB
John, please read and quote my whole post, including two very real instances in Canada where almost ten outgunned policemen were killed and injured by solo shooters with powerful guns. Unfortunately, it took those two tragedies before RCMP officers were given a more effective protection requipment.
And compare that with the example of Kevin Vickers, the well trained sergeant-at-arms who quickly and effectively neutralized an intruder with a gun in the Canadian Parliament. After the shooting, he entered the nearby Conservative caucus meeting room and said: "I engaged the suspect and the suspect is deceased." The next day, MPs gave him a standing ovation and later he was named a Canadian ambassador to Ireland.
"I've known Kevin for a very long time," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, touting his vast security and management experience and "tremendous acts of heroism." The leaders of all other political parties praised Kevin Vicker's quick action as well.
-
It is interestiong to note that all of this talk of banning bump stocks is silly since you can still bump fire without a bump fire stock. So this new law will accomplish what exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YLgLj8KVY
-
Many GB police carry guns when they didn't before because of past IRA terrorism, I believe.
"And yet more than 90 percent of the capital's police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun."
10% isn't many.
And I'm not advocating a gun free police force. Of course there will be situations which require and armed and forceful response. But in a culture where guns aren't easily available it seems that doesn't have to happen nearly as often as it does in the US. I point to the difference in policing activity only as another yardstick for measuring gun culture.
JB
-
"And yet more than 90 percent of the capital's police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun."
10% isn't many.
And I'm not advocating a gun free police force. Of course there will be situations which require and armed and forceful response. But in a culture where guns aren't easily available it seems that doesn't have to happen nearly as often as it does in the US. I point to the difference in policing activity only as another yardstick for measuring gun culture.
JB
Yes it's true. If you confiscate all the guns from the people, the police only need a few guns to keep order and allow politicians who pay them to rule the country. But unlike much of the world, GB had been a country that took out its aggression on other countries rather than each other. They accepted a monarchial system of governance.
-
It is interestiong to note that all of this talk of banning bump stocks is silly since you can still bump fire without a bump fire stock. So this new law will accomplish what exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YLgLj8KVY
It seems to work but even this guy who practiced a lot seems to have difficulty in handling the recoil and aiming accurately. Bump stocks work easier and better and real machine guns even better than bump stocks.
-
It seems to work but even this guy who practiced a lot seems to have difficulty in handling the recoil and aiming accurately. Bump stocks work easier and better and real machine guns even better than bump stocks.
Yes he made a fool of 'shooting America'
maybe the next will do better..
-
It is interestiong to note that all of this talk of banning bump stocks is silly since you can still bump fire without a bump fire stock. So this new law will accomplish what exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YLgLj8KVY
There are also ways to convert non-rapid fire assault weapons into automatic weapons as well (though it's involved and could lead to a weapon blowing up in one's face). The key thing is to target magazine capacity for regulation.
-
Not sure if you're aware, but some parts of Australia have individual cattle stations that are larger than some european states. And it's longer than 40 mins. before the police may turn up. We're remote
In Western Australia, there's a policing area (beat, if you like), that's larger than the UK and there are 4 police assigned to it on an 2-on/2-off roster.
Anna Creek, currently the largest cattle station (ranch/farm) in Australia is 7 times larger than the largest one in Texas - in fact, it's larger than 5 US states. It's much smaller than the previous largest which was broken down into smaller areas through sales - that was Victoria River Downs which was about 80% larger again, and at the time was larger than 9 US states. Just 17 staff run Anna Creek, by the way.
So, yeah, as John points out - remote has a whole different meaning out here.
-
Yes it's true. If you confiscate all the guns from the people, the police only need a few guns to keep order and allow politicians who pay them to rule the country. But unlike much of the world, GB had been a country that took out its aggression on other countries rather than each other. They accepted a monarchial system of governance.
You don't actually know any British history, do you? It's OK - it's obvious, no need to confirm.
-
... Now insofar as serfdom being genetic: in that case, as much of the American population derives from European roots - relatively close ones - then I guess the mentality exists there too, to this day...
Yes, of course... the American Left ;)
-
... I don't believe he ever dealt with a gentleman from the Caribbean, the Middle East or from the African continent in his entire career...
And that's key. Civilized-cops concept might work in a civilized-citizens society. Let the medieval types in and the reality becomes quite different.
-
There are also ways to convert non-rapid fire assault weapons into automatic weapons as well (though it's involved and could lead to a weapon blowing up in one's face). The key thing is to target magazine capacity for regulation.
Yes and the good guys will have 10 round mags and the bad guys will still find a way to get 100 round drums.
-
I can understand why Chris locked my tongue-in-cheek gun thread on guns, but I'm sorry he did it immediately after I asked this question:
". . . the Norway massacre only lasted an hour and a half, so there was time to go home and get your sporting gun and stop the attack. And only 68 kids were murdered while everybody waited for the cops or for somebody with a sporting gun to show up."
Nobody seems to want to deal with the implications that arise out of that event, and I'll tell you this: considering the out-migration of people from the Middle East, mass shootings throughout Europe and Scandinavia are going to increase, possibly exponentially. I hope we all can learn to cope with the result.
-
I'm glad your opinion is formed by watching a brit TV series and talking to your neighbour.
What a wonderfully imaginative bit of misquoting!
I said that my old neighbour, a retired police Superintendent, used to watch the tv series; I never did, being always too busy making a living 24/24 bar sleeping time. However, I did sometimes catch the odd bit somewhere and it reeked of 50s values of stiff upper lips etc.
I lived just outside London during the blitz; I have a lot of memories of wartime shit going down, and I see no reason to imagine that death by civilian gun would appeal any the more than by one of Hitler's doodlebugs.
-
I can understand why Chris locked my tongue-in-cheek gun thread on guns, but I'm sorry he did it immediately after I asked this question:
". . . the Norway massacre only lasted an hour and a half, so there was time to go home and get your sporting gun and stop the attack. And only 68 kids were murdered while everybody waited for the cops or for somebody with a sporting gun to show up."
Nobody seems to want to deal with the implications that arise out of that event, and I'll tell you this: considering the out-migration of people from the Middle East, mass shootings throughout Europe and Scandinavia are going to increase, possibly exponentially. I hope we all can learn to cope with the result.
Russ, do you know the Norwegian shooter was a Norwegian National (and a right wing nut/facist)? Nothing to do with immigration and easterners entering. I like your cristal ball, but only for entertainment value, not for credibility :P
And while the 68 death in this mass shooting should be condemned in the strongest possible sense transposing the US statistics on Norway would probably have led to a lot more death then the 68 in this one mass shooting, not all in one time but slowly trickling in and therefore not giving you opportunity to cherry pick one event rather than looking at the big picture.
-
And that's key. Civilized-cops concept might work in a civilized-citizens society. Let the medieval types in and the reality becomes quite different.
Yes, you are right: it was the point I was making. We do not live in a relatively civilized city experience anymore: all that has changed, as have the boroughs where the old, indigenous people were later to become the rare minorities because they had no money to get themselves out.
In parallel, runs the fantasy that the police are doing something that contravenes expectations of "civil rights" by stopping Middle Eastern lookers and Africans, when nobody else in the UK seems to be running around trying to shoot or blow us all to fuckeroo. Should we, instead, ask our fuzz to stop and search the white ruins sleepìng on benches, in city store entrances and under bridges in a search for explosive vests?
Unless one lives in Disneyland with Snow White, one searches those who are deemed likely to be guilty.
For several years after we came to live in Spain, my son and I used to fly back and forth regularly between here and the UK; we both wore jeans... I had long hair (I had hair - did you read that?!!!) and so did my lad. We were always stopped after luggage retrieval. I used to grin and ask the security if it was the jeans; they never replied, of course, just smiled back in non-committed manner, which was fine by us; I think they really secretly wanted to handle Hasselblads for a few seconds. My case told them that's what they'd find. Which of itself, points out how more innocent those days were; today, I would no more openly tout a Hassy or Leica badge than a Rolex one.
;-)
Rob
-
Yes, you are right: it was the point I was making. We do not live in a relatively civilized city experience anymore: all that has changed, as have the boroughs where the old, indigenous people were later to become the rare minorities because they had no money to get themselves out.
In parallel, runs the fantasy that the police are doing something that contravenes expectations of "civil rights" by stopping Middle Eastern lookers and Africans, when nobody else in the UK seems to be running around trying to shoot or blow us all to fuckeroo. Should we, instead, ask our fuzz to stop and search the white ruins sleepìng on benches, in city store entrances and under bridges in a search for explosive vests?
Unless one lives in Disneyland with Snow White, one searches those who are deemed likely to be guilty.
For several years after we came to live in Spain, my son and I used to fly back and forth regularly between here and the UK; we both wore jeans... I had long hair (I had hair - did you read that?!!!) and so did my lad. We were always stopped after luggage retrieval. I used to grin and ask the security if it was the jeans; they never replied, of course, just smiled back in non-committed manner, which was fine by us; I think they really secretly wanted to handle Hasselblads for a few seconds. My case told them that's what they'd find. Which of itself, points out how more innocent those days were; today, I would no more openly tout a Hassy or Leica badge than a Rolex one.
;-)
Rob
The same thing here in America. Although the Las Vegas shooter disproves that theory at least once in a while.
-
Rob, do you know the Norwegian shooter was a Norwegian National (and a right wing nut/facist)? Nothing to do with immigration and easterners entering. I like your cristal ball, but only for entertainment value, not for credibility :P
And while the 68 death in this mass shooting should be condemned in the strongest possible sense transposing the US statistics on Norway would probably have led to a lot more death then the 68 in this one mass shooting, not all in one time but slowly trickling in and therefore not giving you opportunity to cherry pick one event rather than looking at the big picture.
Um, yes, I did know the guy who shot the kids on the island was white; but then again, so was Hitler and his score was infinitely higher.
So by quoting your island killer, you yourself are using one example in order to crack my "crystal ball". Kinda ironic, that. I wonder if you see it, especially as I never mentioned your home-grown cowboy.
To clarify, and to avoid the need for more of the same later:
a. I am in perfect agreement with an armed police presence; I think they should all be very well trained, and carry the weapons deemed appropriate to stop any fruitcake trying to kill people on the street or anywhere else;
b. I do not believe that Joe Public should be permitted to carry arms;
c. there are times where certain citizens should be permitted to keep a weapon at home;
d. country dwellers with the reality of an immediate access to hunting or farming should also be allowed shotguns; rifles are already sufficiently available to professional gamekeeprs out in the wilds of the glens of wherever.
Rob
-
I can understand why Chris locked my tongue-in-cheek gun thread on guns, but I'm sorry he did it immediately after I asked this question:
". . . the Norway massacre only lasted an hour and a half, so there was time to go home and get your sporting gun and stop the attack. And only 68 kids were murdered while everybody waited for the cops or for somebody with a sporting gun to show up."
Nobody seems to want to deal with the implications that arise out of that event, and I'll tell you this: considering the out-migration of people from the Middle East, mass shootings throughout Europe and Scandinavia are going to increase, possibly exponentially. I hope we all can learn to cope with the result.
No, it wasn't culpa tua; it culpa mea: I equated owning a big gun with a possible penis extension. To make it worse, I also quoted a Ferrari rather than a Corvette. Neither the NRA nor GM liked that, so off it flew, back into the ether!
We live in dangerous times, Russ.
;-)
Rob
-
Um, yes, I did know the guy who shot the kids on the island was white; but then again, so was Hitler and his score was infinitely higher.
So by quoting your island killer, you yourself are using one example in order to crack my "crystal ball". Kinda ironic, that. I wonder if you see it, especially as I never mentioned your home-grown cowboy.
To clarify, and to avoid the need for more of the same later:
a. I am in perfect agreement with an armed police presence; I think they should all be very well trained, and carry the weapons deemed appropriate to stop any fruitcake trying to kill people on the street or anywhere else;
b. I do not believe that Joe Public should be permitted to carry arms;
c. there are times where certain citizens should be permitted to keep a weapon at home;
d. country dwellers with the reality of an immediate access to hunting or farming should also be allowed shotguns; rifles are already sufficiently available to professional gamekeeprs out in the wilds of the glens of wherever.
Rob
Rob, oops and apologies. I was responding to Russ, not Rob (you). Now corrected (but I can't correct it in the quote of my original post). And actually I think I agree with all 4 points you made :)
-
Russ, do you know the Norwegian shooter was a Norwegian National (and a right wing nut/facist)? Nothing to do with immigration and easterners entering. I like your cristal ball, but only for entertainment value, not for credibility :P
And while the 68 death in this mass shooting should be condemned in the strongest possible sense transposing the US statistics on Norway would probably have led to a lot more death then the 68 in this one mass shooting, not all in one time but slowly trickling in and therefore not giving you opportunity to cherry pick one event rather than looking at the big picture.
I'm not sure, Pieter, whether you're really missing the point or trying to convert the question to one you'd rather deal with. The point has nothing to do with the nationality of the shooter or with comparisons to mass shootings with continuous fire weapons. In this case the shooter stalked and picked off kids for an hour and a half. The point is that no one but the shooter had a weapon. Had someone else been armed, the whole thing would have ended on a different note. THAT's the big picture, Pieter, and nobody seems to want to tackle it.
-
I'm not sure, Pieter, whether you're really missing the point or trying to convert the question to one you'd rather deal with. The point has nothing to do with the nationality of the shooter or with comparisons to mass shootings with continuous fire weapons. In this case the shooter stalked and picked off kids for an hour and a half. The point is that no one but the shooter had a weapon. Had someone else been armed, the whole thing would have ended on a different note. THAT's the big picture, Pieter, and nobody seems to want to tackle it.
No Russ, the big picture is that if you transpose the US statistics of widespread gun use and gun death on Norway (and thereby improve the chances of someone else beeing armed there) a whole lot of more people would have died over time then the 68 that did this time. That's the point you are unwilling to see.
-
... In this case the shooter stalked and picked off kids for an hour and a half. The point is that no one but the shooter had a weapon. Had someone else been armed, the whole thing would have ended on a different note...
Indeed, Russ.
Consider the latest church shooting (Tennessee)... By the way, in the previous one (Charleston), a white idiot walks into a black church and kills everyone (nine people). The Left is outraged, shrieks about "white supremacy," etc. As a result, dozens of statutes and flags across the country are removed, damaged or defaced. It is a front page news for weeks.
Change of scenery, a black idiot, a Muslim immigrant, walks into a white church and shoots who he managed to shoot (six people wounded, one murdered in the parking lot prior to entering the church). The result: page 27 news. Not a squeak from the Left.
So, what's different (apart from the hypocritical media)?
Perhaps a quote from the USA Today (bold mine):
A churchgoer, 22-year-old Robert Engle, confronted Samson as he entered the church. Samson pistol-whipped Engle who struggled with him. During the struggle, Samson shot himself.
After Samson shot himself, Engle ran out to his vehicle, retrieved his own weapon, went back into the church and subdued Samson until police arrived.
-
Indeed, Russ.
Consider the latest church shooting (Tennessee)... By the way, in the previous one (Charleston), a white idiot walks into a black church and kills everyone (nine people). The Left is outraged, shrieks about "white supremacy," etc. As a result, dozens of statutes and flags across the country are removed, damaged or defaced. It is a front page news for weeks.
Change of scenery, a black idiot, a Muslim immigrant, walks into a white church and shoots who he managed to shoot (six people wounded, one murdered in the parking lot prior to entering the church). The result: page 27 news. Not a squeak from the Left.
So, what's different (apart from the hypocritical media)?
Perhaps a quote from the USA Today (bold mine):
"A churchgoer, 22-year-old Robert Engle, confronted Samson as he entered the church. Samson pistol-whipped Engle who struggled with him. During the struggle, Samson shot himself.
After Samson shot himself, Engle ran out to his vehicle, retrieved his own weapon, went back into the church and subdued Samson until police arrived."
But had this Samson had a haircut earlier in the day? It could have ended in a different way.
Rob
-
Indeed, Russ.
Indeed, this incident would have ended a whole lot different, but how many other people would have been killed in lieu by widespread gun ownership and use over time? Just transpose the general US statistics on Norway and you'll get a hunch (and it's not less). So stop cherry picking one incident in isolation to defend your point, look at the big picture.
-
Regarding innovative immigrants, I don't understand your point. Maybe you can explain it. The immigrants who came were smart and industrious and risk takers whether the people living here wanted them or not. These new people helped make America great and were eventually accepted like all other immigrants.
I am catching up on this thread for fun, and I got a really big kick out of your armchair eugenics analysis of immigration.
If you sat in a different armchair, you could argue that it's the people who stayed behind to repair their societies that were the better breeding stock, rather than just leave for greener pastures.
But never mind that. Your position is intriguing. Why are so against immigration now. The people who manage to escape hell hole war zones must be highly selected for ingenuity and drive, you (and Trump) should be welcoming them.
-
Indeed, this incident would have ended a whole lot different, but how many other people would have been killed in lieu by widespread gun ownership and use over time? Just transpose the general US statistics on Norway and you'll get a hunch (and it's not less). So stop cherry picking one incident in isolation to defend your point, look at the big picture.
Okay, Pieter, let's "transpose the statistics" in the 68 (not 58 as in Vegas) killed in the Norway hunt to the U.S. Norway's population is about 5.33 million. U.S. population is about 323 million. Doing a simple ratio, in the U.S. the Norway hunt would have yielded 4,120 dead instead of 68. That's about the same level of rationality I see in your post. I might also add that in Norway the weapon was a Ruger Mini 14, .223 carbine. It didn't even have a bump stock, so the guy was picking off his vics one at a time. THAT's the BIG PICTURE! And nobody was able to stop it until the cops finally arrived after an hour and a half.
-
... until the cops finally arrived after an hour and a half.
Because, as the British ones, they probably don't carry arms, so they had to rush back to their police stations and locked safes and retrieve it first. On bicycles, as, you know, they had to worry about their carbon footprint. God forbid they had speedboats or helicopters, but that be irresponsible to the environment. ;)
-
I am catching up on this thread for fun, and I got a really big kick out of your armchair eugenics analysis of immigration.
If you sat in a different armchair, you could argue that it's the people who stayed behind to repair their societies that were the better breeding stock, rather than just leave for greener pastures.
But never mind that. Your position is intriguing. Why are so against immigration now. The people who manage to escape hell hole war zones must be highly selected for ingenuity and drive, you (and Trump) should be welcoming them.
That's a good question, Bob. First, I'm not against immigration. I'm only here because my great grandparents came here. Also, we need people to help pay for my Social Security benefits. :) Also, I don't think I was selective about immigration other than filtering out those who might be terrorists. Others I wouldn't want are people who really have no incentive to become American. They come here to sponge off of our largesse and then often return to their own lands. A century ago, those benefits didn't exist. You came here because you wanted to stay and made a permanent decision to become Americans. You wanted to become an American citizen. America's political and economic freedoms have always been a magnet for people around the world to start over or use their original homeland education and experience for greater reward. They then stay and their children become patriotic Americans by right and experience of birth. It's been a huge advantage to us as we often get the cream of the crop from other lands.
-
Okay, Pieter, let's "transpose the statistics" in the 68 (not 58 as in Vegas) killed in the Norway hunt to the U.S. Norway's population is about 5.33 million. U.S. population is about 323 million. Doing a simple ratio, in the U.S. the Norway hunt would have yielded 4,120 dead instead of 68. That's about the same level of rationality I see in your post. I might also add that in Norway the weapon was a Ruger Mini 14, .223 carbine. It didn't even have a bump stock, so the guy was picking off his vics one at a time. THAT's the BIG PICTURE! And nobody was able to stop it until the cops finally arrived after an hour and a half.
come on Russ, you never get the big picture by cherry picking one isolated incident. Transposing the US homicide rate of 4.88 / 100k (the result of widespread gun use and ownership) on Norway will give you about 260 per year, a whole lot more then the average 30/year they have now and still a lot more then the 68 Breyvik killed. Mass shootings or smaller incidents doesn't really matter, the people killed are just as dead