|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote:On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote:
I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them. I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem. I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate. Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: Show nested quote +The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk.
Let's just talk about a few things. What definition of militia are you using? Contemporary? When the Constitution was written the militia was known as every-able bodied male in the land. At the same time, regulated did not mean what it means today (for the most part). The Heller decision is in line with most of the Framers. As people around here know I'm not too fond of most of them (I'd be a pretty strident Anti-Federalist en.wikipedia.org in that time), but if you look at the laws of the time and extrapolate to our time, we have much more imposition than they did concerning this topic. The Government has usurped the peoples responsibility of defending themselves, and in doing so has become an Empire - a menace to the world and at home. Most of this traces back to 1861, but that's besides the point. During that time the people (aka the militia) held their own community armories - yes, with cannon and ordnance. The best rifle of the day was legal and in common use. Contrast that today where military rifles are banned (select fire) and ordnance is heavily controlled and banned. Couple that with the standing army, and you talking about our gun culture today leading to current circumstance whereas back then, they were....somehow less strident on this issue? That argument to me makes zero sense considering they owned the equivalent of Howitzers, M16's, M240's and were [the people] the primary defense of the country. Think of it like 1790 America as present-day Switzerland (albeit much less restrictive).
You don't think "gun free zones" have anything to do with the rise of shootings? If you put a sign outside your house saying that you keep your doors unlocked, you don't think you'll see a higher incidence of burglaries of people with doors unlocked than locked? There is probably some aspect of culture involved as well, but it's not "gun culture". If you take away the Drug War gun homicides are a laughably small %. Like, not even relevant (statistically).
|
On February 27 2018 06:50 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 05:51 Danglars wrote:On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote:On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote:
I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them. I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem. I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate. Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk. And what did you find wrong in Heller when the majority argued it was in keeping with the founders intentions vs it’s a “perversion” of “what your founders had intended?” Please don't misquote me. I called a specific widespread category of modern American gun culture a perversion of what your founders had intended, not the decision in Heller. I used Heller as an example that the portion of "militia" is for all intents and purposes irrelevant from a legal point of view since then which, while a sound logical argument, frames the 2nd amendment as a generic right to bear arms, not a specific one for specific purposes. I consider this decision a symptom of it being irrelevant from a cultural point of view since a much longer time. The prefatory clause is de facto made irrelevant with Heller and turned into "any use of guns in traditionally lawful purposes is fine". I'm with Justice Stevens in that if the founders had that intention the prefatory clause would sound different or not exist at all. Considering that decision was 5-4 in the end I'm curious how you seemingly are able to see it as clear cut and obvious.
That culture is well-rooted in America and in world history, as well as tied to the reasoning in Heller. Fascistic governments are very concerned with disarming their citizens before doing as they please for their own desires or ostensibly their own citizens' benefit. But that's kind of beside the point. The argument made for the majority was very cogent and covered the logic from the framers step-by-step. The opposite construal doesn't fit. Scalia adds (past) dictionary definitions of the relevant terms and historical quotes from the time period showing why it's the only real reading of the amendment, and rebuts the pathetic attempt by Stevens to dither on alternative readings. The preface fits with the following clause, and signees to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would have no questions to the meaning. And like the preface to a chapter or book, the meat is in what follows. It almost feels like it was written more recently to hear Scalia call out petitioners for "ignoring the historical reality," because that's exactly what's happening today.
Show nested quote +Or what’s your opinion on post-Columbine training on LEOs entering the school to challenge the shooter vs this months decision to stay outside the schools and wait during the event? Are we talking about regular police units when you mention "LEOs"? My opinion is that if you have to train your regular police to deal with what is for all intents and purposes similar to a terrorist attack then something is already very, very wrong. Challenging an active shooter should not by default be expected to be done by regular citizens or regular police units, that's what special units are there for. However, considering there were 65 school shootings in 2017 and considering we had 18 in the last 8 weeks alone then you might just be right that training regular police for what amounts to anti-terror operations might very well be reasonable. The ideal case would be regulations, laws and practices that aim to reduce the amount of shootings now before it escalates even further while also beefing up special units that are trained to deal with this. But I guess when it's frequent enough then any decent person with a gun is good enough in a pinch. Question: What do you believe the United States does, does not or has, has not that causes it to have so many school shootings compared to other western nations?
Your only comment is that they shouldn't have to be trained to respond to an event like this? My my my. Keep private citizens from responding, and excuse police units from not responding. And people say Trump's bad rofl.
The "18 in the last 8 weeks alone" is activist group fairy tale misleading the public that school shootings are very prevalent. Educate yourself. Americans, and foreigners hoping to inform themselves, should know gun control lobby groups will lie to you to try and confirm your biases. If you want to defend a 31-year-old's suicide in his parked car as a school shooting, be my guest. You'd at least be honest, without any common ground with which to argue.
I think the US struggles with youth culture and adolescent masculinity that today's academics and leaders don't understand and truly don't care about. Problems with fatherless homes is also a huge aspect, in my opinion. Straight up education in morals and the life worth living as well. And, last but not least, the US exchanges more security for more freedoms compared to other western nations. These should be seen to exist in contention if the US and other western nations were more honest in their dialogue.
|
On February 27 2018 10:29 Danglars wrote:Your only comment is that they shouldn't have to be trained to respond to an event like this? My my my. Keep private citizens from responding, and excuse police units from not responding. And people say Trump's bad rofl. The "18 in the last 8 weeks alone" is activist group fairy tale misleading the public that school shootings are very prevalent. Educate yourself. Americans, and foreigners hoping to inform themselves, should know gun control lobby groups will lie to you to try and confirm your biases. If you want to defend a 31-year-old's suicide in his parked car as a school shooting, be my guest. You'd at least be honest, without any common ground with which to argue. I think the US struggles with youth culture and adolescent masculinity that today's academics and leaders don't understand and truly don't care about. Problems with fatherless homes is also a huge aspect, in my opinion. Straight up education in morals and the life worth living as well. And, last but not least, the US exchanges more security for more freedoms compared to other western nations. These should be seen to exist in contention if the US and other western nations were more honest in their dialogue.
Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury. Three others appeared to be intentional shootings but did not hurt anyone. Two more involved guns — one carried by a school police officer and the other by a licensed peace officer who ran a college club — that were unintentionally fired and, again, led to no injuries. At least seven of Everytown’s 18 shootings took place outside normal school hours.
So, 5 shootings where people got hit.
3 shootings where people were not.
2 shootings that were accidental discharge of weapons on school premise.
7 outside "normal school hours", but does not state if students or teachers were still on premise or who or what was involved.
So basically 10 counts of weapons being discharged while a school is open, 7 that do not exclude student or teacher involvement, and one that isn't mentioned.
|
That is a unacceptable number of guns in schools in a very short period of time, no matter how we decide to classify it.
|
On February 27 2018 11:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 10:29 Danglars wrote:Your only comment is that they shouldn't have to be trained to respond to an event like this? My my my. Keep private citizens from responding, and excuse police units from not responding. And people say Trump's bad rofl. The "18 in the last 8 weeks alone" is activist group fairy tale misleading the public that school shootings are very prevalent. Educate yourself. Americans, and foreigners hoping to inform themselves, should know gun control lobby groups will lie to you to try and confirm your biases. If you want to defend a 31-year-old's suicide in his parked car as a school shooting, be my guest. You'd at least be honest, without any common ground with which to argue. I think the US struggles with youth culture and adolescent masculinity that today's academics and leaders don't understand and truly don't care about. Problems with fatherless homes is also a huge aspect, in my opinion. Straight up education in morals and the life worth living as well. And, last but not least, the US exchanges more security for more freedoms compared to other western nations. These should be seen to exist in contention if the US and other western nations were more honest in their dialogue. Show nested quote +Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury. Three others appeared to be intentional shootings but did not hurt anyone. Two more involved guns — one carried by a school police officer and the other by a licensed peace officer who ran a college club — that were unintentionally fired and, again, led to no injuries. At least seven of Everytown’s 18 shootings took place outside normal school hours. So, 5 shootings where people got hit. 3 shootings where people were not. 2 shootings that were accidental discharge of weapons on school premise. 7 outside "normal school hours", but does not state if students or teachers were still on premise or who or what was involved. So basically 10 counts of weapons being discharged while a school is open, 7 that do not exclude student or teacher involvement, and one that isn't mentioned.
And if you reclassify school shootings to mean any gun discharged near a school, you overgeneralize a topic and subtract any meaningful policy draws. This is the kind of nonsense that gun control advocates spew to alter statistics.
A disturbed individual acquires a gun and goes to a school to kill (mostly) defenseless people
becomes
you should feel scared that loaded weapons are discharged at or around schools.
A lot of this recent tragedy's dialogue is regurgitated lies/half-truths and propaganda that was present in others. The focus on the speed of bullets is a new wrinkle and unexpected for me.
Shit, with that feet per second, the pistol doesn't stand a chance lol!
+ Show Spoiler +
I love the internet. It's already being parodied.
|
I'd think accidental discharge is of major concern when it comes to policy and regulation, since that's one of the leading causes of gun related injury or death. Seems foolish to discuss any kind of gun laws on the assumption that good people are smart with guns.
But that was still only 2 of the 18 count.
|
Any death or injury caused by a gun should be counted in gun statistics. Just like car related deaths and injury.
|
DANGLARS
The threats of physical harm to others, his suicidal history (and conclusions from a behavioral health therapist that he didn’t post a risk), and mental health issues from his own calls to police and putting a gun to people’s heads in the past should get a look first and foremost. Then we can move on to new laws on guns (you can look at what I support in this very thread). I don’t think an attitude of pronouncing what he should’ve been found guilty of from the outside as a non-state resident is very helpful right now.
Totally agree with this post, its pretty much what I was trying to say. I'm down to talk about gun laws and such but I feel like this tragedy started way before guns got involved. It's starting to look like those poor people couldn't have had a worse police force looking out for them.
PS: I dunno how you guys do the good quotes thing I am not that forum savvy I guess hyuck.
|
On February 27 2018 10:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 06:50 r.Evo wrote:On February 27 2018 05:51 Danglars wrote:On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote:On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote:
I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them. I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem. I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate. Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk. And what did you find wrong in Heller when the majority argued it was in keeping with the founders intentions vs it’s a “perversion” of “what your founders had intended?” Please don't misquote me. I called a specific widespread category of modern American gun culture a perversion of what your founders had intended, not the decision in Heller. I used Heller as an example that the portion of "militia" is for all intents and purposes irrelevant from a legal point of view since then which, while a sound logical argument, frames the 2nd amendment as a generic right to bear arms, not a specific one for specific purposes. I consider this decision a symptom of it being irrelevant from a cultural point of view since a much longer time. The prefatory clause is de facto made irrelevant with Heller and turned into "any use of guns in traditionally lawful purposes is fine". I'm with Justice Stevens in that if the founders had that intention the prefatory clause would sound different or not exist at all. Considering that decision was 5-4 in the end I'm curious how you seemingly are able to see it as clear cut and obvious. That culture is well-rooted in America and in world history, as well as tied to the reasoning in Heller. Fascistic governments are very concerned with disarming their citizens before doing as they please for their own desires or ostensibly their own citizens' benefit. But that's kind of beside the point. The argument made for the majority was very cogent and covered the logic from the framers step-by-step. The opposite construal doesn't fit. Scalia adds (past) dictionary definitions of the relevant terms and historical quotes from the time period showing why it's the only real reading of the amendment, and rebuts the pathetic attempt by Stevens to dither on alternative readings. The preface fits with the following clause, and signees to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would have no questions to the meaning. And like the preface to a chapter or book, the meat is in what follows. It almost feels like it was written more recently to hear Scalia call out petitioners for "ignoring the historical reality," because that's exactly what's happening today.
It's a bit awkward when someone sees a 5-4 decision of the US Supreme Court and his immediate reaction is "the majority opinion (that I agree with) was cogent and logical but the minority opinion (which I disagree with) wasn't" - I can see logic and reason in both arguments, I just happen to believe the majority opinion is misguided, just like American gun culture itself is.
Show nested quote +Or what’s your opinion on post-Columbine training on LEOs entering the school to challenge the shooter vs this months decision to stay outside the schools and wait during the event? Are we talking about regular police units when you mention "LEOs"? My opinion is that if you have to train your regular police to deal with what is for all intents and purposes similar to a terrorist attack then something is already very, very wrong. Challenging an active shooter should not by default be expected to be done by regular citizens or regular police units, that's what special units are there for. However, considering there were 65 school shootings in 2017 and considering we had 18 in the last 8 weeks alone then you might just be right that training regular police for what amounts to anti-terror operations might very well be reasonable. The ideal case would be regulations, laws and practices that aim to reduce the amount of shootings now before it escalates even further while also beefing up special units that are trained to deal with this. But I guess when it's frequent enough then any decent person with a gun is good enough in a pinch. Question: What do you believe the United States does, does not or has, has not that causes it to have so many school shootings compared to other western nations? Your only comment is that they shouldn't have to be trained to respond to an event like this? My my my. Keep private citizens from responding, and excuse police units from not responding. And people say Trump's bad rofl.
This is the second time you seem to accidentally misunderstand what I wrote.
I said:
A) Regular police units should not be in the position to engage an active shooter at a school in the first place since that's a completely different job than day to day police work.
B) SWAT and similar teams are trained for this and should handle it whenever possible.
C) If you accept that shootings are a regular occurrence and don't believe in managing causes but only symptoms then any good person with a gun is good enough in a pinch, which includes regular police units.
I'm surprised this approach surprises you since it reflects how pretty much any other western nation handles terrorism or school shootings. Regular police units are not qualified or trained for these events, that's why units exist that train specifically for these events. Regular citizens are even worse, whether they own a firearm or not.
Here's a good question: How many shooting rampages, school or otherwise, were stopped by regular citizens shooting the perpetrator?
Over here it's 0% to my knowledge, but we're also only #13 on the list of weapons per capita with the US having three times as many weapons. Americans already have more than one gun per person living there and weapons per capita doubled since 1968 so surely the argument that more guns would fix this issue are backed up by evidence.
The "18 in the last 8 weeks alone" is activist group fairy tale misleading the public that school shootings are very prevalent. Educate yourself. Americans, and foreigners hoping to inform themselves, should know gun control lobby groups will lie to you to try and confirm your biases. If you want to defend a 31-year-old's suicide in his parked car as a school shooting, be my guest. You'd at least be honest, without any common ground with which to argue.
Thanks for the clarification. When in doubt we can always go back to 200+ shootings within the 21st century. Sure, around one shooting per month is better than two per week but it's still an absolutely atrocious and disgusting record.
I think the US struggles with youth culture and adolescent masculinity that today's academics and leaders don't understand and truly don't care about. Problems with fatherless homes is also a huge aspect, in my opinion. Straight up education in morals and the life worth living as well. And, last but not least, the US exchanges more security for more freedoms compared to other western nations. These should be seen to exist in contention if the US and other western nations were more honest in their dialogue.
What is a "struggling youth culture and adolescent masculinity" and why is it unique to the United States when compared to other western nations?
How many of the 200+ school shootings were committed because they grew up without a father? Could you refer to some kind of study on this?
What is "straight up education in morals and the live worth living"? Could you cite examples of countries that do that?
What security is the US exchanging for more freedoms compared to other western nations that is causing school shootings except the already mentioned gun culture? The US is already leading the world when it comes to percentage of the population that is in prison, so I don't believe you're referring to that form of freedom.
|
On February 27 2018 10:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote:On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote:
I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them. I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem. I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate. Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk. Let's just talk about a few things. What definition of militia are you using? Contemporary? When the Constitution was written the militia was known as every-able bodied male in the land. At the same time, regulated did not mean what it means today (for the most part). The Heller decision is in line with most of the Framers. As people around here know I'm not too fond of most of them (I'd be a pretty strident Anti-Federalist en.wikipedia.org in that time), but if you look at the laws of the time and extrapolate to our time, we have much more imposition than they did concerning this topic. The Government has usurped the peoples responsibility of defending themselves, and in doing so has become an Empire - a menace to the world and at home. Most of this traces back to 1861, but that's besides the point. During that time the people (aka the militia) held their own community armories - yes, with cannon and ordnance. The best rifle of the day was legal and in common use. Contrast that today where military rifles are banned (select fire) and ordnance is heavily controlled and banned. Couple that with the standing army, and you talking about our gun culture today leading to current circumstance whereas back then, they were....somehow less strident on this issue? That argument to me makes zero sense considering they owned the equivalent of Howitzers, M16's, M240's and were [the people] the primary defense of the country. Think of it like 1790 America as present-day Switzerland (albeit much less restrictive).
Yes, it's a result of gun culture that guns per capita doubled since 1968 in the US - not a result of people arming themselves so that the government has to be afraid of them. Many of the documents of the era touch one issue that comes up again and again: The fear of a tyrannic government that can't be overthrown because weapons are not available.
You're not going to win a war against your own military with pistols or by making equipment available to everyone, no matter how trained or untrained, that's what I criticize about simply ignoring those concerns. Without the context of a well-regulated militia and citizens being a threat to their own government you arrive at the conclusion that everyone should be armed. But that's not how it originally was written, nor what people at the time commented about.
You don't think "gun free zones" have anything to do with the rise of shootings? If you put a sign outside your house saying that you keep your doors unlocked, you don't think you'll see a higher incidence of burglaries of people with doors unlocked than locked? There is probably some aspect of culture involved as well, but it's not "gun culture". If you take away the Drug War gun homicides are a laughably small %. Like, not even relevant (statistically).
I'll ask you the same question I just asked Danglers: How many shooting rampages, school or otherwise, were stopped by regular citizens with a weapon? I'm even fine with ignoring all shootings that happened in gun free zones so we can get a decent look at what kind of percentage we're talking about.
For all intents and purposes most of the EU are "gun free zones" when it comes to the public space, yet somehow this doesn't attract all the shooting sprees when compared to the US. Now, admittedly I can see this being a factor in a country that celebrates guns like the US, but in general less guns doesn't mean more shootings. Of course there is an issue if there's so many guns and it's not properly regulated where they can and can't be due to in part logistical issues.
Where you're right is that I don't think glorifying guns is the only cultural issue. Other issues are how perpetrators are elevated and celebrated (again this image is at the top of the wiki article for the Columbine massacre - this is in the middle of the Virgina Tech one) and how victims are put in the spotlight as well.
This utterly insane media frenzy the US has around shooting sprees is a symptom of these things as well, since it feasts on people wanting it this way. I still remember for example how US media "covered" the Munich shooting in 2016. Back then it was CNN who claimed the shooter was Muslim and Fox who claimed he's a white nationalist, but the coverage as a whole was completely surreal. Notably neither of those accounts was actually true at that point in time.
In comparison German media focused on verifiable facts and doing proper journalism - partially because the German public would be outraged if our media would cover this type of event like US media does.
|
@Danglars:
- at what % of disturbed people / undisturbed people(within a country with lax fire arms laws) would you advocate for a restriction/ban on fire arms?. + Show Spoiler +he will dance around the bush because he has nothing here; any stance will have him lose his argument
- what chance, in %, has 'a people with guns' to defend itself if the gov. sets out to oust it?. + Show Spoiler +same as above he has nothing because his arguments have no meaningful value which means: he doesn't believe in the argument itself or its logic but in the fact that it can't be refuted as of <current times> with <evidence>.
|
On February 27 2018 12:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 11:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 27 2018 10:29 Danglars wrote:Your only comment is that they shouldn't have to be trained to respond to an event like this? My my my. Keep private citizens from responding, and excuse police units from not responding. And people say Trump's bad rofl. The "18 in the last 8 weeks alone" is activist group fairy tale misleading the public that school shootings are very prevalent. Educate yourself. Americans, and foreigners hoping to inform themselves, should know gun control lobby groups will lie to you to try and confirm your biases. If you want to defend a 31-year-old's suicide in his parked car as a school shooting, be my guest. You'd at least be honest, without any common ground with which to argue. I think the US struggles with youth culture and adolescent masculinity that today's academics and leaders don't understand and truly don't care about. Problems with fatherless homes is also a huge aspect, in my opinion. Straight up education in morals and the life worth living as well. And, last but not least, the US exchanges more security for more freedoms compared to other western nations. These should be seen to exist in contention if the US and other western nations were more honest in their dialogue. Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury. Three others appeared to be intentional shootings but did not hurt anyone. Two more involved guns — one carried by a school police officer and the other by a licensed peace officer who ran a college club — that were unintentionally fired and, again, led to no injuries. At least seven of Everytown’s 18 shootings took place outside normal school hours. So, 5 shootings where people got hit. 3 shootings where people were not. 2 shootings that were accidental discharge of weapons on school premise. 7 outside "normal school hours", but does not state if students or teachers were still on premise or who or what was involved. So basically 10 counts of weapons being discharged while a school is open, 7 that do not exclude student or teacher involvement, and one that isn't mentioned. And if you reclassify school shootings to mean any gun discharged near a school, you overgeneralize a topic and subtract any meaningful policy draws. This is the kind of nonsense that gun control advocates spew to alter statistics. A disturbed individual acquires a gun and goes to a school to kill (mostly) defenseless people becomes you should feel scared that loaded weapons are discharged at or around schools. https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/968272994119376896A lot of this recent tragedy's dialogue is regurgitated lies/half-truths and propaganda that was present in others. The focus on the speed of bullets is a new wrinkle and unexpected for me. https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/968229599489470464Shit, with that feet per second, the pistol doesn't stand a chance lol! + Show Spoiler +
There's nothing unreasonable about discussing the greater capability the AR-15 has. Capability of the weapon must be relevant to the second amendment. The AR-15 is more destructive than pistols and bullet speed is a factor in that.
|
It's one of the typical right-wing responses to talking about gun control. Detail the discussion into talking increasingly more specific details about some single gun, and then ridicule the opposition as having no clue whatsoever and thus their opinion not mattering once they make any single small mistake in terminology.
|
On February 28 2018 03:06 Simberto wrote:
It's one of the typical right-wing responses to talking about gun control. Detail the discussion into talking increasingly more specific details about some single gun, and then ridicule the opposition as having no clue whatsoever and thus their opinion not mattering once they make any single small mistake in terminology.
And the left wing response that this is emblematic of is pretending the vast history of gun ignorance, complete with multiple examples from pundits of many outlets that want to be taken seriously, comes down to one or two nagging details ... and we’re well able to enact common sense gun reform just trust us! The never-owned, won’t-ever-buy types want to be the forebearers of “something” in “do something” and can’t even dialogue on what past efforts have done/not done and why more is necessary. So we on the right roll our eyes at the latest mob that won’t stop until heavy gun restrictions or outright bans (we see the AR-15 hate retweeted and on cable news for a week), but want to act like doves peddling innocent background checks.
|
On February 28 2018 04:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2018 03:06 Simberto wrote:
It's one of the typical right-wing responses to talking about gun control. Detail the discussion into talking increasingly more specific details about some single gun, and then ridicule the opposition as having no clue whatsoever and thus their opinion not mattering once they make any single small mistake in terminology. And the left wing response that this is emblematic of is pretending the vast history of gun ignorance, complete with multiple examples from pundits of many outlets that want to be taken seriously, comes down to one or two nagging details ... and we’re well able to enact common sense gun reform just trust us! The never-owned, won’t-ever-buy types want to be the forebearers of “something” in “do something” and can’t even dialogue on what past efforts have done/not done and why more is necessary. So we on the right roll our eyes at the latest mob that won’t stop until heavy gun restrictions or outright bans (we see the AR-15 hate retweeted and on cable news for a week), but want to act like doves peddling innocent background checks.
As much as I'd love to see the debate around gun control elevated with better facts and knowledge about guns (I think it's an important part of making the debate more productive) when the leading solution from the eye-rollers is the colossally stupid idea of "arm teachers" it's a little hard to be that concerned about the small factual inaccuracies.
|
It is comical that Danglars continues to lean into the ignorance about guns argument while advocating for arming teachers based on complete ignorance about professional education and disregarding the professional expertise of the educators in this thread. You can’t have it both ways.
|
On February 28 2018 04:28 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2018 04:01 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2018 03:06 Simberto wrote:
It's one of the typical right-wing responses to talking about gun control. Detail the discussion into talking increasingly more specific details about some single gun, and then ridicule the opposition as having no clue whatsoever and thus their opinion not mattering once they make any single small mistake in terminology. And the left wing response that this is emblematic of is pretending the vast history of gun ignorance, complete with multiple examples from pundits of many outlets that want to be taken seriously, comes down to one or two nagging details ... and we’re well able to enact common sense gun reform just trust us! The never-owned, won’t-ever-buy types want to be the forebearers of “something” in “do something” and can’t even dialogue on what past efforts have done/not done and why more is necessary. So we on the right roll our eyes at the latest mob that won’t stop until heavy gun restrictions or outright bans (we see the AR-15 hate retweeted and on cable news for a week), but want to act like doves peddling innocent background checks. As much as I'd love to see the debate around gun control elevated with better facts and knowledge about guns (I think it's an important part of making the debate more productive) when the leading solution from the eye-rollers is the colossally stupid idea of "arm teachers" it's a little hard to be that concerned about the small factual inaccuracies.
The arguments of the other side have no bearing on the problems with the arguments on your side. Just beacuse the other side has a silly idea doesn't give you the licence to go silly on your idea while pretending to be any better.
|
On February 28 2018 04:42 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2018 04:28 Logo wrote:On February 28 2018 04:01 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2018 03:06 Simberto wrote:
It's one of the typical right-wing responses to talking about gun control. Detail the discussion into talking increasingly more specific details about some single gun, and then ridicule the opposition as having no clue whatsoever and thus their opinion not mattering once they make any single small mistake in terminology. And the left wing response that this is emblematic of is pretending the vast history of gun ignorance, complete with multiple examples from pundits of many outlets that want to be taken seriously, comes down to one or two nagging details ... and we’re well able to enact common sense gun reform just trust us! The never-owned, won’t-ever-buy types want to be the forebearers of “something” in “do something” and can’t even dialogue on what past efforts have done/not done and why more is necessary. So we on the right roll our eyes at the latest mob that won’t stop until heavy gun restrictions or outright bans (we see the AR-15 hate retweeted and on cable news for a week), but want to act like doves peddling innocent background checks. As much as I'd love to see the debate around gun control elevated with better facts and knowledge about guns (I think it's an important part of making the debate more productive) when the leading solution from the eye-rollers is the colossally stupid idea of "arm teachers" it's a little hard to be that concerned about the small factual inaccuracies. The arguments of the other side have no bearing on the problems with the arguments on your side. Just beacuse the other side has a silly idea doesn't give you the licence to go silly on your idea while pretending to be any better.
I think that's grossly misrepresenting the inaccuracies and how 'silly' the proposed ideas are by equating them to the incompetence required to suggest arming teachers.
|
I'm still curious how many shooting rampages were stopped by citizens with a gun and how many shooting sprees were committed because the kids grew up without a father. Or what kind of "straight up education in morals and the live worth living" is missing that would magically fix school shootings occurring.
|
On February 28 2018 05:20 r.Evo wrote:
I'm still curious how many shooting rampages were stopped by citizens with a gun and how many shooting sprees were committed because the kids grew up without a father. Or what kind of "straight up education in morals and the live worth living" is missing that would magically fix school shootings occurring.
You'll probably have to keep wondering for a long time because of the Dickey Amendment and other such efforts to prevent data gathering and research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
