58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[Gary K]

58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

There are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands in America - one for every man woman and child!

The NRA has brainwashed Americans into believing that civil society must be an armed camp - personal freedoms and safety can only be achieved at the end of a gun!

I refer again to the Detroit/Windsor comparison - 2 cities within eyesight of each other with totally different approaches to firearms - one has been consumed by decades of gun violence while the other recently went 27 months without a homicide!

Really? The NRA has brainwashed people into believing they have a right to own a firearm? And here I thought the Constitution guaranteed that right long before the NRA ever existed. I suppose you think the NRA went back in time and inserted the 2nd Amendment long after the Constitution was written, discussed, and voted on back in the 1780s.

I wonder how the NRA did that when the media has been pushing gun control on a daily bases for decades. I have certainly seen far more anti-gun propoganda than I ever have pro-gun NRA ads. Seems to me there has been a bunch of brainwashing going on, but it's been the political left and academia, aided and abetted by the liberal media who have done the brainwashing.

 

[Nihilo]

I refer again to the Detroit/Windsor comparison - 2 cities within eyesight of each other with totally different approaches to firearms - one has been consumed by decades of gun violence while the other recently went 27 months without a homicide!

Then refer to where Fool answered this silly and stupid point you've tried to make before, and you pretended for over three weeks to not have noticed.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...500-Plus-Wounded/page11&p=5109602#post5109602

 

[Town Heretic]

Really? The NRA has brainwashed people into believing they have a right to own a firearm?

That isn't what he said. And until people can hear the other side clearly it's going to be impossible to have a meaningful education. He said the NRA convinced them that America had to be an armed camp. In other words, we've been conditioned by a powerful lobby to believe that the solution to gun violence is more guns.

It's like suggesting the solution to obesity is more fast food drive-thru windows. lain:

 

[Gary K]

That isn't what he said. And until people can hear the other side clearly it's going to be impossible to have a meaningful education. He said the NRA convinced them that America had to be an armed camp. In other words, we've been conditioned by a powerful lobby to believe that the solution to gun violence is more guns.

It's like suggesting the solution to obesity is more fast food drive-thru windows. lain:

I'll answer you by asking you a question. When is the last time crime was reduced by punishing people who were not guilty?

 

[Town Heretic]

I'll answer you by asking you a question. When is the last time crime was reduced by punishing people who were not guilty?

When was the last time anyone suggested that speed limits on the highway were a form of punishment?

 

[Gary K]

When was the last time anyone suggested that speed limits on the highway were a form of punishment?

Stop with the logical fallacies. A speed limit does not remove any right guarnteed by the constitution.

 

[Town Heretic]

Stop with the logical fallacies.

It wasn't a logical fallacy any more than your declaring it one is an argument or proof.

A speed limit does not remove any right guarnteed by the constitution.

I didn't say that it did. And you didn't advance that point either.

Here's what you actually wrote: "When is the last time crime was reduced by punishing people who were not guilty?"

You assume that not having an unqualified right to something is punishment. It's as silly as suggesting that not being able to drive any speed that suits you is a punishment instead of what it actually is, a prohibition aimed at respecting the equal claim to the roadway (and a safe use) by others that reckless actions would endanger.

Now we have all sorts of rights and none of them are absolute, which is to say that no right exists in a vacuum. There is a necessary balancing between your rights and other rights along with a consideration of the exercise of your neighbor. So you have the right to speak your mind, but not in my living room and not by following me down the street yelling at me. You have the right to possess weapons, but not the right to possess a nuclear bomb. You have the right to exercise your religious beliefs, but not to sacrifice your child to the moon god, even if you really, really believe you should...and so on.

When it comes to gun rights some people appear to forget that.

 

[Town Heretic]

The high crime areas in Alabama and Mississippi have more restrictions on guns than rural parts of New York.

You'll need some source and citation on that one.

Then do what the guy down the street is doing. He doesn't have a violent crime problem. He also has less restrictions on guns.

Your assuming a causal relationship that is contrary to reason. Again, it's as silly as suggesting that people will drive better if we remove speed limits and restrictions.

Concentrated poverty and crime are interrelated. Weapons restrictions are largely on the books in those areas as a sentencing tool, given the lax surrounding areas nullify most of the practical impact otherwise, which is why we need universal gun laws, from safety courses to reduce unintentional harm to laws aimed at reducing the means of doing the sort of damage we witnessed in Las Vegas.

The only reason for a bump stock is for the cool factor.

No. The reason for it is to make a gun fire faster, which is what the bump stock accomplishes.

Seriously. What do you think the purpose of a bump stock is?

To significantly increase the fire rate of a weapon.

Radically reducing? I'm not sure how to respond to this. If you had said "we want to reduce the likelihood of being murdered by firearms by possibly a tiny amount" then I'd understand you. But your proposal doesn't get within light years of "radically reducing"... unless of course you had more - many more - restrictive laws in mind that you aren't telling us about.

I've noted a few things that should impact the safe use of weapons along with limiting the capacity of individuals to harm large numbers of people in short order. I've noted that other Western democracies have managed it and the disparity between our society and theirs in terms of risk, despite our having more guns in hand than any of them. The difference between our deaths per and theirs isn't a tiny amount. I've argued we have to have a serious conversation and make intelligent decisions because the status quo isn't working.

"Rational approach" is exactly how Stalin saw it, too.

Arguable, but what's not arguable is that it's how a rational man sees it.

You'll have to define exactly how far you will ever end up going before we believe you aren't going to end up at a police state, since, rationally, that's the only way to stop all the future Paddocks.

Again, no one will stop it, but that's no argument against reasonable efforts to make it less likely. Australia had a mass shooting that led to a change in laws and that dramatically altered their landscape in terms of firearm related fatalities.

We're the hold out among Western democracies and we pay for that with the lives of our citizens in the name of a freedom that isn't owed more than any other right and should be subject to the same interest and approach that has us distinguishing between your right to speak and your right to libel.

I don't believe any sane person would suggest that our cousin democracies are police states, and yet they each do so much better than we do with gun safety and restrictions that safeguard their populations and the objective numbers back that up.

 

[Stripe]

We have all sorts of rights and none of them are absolute, which is to say that no right exists in a vacuum. There is a necessary balancing between your rights and other rights along with a consideration of the exercise of your neighbor. So you have the right to speak your mind, but not in my living room and not by following me down the street yelling at me. You have the right to possess weapons, but not the right to possess a nuclear bomb. You have the right to exercise your religious beliefs, but not to sacrifice your child to the moon god.

Nope.

Rights are inviolable, unless the individual gives them up.

The right to free speech exists regardless of where I am. If I am in someone else's house, their right to private property does not negate my right to speech; it simply means that I might be required to take it elsewhere.

What you are describing are nicities and norms; not rights.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Stripe]

Other Western democracies have managed it and the disparity between our society and theirs in terms of risk, despite our having more guns in hand than any of them. The difference between our deaths per and theirs isn't a tiny amount.

But you won't name those nations.

I've argued we have to have a serious conversation and make intelligent decisions because the status quo isn't working.

The "status quo" is massive regulation of gun ownership.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Gary K]

It wasn't a logical fallacy any more than your declaring it one is an argument or proof.


I didn't say that it did. And you didn't advance that point either.

Here's what you actually wrote: "When is the last time crime was reduced by punishing people who were not guilty?"

You assume that not having an unqualified right to something is punishment. It's as silly as suggesting that not being able to drive any speed that suits you is a punishment instead of what it actually is, a prohibition aimed at respecting the equal claim to the roadway (and a safe use) by others that reckless actions would endanger.

Now we have all sorts of rights and none of them are absolute, which is to say that no right exists in a vacuum. There is a necessary balancing between your rights and other rights along with a consideration of the exercise of your neighbor. So you have the right to speak your mind, but not in my living room and not by following me down the street yelling at me. You have the right to possess weapons, but not the right to possess a nuclear bomb. You have the right to exercise your religious beliefs, but not to sacrifice your child to the moon god, even if you really, really believe you should...and so on.

When it comes to gun rights some people appear to forget that.

OK. I was not clear where I was coming from. My bad.

The issue at hand is guns and should they be taken away from the general public. To understand my point of view let's look at the first instance of gun control in the US. It happened back in the 1930s. Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, Al Capone, and other criminals were running around the US with automatic weapons robbing and killing a lot of people. These men had made it abundantly clear that they were not going to abide by any law by their repeated behavior.

So what was the response to all of these gangsters crimes? The general public, the vast majority of whom had never used an automatic weapon, let alone committed a crime with one, were denied the privilige of owning an automatic weapon. Now, did that stop all the gangsters from having automatic weapons? Nope. They still have them. So, the only effect of the law was to remove the ability to own an automatic weapon from law abiding people who had never used one of these weapons in the commission of a crime. In other words, the punishment of the innocent by removing a portion of their rights was the government's response to the crime wave of a very small part of the population.

That tactic is still going on. Those who would break the law by the already illegal act of killing someone still can easily obtain firearms illegally, and the response to this criminal activity is more punishment of those who would never commit murder in the first place by removing their constitutionally protected right.

This is like the teacher who, because a small minority of the kids in the class do something that disrupts the classroom makes rules that cannot stop the behavior of those responsible for the disruption because they ignore classroom rules in the first place, but that limits the legitimate behavior of the rest of the class. In other words, the only punishment really handed out is to those kids who did nothing wrong in the first place. It's the very definition of injustice.

See, you would, if you got your way, punish me by removing my right to own a firearm, who has never even thought of using one of the firearms I've owned over the years to kill someone, because someone else who has no respect for human life killed someone with a firearm. The problem isn't the firearm. The problem is the person who has no respect for human life. That's the problem that needs to be addressed. Solve that problem and the intentional killing of people with firearms goes away. But no. You would much rather punish me than really solve the root cause of the problem.

 

[Town Heretic]

But you won't name those nations.

I not only named them, I listed them in ascending order, beginning with Australia and its 1.4 per million and ending with US and our 29.7 per million, with runner up Switzerland and its 7+. You're just late to the conversation and missed it.

The "status quo" is massive regulation of gun ownership.

Nope. The status quo here is wildly inconsistent and mostly insufficient measure, much as it was in other Western democracies once upon a time.

 

[Town Heretic]

The issue at hand is guns and should they be taken away from the general public.

It's not my issue. I'm speaking to making ownership more responsible/increasing gun safety AND reexamining what restrictions on ownership are reasonable in terms of impacting the efficacy of them as an instrument of mass murder.

The general public, the vast majority of whom had never used an automatic weapon, let alone committed a crime with one, were denied the privilige of owning an automatic weapon.

And the restriction made anyone owning that sort of weapon appreciably more difficult, which limited the opportunity.

Now, did that stop all the gangsters from having automatic weapons? Nope.

It would be great if it did, but I don't believe anyone is suggesting that as an outcome. Australia, by way of example, toughened gun laws after a mass murder incident in Port Arthur that left 35 people dead. It didn't end gun related crime and violence, but it did significantly impact it in the years following the new laws. Studies conducted between 1995 and 2006 noted that firearm homicides fell 59%, without a rise in other forms of homicide. Suicides by gun dropped 65%. Home invasions didn't increase, despite a fear by some that fewer guns would lead to bolder criminals on that front. Lastly, in the decade before Australia changed its gun laws the country had seen eleven mass shootings. In the more than twenty since it has witnessed none.

They still have them. So, the only effect of the law was to remove the ability to own an automatic weapon from law abiding people who had never used one of these weapons in the commission of a crime. In other words, the punishment of the innocent by removing a portion of their rights was the government's response to the crime wave of a very small part of the population.

Denial of an increased chance for mayhem isn't a punishment any more than insisting we wear seat belts is a punishment of responsible drivers for the misdeeds of others.

That tactic is still going on. Those who would break the law by the already illegal act of killing someone still can easily obtain firearms illegally, and the response to this criminal activity is more punishment of those who would never commit murder in the first place by removing their constitutionally protected right.

One of the reasons firearms are easy for criminals to possess is because they're infinitely easier for almost anyone to own and the instruments made to increase their use as something more than personal defense are equally abundant and cheap. It's a bit like having tough gun laws in one town and surrounding the town with places where there's little control. At that point the laws are more about sentencing than impacting anything in terms of use.

See, you would, if you got your way, punish me by removing my right to own a firearm,

No, I wouldn't. I'm actually a gun owner and life long shooter, qualifying as an expert marksman in my ROTC days. I'm for intelligent regulation, registration of firearms and the removal of certain types and instruments that increase their lethality weighed against reasonable use. Say bump stocks and silencers.

The problem isn't the firearm. The problem is the person who has no respect for human life

No, the problem is a bit of both, though we know from empirical observation that we can retain the right to own and use guns legally, with increased safety for everyone while dramatically reducing their use as instruments to deny the rights of others, supra.

You would much rather punish me than really solve the root cause of the problem.

If you believe that you're bringing it to the conversation in assumption and haven't read much of what I've been saying on the point. Hopefully this helps.

 

[everready]

You say "One of the reasons firearms are easy for criminals to possess is because they're infinitely easier for almost anyone to own"

Have you attempted to purchase a firearm?

everready

 

[everready]

Something is going on in America akin to something that happened not all that long ago in another country..

WWII Survivor Warns of SOCIALISM and GUN CONTROL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-awkYhtey50

everready

 

[Town Heretic]

You say "One of the reasons firearms are easy for criminals to possess is because they're infinitely easier for almost anyone to own"

Yes. It creates enormous privately held stockpiles of weapons that can then be had without anything like the relatively weak scrutiny afforded retailers.

Have you attempted to purchase a firearm?

Sure. Again, I'm a gun owner. For years I had a concealed carry permit. Part of the success in Australia was a considerable buy back program that impacted the number of guns in circulation.

 

[Stripe]

I not only named them, I listed them in ascending order, beginning with Australia and its 1.4 per million and ending with US and our 29.7 per million, with runner up Switzerland and its 7+. You're just late to the conversation and missed it.

Hold on, sonshine. I was part of this conversation before you were and you decided to ignore me when I asked this first and second time around.

Also, the goalposts keep moving.

Than every other Western industrial nation? That way lies xenophobia. That's nonsense. We simply have an industry that continues to tell Americans the solution to their personal safety is the largely unfettered possession of guns. Even as countries that reject that notion do an objectively, demonstrably better job of actually protecting their citizens.

Which nations do a better job of protecting their citizens?

Australia? Japan?

Because their gun homicide rates are lower?

The status quo here is wildly inconsistent and mostly insufficient measure, much as it was in other Western democracies once upon a time.

That sounds unlikely.

Regardless, if your ideal is to ban guns, you should just say that.

Nobody would argue against the assertion that removing guns from a society would drastically reduce gun homicides.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[everready]

Why is the media focusing on firearms when there are other deadly weapons readily available?

Japan Knife Attack.. At Least 19 Dead..

CNN)At least 19 people were killed and 26 injured in a stabbing spree at a facility for disabled people west of Tokyo, making it one of Japan's deadliest mass killings since World War II. Nine men and 10 women, ranging in age from 18 to 70, were killed in the attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html

5 teens denied bond in deadly highway rock-throwing case


(CNN)A judge denied bond Tuesday for five Michigan teenagers charged with throwing a rock off a highway overpass and killing a passenger in a van.

The group of teens, aged 15-17, were arraigned in Genesee County district courtroom. They are accused of throwing a 6-pound rock off an overpass near Flint, Michigan, on October 18, fatally injuring 32-year-old Kenneth White.

White was riding home from work when he was struck in the face, head and chest by the rock that crashed through the windshield of the van in which he was a passenger.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/us/michigan-teens-rock-throwing-death-trnd/index.html

Because the focus is on our constitution.. specifically on our second amendment..

everready

 

[Town Heretic]

Why is the media focusing on firearms when there are other deadly weapons readily available?

It's probably because firearms represent a more pressing threat and kill more people, and because we haven't begun to do what we can to make ourselves safer from an injury/fatality outcome.

Japan Knife Attack.. At Least 19 Dead..

Yeah, that's awful, but it's a distraction. Why are you in a thread about gun violence trying to get people to consider knife violence in Japan? I submit the obvious answer is that you don't want to get into the argument you can't use to preserve the status quo no reasonable person should defend.

5 teens denied bond in deadly highway rock-throwing case

Same answer. Meanwhile, on guns, I noted that in Australia when they significantly strengthened gun laws it didn't lead to a growth in violence in other areas, like rocks, knives, swords, bats. It appears that most people prefer a safe distance with their mayhem.

Because the focus is on our constitution.. specifically on our second amendment..

Which is an odd way of saying because the conversation is about gun rights and what constitutes reasonable restrictions. So far most people appear to be fine with keeping RPGs and bazookas off the shelf.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hold on, sonshine. I was part of this conversation before you were

Okay. Then you missed it for a different reason. The important thing being I listed them and the rates among other facts and ideas.

and you decided to ignore me when I asked this first and second time around.

Probably. I think you're a good egg on the whole, but you have certain tendencies in discussion and argument that I don't care for or find productive.

Also, the goalposts keep moving.

How particularly?

Which nations do a better job of protecting their citizens? Australia? Japan?

Yeah, I'm not interested in going over particulars I've already visited just because someone missed it. It's back there to be found.

To sum what I've said from the outset, we need a serious discussion on addressing a problem that we have in this country that isn't echoed in any of our cousin Western industrial democracies. We need to look at why and see what we can do to diminish the likelihood of the mass murders that have peppered our headlines and threatened our safety for a while now.

Regardless, if your ideal is to ban guns, you should just say that.

If you want to understand what I'm advancing it's as simple as reading me. I'm not veiled. I'm a gun owner. A fact I've related, along with my belief that possession of firearms should require a mandatory safety course. Not something you need if you don't have one...I also believe in firearm registration, the elimination of large ammo clips and bump stocks, and silencers. I'm open to an intelligent discussion about the problem of semi-automatic weapons, but I'm not wedded to the idea as a necessity.

Nobody would argue against the assertion that removing guns from a society would drastically reduce gun homicides.

I'm sure that's true and it may come to that one day, if enough people feel strongly about it. But it's not my position.