When a school shooting happens, good people become horrified and many ask for better gun laws.
The answer that comes from the anti-safeguard lobby, those who mainly want guns to be unregulated with respect to ownership, safety, use, or disposition, is that such laws would not have stopped the tragedy that prompted the conversation.
They may be right (but see below). But they have missed the point. The problem is, the people who suddenly want to do something about senseless gun deaths have also missed the point.
About 33,000 times a year, in the United States, a bullet fires out of a gun, penetrates a human, and kills them. The number of times that a bullet leaves the gun and penetrates a human and only wounds them is considerable.
Since the difference between being dead and being alive is mostly random (with respect to the variables at the scene) and partly a function of the excellence, and presence or absence of, trauma specialists, it is worth noting that about 50,000 times a person is shot in some manner in the United States. But when working with gun relates statistics, we tend to focus on death, because in most cases, as tragic and horrific as a death may be, it will usually have one good feature: The data point representing it is well behaved. An embarrassing accidental discharge of a firearm resulting in a minor injury is unlikely to be reported at all. But when you are showing off with your Glock and a bullet is fired through the wall of your apartment and the toddler next door is blow away, that data point is going to exist and it will be carefully examined, verified, reported, and curated.
Of the ~33,000 killed each year, only a tiny percentage (but see below) of those individuals are killed in any kind of mass shooting, including school shootings.
In other words, the sad and macabre fact is that if we were given the choice of eliminating school shootings as they currently happen, vs. all the other shootings, we would be foolish to pick ending just the school shootings. We would be better off with the Watership Down alternative. Stop the carnage overall, but pay the price of a few of our children for that freedom from violence.
But you might be thinking, “Those 33,000, they were criminals shot by good cops, and gang member shooting each other, so who cares?”
Stop thinking that.
The statistics on gun violence are hard to get a handle on for several reasons, but what I’m going to tell you here is close to the actual reality and verifiable. I’ve included some sources below. These numbers are based on estimates from the last few years of available data.
Over the last five or six years, 33,000 people in the US died of a gunshot per year. Most of them, ~21,000, killed themselves intentionally (suicide). Of the rest, about one tenth of a percent were cops killed by gunfire in the line of duty (most cops who die in the line of duty are killed accidentally in car accidents, etc.). About 2% were citizens killed by cops. About 24% were murdered in the usual ways.
The number of times per year a person dies because of a simple accident, like the gun goes off while being cleaned, or in a hunting accident, is probably just over 300 (a little less than once per day). The number of people killed each year, on average, in a mass shooting roughly similar. This is about three quarters of one percent of the total gun carnage.
If we wanted to reduce the gun carnage as quickly and efficiently as possible, we might do things that reduce the largest of these numbers: suicide. We immediately realize that this is a mental health issue, and by the way, mass shootings may often be a mental health issue as well. Heck, considering that homicide is often an extension of day to day interpersonal violence which can go even worse, maybe a lot of those 11,000 shootings are also mental health issues. Putting it another way, if we could wave a magic wand and make all the mental health issues go away, assuming most suicides are in this category, then the number of dead per year would drop to a few thousand instead of a few tens of thousands. That would be great. So lets do that.
But while we are busy shoring up our approach to mental health, lets look at other ways to address the gun carnage.
Let’s start with the largest number, suicide.
When I bring up reducing gun carnage by addressing suicide, I often get push back from poorly informed libertarian-thinking people who are angered that I would want to take this basic right away from people. If someone wants to kill themselves, they should be able do to it. What about someone with a terrible, painful, disease who just wants to end it? What kind of monster am I to deny them of this right?
The other push-back is this: If someone wants to commit suicide, and you “take away the guns,” they will still kill themselves.
Let me tell you right now, that most of the time, when you hear either of these arguments, you are hearing from someone who, because they’ve had this conversation with people like me before, knows they are lying. They are simply trying to seed doubt, to dampen the anti-gun argument, because they are anti-protection. For all I know, they may even like the carnage. Certainly, they are willing to ignore basic facts in order to not have to be restricted in any way in the pursuit of their dangerous hobby (or business, in the case of those who trade in these weapons of death and mayhem).
Many people who attempt suicide are young and very few are sick and in pain. A large percentage of those who attempt suicide with something other than a firearm fail. Most who attempt suicide with a gun manage to kill themselves. Most people who attempt suicide and fail then get mental health care and they do not ever end up killing themselves. Across all age groups, 90% of those who make an attempt of suicide and survive never end up committing suicide. A large percentage of suicides are impulsive. It is estimated that 71% of the time, the suicide is decide on in less than one hour before the act.
OK, now, I’m going to take a break and go unload the dishwasher or something while you put those facts together and see what you come up with.
… tick … tick … tick … tick …
A partial but important solution to reduce the gun carnage is to first reduce the number of available guns, but also, to firmly secure the guns that to exist. Lock them up, and lock up the ammo in a separate place, and make the use of a gun for anything something that requires more thought, and not something that can be easily done by a non gun owner by simply grabbing an available firearm from Dad’s dresser drawer or a neighbor’s coffee table hidy-hole.
In the US, in the majority of households that have both children and guns in them, the guns are not stored safely away, and are often loaded and unlocked. A minority of US gun owners with children in their homes store the ammo separately and keep it all locked up.
May people who kill themselves with guns decide at the last minute to do so, and their access to the guns is unfettered. Often, this is a young person living in a household where an adult has a loaded firearm readily available, “just in case.”
The reason to have a firearm readily available and loaded is this: If someone comes into your house that you did not invite, you get your chance to shoot them to death. Yay. But what happens far more often is that your child or some neighbor or some other person in your household decides to kill themselves, and they use your gun to do it. Or your teenager offspring sneaked out of the house to party and is sneaking back in through the bathroom window, so you wake up, groggily grab your gun, and start shooting. Or as happened a while back to my neighbor: you are a recluse living in what the neighborhood kids mistake for an abandoned house, one of the kids sneaks into the house on a dare, and you grab your gun off the nightstand and blow him away.
What needs to happen instead is that it is required by law that you not be a knucklehead. You should be required by law to keep your gun unloaded and locked up, and the ammo also locked up at a different location. You, yourself, since you have the key or combination and know where everything is, can easily put it all together and eat a bullet any time you want to, so don’t worry about that right being taken away from you. But hopefully the extra work you need to go through to do so will allow your forebrain to catch up to your limbic system and call off your own suicide. More importantly, your hobby as a gun owner will not as easily allow someone else to use your gun to die or to kill. The total number of suicide deaths would go down dramatically, and we will have tackled the largest number among those cited above.
The next biggest group of gun deaths is homicide. Having guns more secured would probably reduce this as well. Just as suicide can be impulsive, and thus, aided by having loaded guns laying around, some homicides are impulsive as well.
A fair number of homicides involve violent criminals shooting at each other and killing either the other bad guy, a cop, or an innocent bystander. Some, perhaps many, of those guns are stolen. They are stolen from gun owners who did not secure their guns. You might say, “a determined criminal can yada yada yada… so it does not matter.” But you are wrong. Properly secured houses are burglarized far less often than improperly secured houses. Properly secured and hidden items in the house are stolen less than items left around in obvious places. When a criminal breaks into any home, one of the first places they check for stuff are the obvious places people are known to keep their loaded guns. The criminal wants to take that gun right away in case the home owner shows up, and because it has real value as a stolen item.
So, once again, properly locked up deadly weapons would reduce those numbers. I’ll even suggest this: Of those 300 or so accidental discharges per year (some of which result in death), a good number are little kids finding your boy-toy (gun) and pulling the trigger. That can’t happen with properly secured firearms.
“But it is not enforceable” you lament. “You are legislating what people do in their own homes and you can’t enforce it anyway” you cry out from your Libertarian perch!
Bull. First, any time there is a criminal act involving a gun, it is possible (not always, but often) to trace back the source to see if that was ever a properly secured gun. Every time there is a suicide there is an investigation. Frequently, it will be possible to determine if the gun was improperly stored. A set of widely known best practices with an accompanying law can and will be enforced sufficiently that there will be deterrence against sloppy gun storage.
Second, having a law and accompanying training, information, learning, and a general cultural shift towards being smart rather than stupid about something, does and can work even without a lot of enforcement. When seat belts were first deployed by regulation, a lot of people balked at the idea. They didn’t want the restrictions, the wrinkles, the trouble. Two things happened early on in the history of seat belt adoption. First, there were many apocryphal scare stories about how if you wear a seat belt in certain kinds of accidents, you would actually die instead of live. Second, they started making cars that automatically put your seat belt on for you (remember those?). Tensions rose.
But then a third thing happened. Laws requiring the use of seat belts started to spread. Once there is a law about something, that aspect of an event (an accident or a crime) is automatically addressed by investigators. It became routine for the seat belt wearing status of an accident victim to be reported. Then the news started to regularly report whenever a fatal accident happened and the person was not wearing their seat belt. Over time, the reporting seemed to indicate that mainly reckless youth and drunk-out-of-their-mind drivers were the ones not wearing their seat belts, and thus dying. In other words, foolish people were making foolish decisions and suffering the ultimate consequence, in such a way that all can see and all can learn and all can quietly eschew that behavior. Seat belt compliance continues to rise, and many lives are saved.
That is what we need with guns. We need a decade of reporting on how Uncle Joe effectively killed his niece by having a loaded gun around that she used to kill herself at the age of 14, and how he got fined or jailed for his role in her death and, worst of all, had his permit to own a gun revoked. We need a decade of reporting about how this or that wanton criminal was convicted of homicide, but that the owner of the stolen gun he had used had never secured that gun, so it was easily taken from his home by a burglar, and the original gun owner was held partly liable for that act, and fined and his gun rights taken away. We need a decade of stories distributed by suicide prevention groups about all the kids who lived because Dad and Mom had their weapons secured. All that.
So again, regulations requiring proper storage of firearms and ammo will reduce a good portion of the next largest parts of the gun carnage.
The cops kill nearly a thousand people a year. Why? In part because there are so many guns out there that the cops are constantly on edge. In the old days, it was rare for a cop to pull their gun. Now, they have their guns out frequently. In fact, when a cop walks over to pretty much anybody these days, they have their hand on the gun so they can pull it out instantly if needed. The other day, a community resource cop, a cop who’s job it is to sit with kids and read them stories and talk about safety and stuff, felt the need to be heavily armed in the classroom, with a gun designed to be discharged instantly (no safety) just in case. When a kid grabbed that gun and fired it in the classroom, it made me wonder if something was wrong with our system…
The point is, if guns were routinely secured, and their sales better regulated, and yes, this would take a few decades but this will matter to future generations, there would be fewer illegal guns in circulation, and fewer legal guns in criminal hands, and that would cause a down-cycling of how many people carry guns around out of fear, and that would make it less likely for those 50 cops that get murdered by gun a year to be killed, and then maybe the cops would not shoot 1000 people a year.
Which brings us to the mass shootings. The mass shootings, including the ones in school, happen (apart from previously discussed mental health issues) because we have a culture in which we eschew any regulation on guns. Anybody who wants to be a school shooter can easily get the guns, partly because there are so many, partly because we don’t regulate guns very effectively. We have no problem as a society allowing people to own thousands of rounds of ammo and dozens of assault style weapons.
Also, our gun culture stops us from asking important questions or taking important actions at key moments. The most recent mass school shooting, one of the worst ever, was apparently carried out by a guy who was known to be a gun nut, known to be threatening others, known to be hanging around the school he did not attend in a threatening manner.
Why did no one bother to check out this situation, to discover his gun cache, to stop him before he killed all those children? I do not know, but I’ll toss out a guess for you to consider. Our pro-gun culture, especially in rabidly pro-gun states like Florida, where any person can murder any unarmed person if they “feel threatened,” fetishizes the gun and all the freedom it implies to a greater degree than fear of the gun and all the killing it can do imbues caution in our actions. Maybe nobody wanted to look like they were anti-gun.
So, sensible regulation of gun sales, ownership, and storage will probably reduce the number and severity of school shootings from several different angles, including changing the culture of expectations surrounding the gun fetish, and including access to massive arsenals.
The final remaining argument against my position that guns need to be responsibly sold and owned, is this: If someone invades my home, I want my gun loaded, freely available, and by my side right along with my freedom!!!
That might sound to some like a reasonable statement, but in fact, it is ignorant yammering.
I know that the person who truly believes this now, in 2018, is a nonredeemable gun nut so I don’t mind offending you. Such individuals need to be forced to do the right thing and jailed when they fail. But for those watching form the sidelines, it is a bogus argument. Having guns readily available for self defense in the home rarely works as a self defense strategy, but often leads to wounding or killing of household members, in the case where the gun is actually deployed as a killing machine. Often that is totally separate from the context of a home invasion. But even when there is a home invasion, the chances of the gun owner or a family member being killed or injured might actually be higher than the chance of the invasion being thwarted or the invader killed or wounded. The statistics are hard to analyze here, but at the very least, the chances are very close or overlapping.
But that is not the main point I want to make. The point is that playing fast and loose with guns is immoral and bone-headed. It is how we kill our children, not how we protect them. You think you are protecting your home and family, but actually, you are endangering them AND you are endangering everyone else.
But you can still have your cake and eat it too, if you must. In order to address home invasions in a way that also allows you to play with your big gun, simply follow these two procedures.
1) Lock the damn guns and ammo up.
2) Secure your home with an alarm system that will warn you that someone is breaking in. It need not be a fancy expensive system. Anything that makes lights go on and noises happen when someone is trying to get in. Also, do the other things you can do to reduce the chance of a robbery to being with. You can find out what those are from your local police department, or google it. Yes, “a determined thief will break in anyway yada yada yada” but the truth is that if you are the low hanging fruit, you are asking for it, and if you make it hard, you will be better off. You have to be an idiot to allow someone unfettered access to your home in such a way that your only recourse is to reach over to your night stand, grab your gun, and start shooting.
Or, perhaps you are not an idiot. Perhaps you are just waiting for a chance to kill someone, so you arm yourself and make it easy for someone to break into your house. Leave around clues that you have great prescription drugs ready to steal. Then lay in wait. There is that, and perhaps some version of it is not terribly uncommon. People who think that way …
But wait, now were are back to the mental heath fix, so we’ve got that covered as well.
One more thing, something I hinted at above, and if you’ve gotten this far into my rant, you get to hear all about it. School shootings are small part of the overall gun carnage. And, mass shootings in general may be the most difficult of all the gun related violence to actually address with laws, regulations, and tactical responses. Since gun death is large (33,000 a years) and mass shootings in schools is small (a couple of hundred a year) then the school shootings may seem unimportant in the long run, even if they are very shocking when they happen.
So, since that idea is totally wrong and misguided, I want to propose a thought experiment. Suppose we lived in a society with very few guns, and not much gun violence overall. In this imaginary place, we’ll call it Nacirema in honor of the Anthropologists who are known to have worked there and the Naciremas who live there, mental health care is widespread and effective, and many of the problems that cause mental health problems, whatever they may be, have been addressed by ensuring a healthy and fair economy for all, great health care and nutrition, effective early childhood care, and all of it. It is rare for someone to die because of a gun shot.
Then, suddenly, there is a mass shooting at a school. Then another. And then more. After a few years, we realize that a few hundred children are being killed each year, but never before did this happen.
Pause for a moment and substitute my thought experiment with the alternative thought experiment of your choice. Every year, we learn, 300 Nacirema children are killed in exploding school buses. Or, High School football stadiums built by a particular contractor start to collapse, killing dozens of student at a time to add up to 300 a year. Or a mad poisoner is operating in the school cafeteria to the tune of 300 deaths a year.
This should be obvious but in case it is not: a few hundred victims per year of mass shootings, many in schools, is not made less horrific or smaller because others happen to die at the muzzle of a gun.
Selected resources and other posts:
The Truth about Suicide and Guns
CDC on Homicide Data (various links, start here)
CDC on Suicide Data (various links, start here)
How much like Byron Smith is the average gun owner?
Various WaPo pages on number of people shot dead by cops.
US police shootings: How many die each year?
Causes of Law Enforcement Deaths
A selection of my posts on gun violence and related topics (This blog has recently been re-worked, so only those posts I’ve gotten around to re-tagging are on this list. Use the search bar at the top of the page to find more.)
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Thank you for writing this and all the research/blogging you’ve done on this issue. I’ve added it to my Gun Control Podcast.
Russian bots promote pro-gun messages after Florida school shooting
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/russian-bots-florida-shooting-intl/index.html
Great writing, here’s my reply to all that and similar posts.
https://www.redbeardcpl.com/blog/another-active-shooter-more-lost-lives-due-to-our-gun-control-laws
Looked at this loon redbeard site.
It says copyright 2023 at the bottom.
Drugs is it? Or some other issue?
FYI the date today is 20/2/2018.
here is a song that pretty well sums it up
https://soundcloud.com/michael-casali/die-today-in-the-usa
As school starts back up, a reminder to parents, so easy to just keep those guns locked up so your kids can’t get to them.
I agree with your advice to lock your guns up.
However, a law which requires you “to keep your gun unloaded and locked up, and the ammo also locked up at a different location” will be held unconstitutional.
This is exactly what the District of Columbia required in the Heller case, which held that this law violated the 2nd amendment.
So encouraging people not to hide their gun in their sock drawer or under their pillow is a good idea.
But getting a bunch of states to pass the law you proposed isn’t going to work.
It has already been tried and failed.
You either need to get the 2nd amendment changed, or try a different law.
A suggestion. How about a law which requires the gun to be locked.
So, you could have a loaded gun in a gun safe with a biometric lock.
That law might not be struck down (we would have to see).
You would not necessarily be required to keep your gun locked up. But you would be held responsible if a bullet comes out of your gun and hurts or kills someone except in a very narrow range of circumstances, as you should be, including if the gun is stolen (and not reported, etc.). So the law would protect citizens from sloppy gun owners.
Meanwhile, best practices can be established and people informed and trained as needed, equipment verified as suitable, etc.
I would add that certain kinds of insurance, including the kind the NRA recommends you buy, but also other liability insurance, have riders or discounts to encourage this. If you don’t verifiable follow best practices, you get to pay extra.
Finally, a law that specifically penalizes for sloppy behavior can be passed that is constitutional. That case does not end the practice, there are several ways to do it. But, if we are really in a situation where sensible regulation can’t happen because of the second amendment, then lets get rid of the second amendment.
In Heller, the Court held that the law rendered the gun unfit for its intended purpose. The time it would take to get the gun unlocked, get the ammo in a different place unlocked and then get the gun ready to fire would defeat the purpose of having the gun in the first place (I paraphrase).
A bio-metric gun safe could allow access to a loaded gun just as fast as running to the sock drawer. And it would presumably prevent the accidental gun discharge you referred to in your piece.
On the issue of just getting rid of the 2nd amendment – that would be very very difficult. You would have to get congress to pass it and 3/4 (I think 38 states) to ratify it. I don’t see it as a realistic possibility. I personally would be against such as solution on principal. But that doesn’t mean you can’t try.
Better to focus on sensible things which can pass and which are not unconstitutional.
Close the gun show loophole – that can be done.
Ban silencers – that can be done.
Gun registration – that probably isn’t unconstitutional, because it doesn’t really infringe on your right to keep and bear arms (hard to pass though).
I am not sure how to fix the issue of mental illness and guns – that is going to be hard.
I might consider going the other direction.
Rather than hiding in a closet in a school while a crazy person roamed the building shooting people – I would rather have each classroom have a loaded pistol in a biometric gun safe keyed to the teacher. A dash of training and you have many people who could swarm the crazy shooter, with firearms, and stop that person. The death toll under such a scenario would probably be less than 17.
It would be a lot cheaper than having a cop in every classroom (which would be another solution).
Personally – I think the answer is more guns, not less guns.
> It is estimated that 71% of the time, the suicide is decide on in less than one hour before the act.
>
>OK, now, I’m going to take a break and go unload the dishwasher or something while you put those facts together and see what you come up with.
I was thinking of all of your objections, and I think stated them in a previous post. I agree less guns will lead to fewer suicides. However, in the case where you eliminate suicide by gun, you will still have people wanting to kill themselves. You state, and I agree, that people will be less successful by other means or will change their minds, or be less willing to try other means. Some will be successful by other means, and with no suicide by gun, these other methods will become more well known, and eventually people will settle on a new method of suicide and be more successful.
The other modes of suicides are all well known and are widely in use, and all lack the sponteniety.
You don’t know what you don’t know. If guns are not available, new techniques will become popular.
The usual more than asinine response. A “dash of training?” There is a huge difference between being able to hit a target in a range and hit a “bad guy” when all hell is breaking loose. More directly: bad guy shoots the teacher first. Students can’t get the gun.
Yep – the teacher could get shot by the bad guy.
Still – would you rather be hiding in the closet waiting to see if the killer finds you or have access to a gun, even if you might get shot trying to defend yourself?
I know which door I would choose.
Also, every classroom would have a firearm – so perhaps another teacher would stop the bad guy.
The teacher who died trying to lock his classroom with students inside would have had a much better chance of completing the locking process if he could have fired even one round over the bad guys head. Maybe he would still have been shot – but it would sure slow the bad guy down if a bullet came back in his direction.
I don’t think the idea is that asinine. Let the teachers take a vote and see what happens. I think school shootings are a fad now – so this issue isn’t likely to go away.
More asinine comments — this is why libertarians are viewed with disdain.
We have had shootings in schools as long a we’ve been a country — even before that. The act is hardly a “fad”.
Here in NZ were deaths per gun are about 1/3 of yours we have a licence system that mandates safe secure storage.
http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/arms-code/seven-firearms-safety-rules#anchor6
Rule 6: Store firearms and ammunition safely
You are required by law to have a safe and secure place to store your firearms at your premises. Store firearms and ammunition separately, out of the reach of children, out of view and in a secure room, rack or cabinet approved by your Arms Officer.
A complete firearm is dangerous in the wrong hands, so lock away your unloaded and disabled firearm and ammunition separately. Do this immediately when you return to camp or home from shooting. Securing firearms out of sight will help prevent removal by thieves.
The Arms Regulations require these minimum standards when storing your firearm:
A firearm must not be put in any place where a child has ready access to it.
Ammunition must be stored separately or the firearm made incapable of firing.
Police advocates taking the following steps to ensure safe storage of firearms:
Remove the bolt and magazine from bolt-action firearms and lock away separately from the firearm.
Make sure both the chamber and the magazine are empty before storing any firearm.
For lever, pump or semi-automatic firearms, you may not be able to remove the action. Use a trigger locking device in this case.
Dismantile break-open types.
Licence holders must take reasonable steps to secure firearms against theft. These steps include:
Locking your firearm away in:
A lockable cabinet, container or receptacle of ‘stout construction’.
The Police interprets “stout construction” as strong enough to stop a child or opportunist thief getting access. Police recognises the international standard of thwarting attack by hand tools (unpowered tools) for a minimum of 10 minutes. Putting a lock on a cupboard, wardrobe, or gun-case is not enough. Wooden or MDF cabinets/receptacles are unlikely to meet this standard. Seek advice from your Police Arms Officer before purchasing any cabinet, container or receptacle of ‘stout construction’, as not all containers on offer will meet the standard. The cabinet/container must be used for storing firearms only and accessible to the licence holder only. All cabinets, containers, safes, and receptacles are to be securely fixed to the frame of the builsing to prevent removal.
A display cabinet or rack that locks in and immobilises firearms so they cannot be fired.
A steel and concrete strong-room.
Unloading and locking your firearm away whenever it is not in use or not under the immediate supervision of a licence holder.
Never leaving your firearm in an unattended vehicle.
Anyone owning pistols, restricted weapons or military style semi-automatic firearms (MSSA) is required to have security of a higher standard than that required for sporting firearms (‘A’ category) owners. Contact your local Arms Officer for specifications.
Yes – we could have such a law in any state of the USA which wanted it, if it wasn’t for the pesky constitution. Before we even talk about such a law, we need to deal with the unconstitutionality issue.
RickA
“Still – would you rather be hiding in the closet waiting to see if the killer finds you or have access to a gun, even if you might shoot another innocent victim trying to defend yourself?”
Fixed that for you.
“Never leaving your firearm in an unattended vehicle.”
Wondering how this particular idea works in real world practice.
” Why the fuck have you brought a gun ( perhaps inside a gun case ) into the fruit and vegie shop??? ”
” Cuz i cant leave it unattended in my motorcar “
I’ve been an advocate for gun safes for a long time. Your ideas make a lot of sense to me.
Other ideas…..Most people do not have a realistic view of what happens to a human body when an assault rifle dehumanizes it. Ask a vet or someone who saw what happened at Sandy Hook. The AR-15, with its high velocity tumbling bullet is particularly effective at turning humans into mutilated corpses.
I think that assault rifles should be banned to the public. For many reasons. But here is one that gun lovers would probably understand. A shot gun is a far more effective home defense weapon and a much less efficient mass murder weapon. So why do we need assault weapons? Do you plan to defend your house against gangs armed with AR-15’s? Against Government troops with tanks, jets, and drones? Please tell us what you expect to defend against with an AR-15, other than gun envy. Why do we need to escalate the domestic arms race? A nation where assault rifles are omnipresent is not, I suspect, a good place for civilized life to progress much. Think Afghanistan . Or Syria. Or Iraq. Remember Megaloceros giganteus? Those giant antlers, like our assault rifles, are awesome weapons…. until they make you extinct.
And most people do not live in the sort of areas where an assault rifle or even a hand gun is necessary for self defense. But the NRA is trying very hard to change that.
The defenders of the second amendment need to remember that the constitution can and should be amended from time to time. The second amendment is ambiguous and out of date. It was a sop for the slave colonies, and it largely succeeds, as illustrated in Florida yesterday, in carrying forward the slaver tradition of dehumanization. Also, it would be smart to remember that things like psychology, criminology, and all sorts of human behavior sciences were practically non-existent when the constitution was written. Statistics and statistical analysis on the effects of citizens possessing large numbers of highly destructive “arms” were not available. We really need to upgrade our laws and our legal system to match the millennium we live in and to better incorporate modern science. We do not need to raise the founders to the level of Moses, nor will we prosper by acting like bronze age imbeciles. We, the majority, need to take better care of our Republic.
And another thing; I really really like that the MSM is revealing the number of millions of dollars that key Republican politicians are receiving from the NRA. Isn’t it time that we overturned our NRA overlords? I think so.
@ ^ SteveP : That last paragraph seconded by me.
As an Aussie I’m going to note that our gun laws – like Britain’s – have worked very well at reducing to extremely low levels gun deaths and violence and massacres.
Meanwhile, apparently the USA has had five school shootings in under two months already this year :
Oh & :
Source : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.1e11acf16153
A mentally ill 19 year old is able to get a military weapon whose only purpose is killing people. USA WTF!?
The rest of the world (mostly?) thinks the USA is just nuts to be so trigger-happy and unwilling to regulate guns.
I sure do.
I’d also highly recommend people read some of what Jim Wright has written on his Stonekettle Station blog about this issue – if that’s okay Greg Laden?
(PS. Feel free to edit accordingly if not.)
Plus folks, google the insanity that is the Tiahrt Amendment here where Congress is sheltering and keeping secret the “Bad Apple” gun dealers.
The US Gun Lobby needs to be taken on and beaten. I reckon they are responsible for more than enough lost and ruined lives already aren’t they?
>And another thing; I really really like that the MSM is revealing the number of millions of dollars that key Republican politicians are receiving from the NRA. Isn’t it time that we overturned our NRA overlords?
What about the Democrats? To truly dethrone the NRA, you have to be willing to risk losing the House and Senate control to impose orthodoxy, as the Tea Party did in 2010 when they knocked out moderate Mike Castle in Delaware and some other challengers including to Harry Reid.
When Barack Obama said ‘The children of Newtown deserve a vote!’, it was Harry Reid that refused to bring a bipartisan gun control bill to a vote, to protect Democrats in his caucus. So are you willing to primary these proNRA Democrats, and risk losing their seats, but gaining the benefit of having the NRA be a single party group that can’t get anything when Democrats are in control?
Well said for sure
To Parents of Texas Children:
I’m no child psychologist nor am I a qualified pediatrician but I have seen
truth and I find it a large enough responsibility to report this to you. A finer
accosting has come to those who burst out toward your children. This is a
sad thing to happen to a child (*we’re adults), that would cause their pain to
be expressed in such a violent way. These kids exploded into a mental
breakdown and being kids made their way as they were already traveling.
Here’s the way this happened – maybe someone can bring it to a ‘Halt’-
A one time showing of a firearm, as the famed “parade policeman’s
feared arms” resided amoung them long enough to ‘Take Hold’ as a gun.
Each of these kids had the doubt of finding adequate resources for their
lifetime in a routine manner, the quality of ‘groceries’, an entertaining
‘living’; enough to satisfy the workplace, and attractive lifestyles ~
(still must marry)~. This ‘Udder’ depression, one of inflation that means
“A Living”, coupled with a lack of orientation like no stand – floating in a
wind of no respect and senseless communial dignities which don’t ‘BASE’.
What you’ve got with these kids is a political campaigner in a childs
frame and some sort of ‘Goth’ dredger going through ‘Town’ with the face
they use being ignored by every facet of parental representation available
to their ‘young world’. **(that is known by them, adults need respect, too)
So, to stop this, and never allow it to happen the solution to this HAS
GOT TO BE REMEDIED, I see some spill -over of the college professor
and down the line school teacher student relationship on the intellectual
level but the rest is wilderness training. I beg you not to take this as critical,
but the West Coast is where this started as also the Range Settlers debate.
-You’all can sit through this little note- So, let’s combine the factors; gun belt
wear in History, school kids in Style, rebellion on the West Coast, and the
{a lie} ability to Succeed if given enough focus. THAT is just aggravating,
“spit”, no one of the ‘Adult Gathering’ has survived it, we’ve got Movies
with this exact thing all up and down. You all being Texan you’ve seen all
these things but not as much the ‘First Class Flying’ stuff, if I’m right we
can all get this now.
As a further note and in no way part of the above letter, ‘There’s no
blame to any of the mention actions by those who exampled the “ways”
which preceeded, but that they were preoccupied with the events which
each were addressing’. A little notice of the surrounding area peoples
may just be the meaning of all this problem, but can’t go back, I think
that Movies, Squatters, Wild West, advancing Idiots, Educators or
Politicians have, or had the notions of their effect(s). I will go as far to
say that some of those ‘Fast food’ and ‘Cabbie’ dudes are child -like.
Can we just go around them to “Solution”.
>Ban silencers – that can be done.
Silencers do not operate like they appear in movies.
I am sure that is true.
All I am saying is that a state law banning silencers doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment (in my opinion). So such a law could be passed and would probably be upheld.
Ditto for bump stocks. Not having them doesn’t really infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (again, in my opinion).
So if it makes people feel good to pass gun control laws, those are some I would look at.
I am a little curious how silencers do work; for a very off topic reason.
Occasionally at work compressors let go a deafening woosh of air without warning and it really pisses me off that operators dont seem to control this hazard.
Engineering is one of the things on the hazard control hierarchy; and i have wondered a couple of times why compressor manufacturers dont make an attempt to limit the noise hazard with a little silencing gizmo.
Hearing damage is a big fucking deal.
PPE is at the bottom of the hierarchy and should not be used as the primary control.
Maybe someone can make a million selling aftermarket silencing thingies and save peoples hearing at the same time.
If firearms can be quieter, surely some industrial noises can be as well.
On the Tiahrt Amendment see :
http://www.bradycampaign.org/what-is-the-tiahrt-amendment
On Jim Wright’s blog posts on this see :
http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/07/the-seven-stages-of-gun-violence.html
&
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/10/bang-bang-crazy-two-in-bush.html
(Note :contains swearing, confronting realities.)
As noted I reckon those columns (all of them!) are well worth reading if you haven’t already.
It is pretty obvious now that we need to launch an assault on assault weapons.
The tea party has been largely if not completely an implant of paranoid ideation into vulnerable minds , a non immaculate conception conceived by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers. Now there is a family for you. Papa Koch sold petroleum technology to Hitler and to Stalin. The sons didn’t fall far from the tree in terms of being control freaks who are creating problems for the world and especially the US. But I digress.
The “deep state” that we need to be cognizant of is not some fantasy creation of politicians working to stoke paranoia. There is plenty of current evidence of a “deep state” existing in the form of the NRA, Russian bots supporting the NRA, and their effect on a deeply stupid populace that is vulnerable to their efforts. The speaker of the US House is a gutless chicken who says exactly what the NRA wants him to say, as are most of the Republican politicians and leadership.
Want to have an assault rifle? Join the Army.
By the way, when the founders were talking about “arms” they were talking about weapons with a hundred times less killing capacity than what is currently on our streets and in our schools. The second amendment needs to be thoroughly revamped to accomodate the fact that “we” are now no longer stealing our country from the native peoples, nor are we prey to the fears of a revolt by the nation of enslaved people whom “we” kidnapped and enslaved. We regulate all manners of hazardous, toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic materials and only an idiot or a psychopath would want it to be otherwise. We need to acknowledge the fact that guns are currently a much more acute threat to the lives and mental health of our children then the NRA overlords would allow you to believe.
Mental health? Mental health says the prez…. what about the mental health issues caused by fear of walking into a killing zone every waking minute, because the NRA overlords want you to live in a fucking war zone. Fuck the NRA.
Define assault weapon.
Not this shite again.
Semiauto fire, high capacity magazine, small form factor, especially collapsible stock.
Stop regurgitating the same old crap in an attempt to derail the discussion. It stinks.
If America wants to fix its problems it needs to start right at the root cause. Money.
Until you sort out the liars who have deliberately twisted the 2nd A into a cover for profit-making by the arms industry, you are fucked. People will keep on dying in droves and the RickAs of this world will keep on crowing atop the growing mound of corpses.
Reporting the current state of 2nd amendment law is not lying.
Heller said that laws requiring guns to be unloaded and locked in one room and ammo being locked up in a different room are unconstitutional – that is a fact.
Calling me a liar when I am not isn’t going to help.
What is your solution to the root cause problem of money?
Deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote or just too stupid to read the original?
Stop playing the victim. You are among the enablers, not the victims. They are the pile of corpses you are sitting on.
Expose the causal chain between firearms industry profits, financial support of Republicans and the twisting of the 2nd A by rightwing judges emplaced by same.
Instead of pretending that it isn’t happening and people aren’t dying as a result. Instead of pretending that the twisting of an archaic clause in an old bit of paper justifies all this shit. Especially when at the end of the day, it’s all about corporate profits.
The people who don’t see any issue with the proliferation of guns without any meaningful record keeping concerning them will continue to do so until they are touched by one of these incidents. It would be great to stop things before any more attacks occur — and that concern is one of the things that makes people who are concerned better people than those who throw up their hands and say “We can’t do anything.”
“We need a decade of reporting on how Uncle Joe EFFECTIVELY KILLED HIS NIECE by having a loaded gun around that she used to kill herself at the age of 14, and how he got fined or jailed for his role in her death and, worst of all, had his permit to own a gun revoked. “–That’s a special amount of twisted logic — The one who allows the temptation is responsible for the act? Are we banning strip clubs or advertising on this basis? Can I sue somebody for my turning on the TV, watching a beer commercial, buying beer and getting drunk? Shouldn’t we blame beer makers for drunk driving deaths? Ban alcohol! Ban Cars! Keep your Cars and your Beer in different locked places!
Here’s a non-white kid at home, with a loaded weapon, fending off 3 attackers: https://tinyurl.com/ybm2kqw6 Access to a loaded weapon saved this person’s life, and still enters your 33k stat.
As to the charge of being “anti-protection”: “They are simply trying to seed doubt, to dampen the anti-gun argument, because they are anti-protection.”
Liberals are all about bolstering family units. protecting them, improving economies so that families can escape poverty, people staying married in that old fashioned way, leaving people alone to build generational wealth….? HUH? How about ripping children apart in-utero? Divorce on demand? Making sure men are all pigs who are preying on women and keeping them below the glass ceiling, denigrating faith? OH YEAH. They’d make sure this kid didn’t have a ready weapon to use against multiple attackers, just like they do in the schools, or Orlando, etc… This kid is 17 and able to drive a car, wield a weapon and know right from wrong. But if he posted a hunting picture on social media, talked openly about guns, etc, we’d like him to be evaluated and labeled mentally ill!
It’s “anti-protection” to say that those who care to should be able to arm themselves to aid in self-defense? Liberals say that the laws and the State can protect them from evil. How’s that working out for you? 60 Minutes reporter Kroft recently admitted that city-folk don’t understand firearms and they are therefore frightened of them, while rural folk comprehend and have competency with weapons. https://tinyurl.com/yaj6vttr (4:13-4:24) and that everyone he works with, IF FORCED TO BE ARMED, would shoot each other (3:08-3:17). Kroft proudly thinks that by having this murderous heart subjected to laws, people are safe.
Liberals can’t admit that there’s a difference between men and women, that fathers are important to future generations, but everyone else , including POTUS and VPOTUS, is mentally ill! They own higher education and government institutions all over the nation, but they decry the society they’ve built.
It is sad when children like ron try and fail to make a point.
Particularly when they think it is OK to make what can only be inflammatory comments such as this:
Seriously RickA?
Yes – seriously. That is my opinion.
I think having a gun in a biometric gun safe in every classroom in the USA would keep the body count down, as compared to hiding in the closet and hoping (as happened in the latest shooting).
Of course, that is just my personal opinion and others are free to differ with me.
Hey RickA – are you a Russian bot?
Russian bots promote pro-gun messages after Florida school shooting
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/russian-bots-florida-shooting-intl/index.html
Lisa:
Nyet.
Personally – I think the answer is more guns, not less guns.
Seriously RickA?
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2018/02/15/reality-check-gun-permit-background-checks/
Imagine this…
A shooter opens fire in a university lecture theatre, and everyone ducks for cover. A red-blooded all-American hero with his concealed weapon pokes his head above a seat and sees someone across the theatre holding a gun. He shoots, misses a few times and inadvertently hits a couple of bystanders before finally taking down his target.
Mission accompli… “argh, why am bleeding from my throat?” he thinks fleetingly as he sees another American hero rising from behind another seat, and realising that there are bullets coming from all directions – and that the original shooter is at the back of the theatre and walking out the door. Incongruously he recalls the fighting scene from Kingsman before everything fades to black…
‘Good guys with guns’ won’t reduce the per capita rate of firearms deaths in the USA. They will only increase that number. Thinking otherwise is a component of the cultural psychosis that afflicts the self-absorbed, ideologically-blinkered rabid conservative right.
But don’t worry, it’ll eventually be bred out of that population by Darwinian deselection mechanisms such as:
1) ever-escalating firearms deaths
2) shorter life spans due to a raft of factors manifested by social inequality
3) societal upheaval resulting from a planet warmed by 3-6°C
Or perhaps by the simple expedient of Russia walking in and taking over whilst the GOP-huggers of the country refuse to acknowledge that Trump and his Republican White House, Congress and Senate sold the US to Putin for a fairy tale.
Has anyone here heard of Cody Wilson? https://tinyurl.com/yao73k8f
Gun Bans are a pipe dream. The technology has won the day.
Start working on helping people self-govern. Families, faith, community, generational aspiration…these concepts have served nations well in history.
We have heard of the dishonestly named “Reason” magazine – a haven for liars and ignorant, misleading arguments by loonatarians.
Dean, did you write a textbook on how to not engage arguments?
First, attack the author as childish.
Second, attack the cited sources.
“Dean, did you write a textbook on how to not engage arguments?
First, attack the author as childish.
Second, attack the cited sources.”
Stating facts is not childish. You haven’t made any reasonable statement — ever — and Reason magazine is known for exactly the type of writing I mentioned. It appeals to the low IQ/racist crowd, but nobody else.
But misrepresenting its intent is, a reminder:
Do solitary individuals with guns constitute a ‘well regulated militia’?
Did assault rifles that repeatedly fire rounds which can twist around as they strike flesh and bone exist when the amendment was drawn up and signed?
You are outside the bounds of logic and humanity here RickA. But keep digging.
>Do solitary individuals with guns constitute a ‘well regulated militia’?
Yes they do. The person who was convicted under US v Miller, the case that supposedly declared gun rights are only for the National Guard, was not a member of the military. Yet the court’s ruling did not end on that point. They had to go further and find that the gun in question had no military purpose. The reason is because any individual is considered part of the militia.
>Did assault rifles that repeatedly fire rounds which can twist around as they strike flesh and bone exist when the amendment was drawn up and signed?
Did the internet exist when the first amendment was signed? How about infrared sensors that can detect marijuana plants growing in a house? Should we ban Greg Laden’s blog since it is clearly not covered by the First Amendment? The Supreme Court found that use of the thermal sensors was a violation of the fourth amendment.
No they fucking well don’t. And only a mendacious clown would pretend otherwise. Individuals with guns are just that. Nothing more. All this crap about militias is just centuries old irrelevance repurposed to keep profits flowing into the coffers of the gun makers. How is it that everybody except rightwing knobheads can see this as plain as a gun in the face?
History makes it very clear that when the milita was called up, those called were supposed to bring their guns and ammo with them. So if you were between the ages of 15 and 45 (going off memory here) you were in the milita and were supposed to report with your weapon and ammo.
So yes, an individual with a gun is in the milita.
But why don’t you read the Heller decision if you want to learn why the Supreme Court doesn’t agree with your legal position? The Supreme court has held that the 2nd amendment is a personal right, just like the right of free speech, your 4th amendment rights and so forth.
But keep relitigating the past – why not. Abortion issue folks do to.
I agree with what MikeN said in his comment also.
Yes, because rightwing judges. See ‘sponsorship and lobbying of Republican party by gun manufacturers’.
History. Yes. And the past is another country. This is the C21st. This stuff is irrelevant and should not be used to justify the status quo. The fact that it is demonstrates the level of self-serving dishonesty in those who push literal interpretations of the 2ndA.
BBD:
This stuff won’t be irrelevant until they amend or repeal the 2nd amendment.
Until then, it is very very relevant.
In fact, given the Heller decision and the other recent 2nd amendment cases, I would say this stuff is dispositive.
Continue to dodge the point by all means.
Russian bots promote pro-gun messages after Florida school shooting
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/russian-bots-florida-shooting-intl/index.html
I resent the attempt to link Russian bots to pro-gun messaging, as if that meant anything. Russian bots promoted Bernie Sanders too, and sometimes even anti-Trump rallies. They’re just trying to sow discord and division, and they’ve proved to be pretty darn effective.
RickA
As BBD points out, you keep dodging the point which is that this, read the words slowly so that you understand their intent,
clearly fails to apply to such as the school shooters. As with those who accidentally let fly killing somebody next door, or the young child trying to figure out what this thing is and what it does, or any number of other scenarios where an assault rifle that fires tumbling bullets is triggered.
Really RickA, if ever I had the misfortune to find you allocated to you act on my behalf as a lawyer then I would insist on a change.
Lionel and BBD:
I have bad news for you two.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you on this issue.
They have the final say.
Until they change their tune, or the 2nd amendment is changed or repealed, you are both wrong about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
At least according to the Court who has the job of officially interpreting the constitution and its amendments.
What does this all mean?
It means laws passed which ban semi-automatic firearms are unconstitutional.
However, I think laws passed to ban bump stocks would probably be held constitutional.
I have been pointing out what laws could be passed which would be upheld.
If you wish to keep advocating for laws which will get struck down by the courts – that is ok with me.
Have at it.
Indeed. A good lawyer should be able to use law and precedent together with current circumstance to convincingly argue both sides of a case, otherwise one side of a case would never be able to be represented. And if a law is ‘bad’, or otherwise in error, then a good lawyer should be able to mount a case that could be put to legislators to have made a repeal/ammendement. And a really good lawyer would be able to sell that need to the electorate.
RickA on the other hand just sits there and says “sorry, can’t happen.”
I suspect that he’ll never have Mueller knocking on his door seeking his agile legal services…
It means that the legislature has been captured by vested interest. It means that an obviously anachronistic and irrelevant bit of paper is being incorrectly interpreted to sustain corporate profits at the expense of the lives of American citizens.
There are two responses to this: horror or tacit endorsement. You exhibit the latter, which is one of the interlocking reasons why you are universally reviled here.
BBD, just how much profits do you think gun sellers make because of the 2nd Amendment? Just guess.
If it wasn’t for the misrepresentation of the 2nd A by the gun industry and its sponsored Republicans and the judges they place in the SC, then the US could easily have gun laws like those in the UK: no handguns, no semiauto rifles and carbines, no compact shotguns with large capacity magazines. Basically, no guns unless you can show cast-iron reason for ownership (ie you are a farmer, in which case you can get a license for a double-barrelled shotgun).
So to answer your question, basically all of the gun industry’s profits on US sales come down to the misrepresentation of the 2nd A.
And yes, I know about Remington and the Trump slump. Makes no difference to what I am saying. How many guns are there in America? That’s where you get the answer to your ‘question’.
Now, why not ask me what constitutes an assault weapon or throw some other piece of rotting rhetorical diversion into the mix?
Sorry you misunderstood. I didn’t mean to ask what portion of gun profits are because of the 2nd Amendment. What I mean is how much is the profits of the gun industry in the US?
First hit on ‘US gun market size’ was this:
That was from 2015 using then-available numbers but if you want to quibble that there isn’t a shitload of money on the table, then link me some links showing that it’s not there. Otherwise, >$1.5 billion it is.
And the vast majority of it depends on a calculated misrepresentation of archaic legislation.
The underlying IBIS report shows that the 13.5 billion includes sales to the military. I would say the 1.5 billion is $500 million to the manufacturers for retail sales, $500 million to the gun stores, and $500 million for the military, which seems low.
And I would say that you are dodging the point.
Not really. You made it sound like a very large profit like the oil companies. Instead we have a billion dollars split between many players, big but not quite so big that the profit motive is a primary issue. My guess would have been in the hundreds of millions and maybe just tens of millions. I knew the trial lawyers abandoned their lawsuits after seeing their wasn’t enough money to be made like they did with tobacco.
Yes, really. The US gun industry subverted the legislature and caused the deaths of American citizens for a few hundred million dollars of profit.
Your lives are worth even less to them than you thought. Get the point now?
A most excellent post. But above all:
What needs to happen instead is that it is required by law that you not be a knucklehead.
This, this, a thousand times, this!
We have in the U.S. today a culture where a large percentage of the adult population insists not only on their own right to be knuckleheads, but on conditions that facilitate many others being knuckleheads when a random derangement strikes them. Here I define “being a knucklehead” as performing some destructive act in a sudden fit of anger or fear. Misusing a gun is not the only way to do this, but it is the way we are discussing.
The sure way to reduce this is to change the culture. But that takes time, as Greg pointed out. In the interim, we can regulate access to those implements that so often make being a knucklehead instantly destructive — guns, primarily.
And how can this be done? Some useful measures are:
* Universal background checks on gun purchases
* A waiting period on every gun purchase
* Mandatory training for everyone who buys a gun
Note that none of these measures is a threat to the Second Amendment. That is, they will not prevent responsible people from owning guns. Yet most of the pro-gun people I argue with online adamantly oppose them. Why would that be? In my opinion, it is because of fear.
I hasten to add that I think most of the gun owners in this country are responsible. But they don’t do enough to curtail the influence of the irresponsible few. Perhaps that will now change.
I think RickA’s idea of biometrics — the so-called “smart gun” — has merit, assuming the gun is reliable for its intended purpose. And AIUI such guns are available in Europe.
But I note that Smith & Wesson undertook to develop such a gun, and a boycott sponsored by the NRA shut the program down.
Yes the smart guns do not work effectively.
When state rules are passed that require trigger locks, the police get an exemption. Why do the police oppose trigger locks for their own, when they are the most likely to be shot with their own gun?
Christopher:
I wasn’t proposing a smart gun in every classroom.
I was proposing a biometric gun safe in every classroom.
That is a lockbox with a handprint or fingerprint device registered to the teacher(s) who should be able to open it to get the loaded gun.
It could be on the wall next to the fire extinguisher.
If smart guns could be made reliable enough that would be great – but I don’t think we are there yet. More research and innovation is needed I think
I’m waiting to hear what effect this latest mass shooting will have on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, currently making its way through Congress.
Here’s the transcript of a recent 60 Minutes piece on it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/
I think we have to ask ourselves in a truly honest fashion.
Let’s say for a moment that Congress bans all firearms and collects every last one from every citizen in possession of one.
Will this change the number of suicides? Will it reduce the number of violent crimes?
There is a much deeper sociological problem in our society today, that is far more complex and requires a lot more thought and discussion and the gun itself is one very small piece of this puzzle.
“Will this change the number of suicides?” Yes.
“Will it reduce the number of violent crimes?” Homicides, yes. Non-fatal violent crimes, hard to say.
I consider myself a liberal, yet enjoy firearms quite a lot, shooting mostly for pleasure. I think that guns are inherently dangerous (duh), but whose risk can be mitigated by careful and responsible handling, to the point where it’s really a non-issue on a personal level (myself, my family and the people around me). I very much prize that control over my own fate and freedom of activity, which again, I don’t consider is a risk to others.
I have no issue with the idea of gun control, as long as it does not bring unduly cumbersome, vexing and/or onerous restrictions to what I consider is my own pursuit of happiness. I support a gun registry and waiting periods. Ammunition purchases should be tracked as well. I have no issue with accountability and responsibility. “Accidental” gun discharges wounding or killing people should not be treated as mere accidents. Let’s have training requirements, and certification. It would force would-be gun owners to interact with the gun community, and perhaps would help spot the tiny number of those who are potential trouble. IMO, current laws are way too lax in all those aspects.
From a moral standpoint, my main issue with banning guns outright is the fact that it punishes a whole class of people, who enjoy the use of firearms, yet pose no particular risk to others. This is in contrast to other activities, where one could also claim personal enjoyment, yet would not be able to discount the impact on others or the environment. For example, I may like to drive fast, and claim to be an excellent driver, even be a professional racer, but no matter my credentials, there is no way I can guarantee the safety of others on the road when I drive at very high speed. In that context, and unlike with guns, too much can happen that is beyond my control.
I also object to denying the right of people to defend themselves. I hear the blog author’s argument about statistics, and the fact that I am far more likely to injure myself or a person close than I am to protect them with my guns. These are valid points, and one owes it to themselves to grasp with that reality. Ultimately though, this in the USA, and we entrust people to make those decision for themselves, as best as they can. Personally, seeing that there are lunatic roaming the streets with AR-15’s, I am more inclined to seek personal protection, and that should be a choice I am allowed to make (though perhaps not as easily as it currently is).
If you elect proNRA gun loving Presidents, gun sales will decline and it will send the gun manufacturers into bankruptcy.
Yes, because ammosexuals are dipshits.
Overthrow the NRA overlords.
RickA — sorry for misreading your comment. I think a biometric gun safe could be great for homes where there is a need for defense and where, for some reason, other security measures are precluded. I’m not so sure they are a good idea for schools.
Perhaps not. I just think that the teachers running away and hiding might have wished they had access to a gun for self-defence.
When the 911 call goes out, what happens? Many many guns carried by law enforcement converge on the scene, to try to stop the killer. Why not pre-position some guns, just in case? It would cut down on the response time and perhaps, maybe lower the body count.
We cannot rely on police to stop a determined killer from racking up a large body count. That is clear.
We have to defend ourselves.
I merely suggest one idea for doing so.
I don’t hold out much hope for my idea being implemented in very many schools.
But at least my idea is more practical than wishing guns away. That is not going to happen. Even banning AR15’s won’t stop guns from being available to the determined killer – that is just a fact of life.
People are mad and so they lash out – it is pretty normal behaviour.
People blame Marco Rubio and President Trump and republicans and the NRA. Not many people blame the killer – they focus on the tool the killer used. The real blame goes to the 2nd amendment – because even without the NRA, laws banning firearms would be struck down. That is a built in rule in the USA and only changing the 2nd amendment will change that. When people are mad, they just ignore that little hurdle and pretend that banning the AR15 is a realistic option. After Heller it is not. It is just a fluke that it took until Heller for the 2nd amendment to be ruled a personal right – it could have happened earlier – but it was always going to happen.
I understand that people disagree with me – and that is ok with me.
I am just writing my opinion on the current status of 2nd amendment law.
No, the real blame goes to the gun industry because it sponsored rightwing politicians to subvert the legislature using the 2ndA to keep profits flowing regardless of the gun deaths.
Still you blank this simple causal chain. But then you are an apologist for it, which makes you complicit. Everyone who bleats “but the 2ndA” is complicit. Not front rank dirty like the industry and the politicians it buys, but still filthy enough for shame.
“People blame Marco Rubio and President Trump and republicans and the NRA. Not many people blame the killer – they focus on the tool the killer used.”
Of course we blame the killer. What an offensive comment. We blame the killer for killing … and the stupidity of allowing one to buy an AR15 for making it easy for the killer to kill 17 kids (and wound others, some of which will live in pain, or to some extent disable, for the rest of their life) in five minutes.
Your comment is based on an immoral false dichotomy.
BBD sez “But then you are an apologist for it, which makes you complicit. “.
Mmmmmmm Not sure how well this stands up in court, literally or as a figure of speech.
Its a bit tricky. I do see exactly the idea, particularly applied to proponents of nukes, which is just about most yanks, or brexit voters, that being an apologist for something as a voter is the same as being an enabler, because a ( successful ) vote enables by law.
And nuke lovers and brexit voters are scum of the earth and must take the blame, imo.
However, certain things have nuances and explaining contrary aspects , which may be seen as being an apologist, does not make one complicit automaticly .
Many people i know have tried to explain to me why its ok to lock up children who have commited no crime, but i dont think they are complicit in such an act. They are just idiots.
Imagine someone was an apologist for WWII Na51 atrocities, including the Holocaust.
Complicit? I’d say endorsement constituted complicity where murder is concerned.
Afterthought . And of course some are judged complicit by inaction only, which is certainly less than being an apologist , but inaction sorta equates to it sometimes. Like them arsehole Belgium pricks looking at people in zoos. ” Yeah im just here for the rhinoceros exhibit. This has got nothing to do with me. ”
We walk past the standards we accept. All the fucking time.
“Imagine someone was an apologist for WWII Na51 atrocities, including the Holocaust.
Complicit? I’d say endorsement constituted complicity where murder is concerned.”
Mmmm yes. Ive come across people attempting to validate nazi behavior, not academicly , but sort of more like a personal embracing. Real fuckwits.
Its a really interesting, emotive subject and i thank you for raising it, if only cuz it makes one look at ones own judgements and potential complicities.
I can see several facets, including mcarthyism and christian theology that are relevant.
Articulating a position isnt the same as endorsement, imo.
Its just articulating.
Personal endorsement of a position is tricky.
Bill ” I personally endorse DDT as a great thing ”
Ben ‘ Have you ever even seen, much less used DDT? ”
Bill ” No, but i like the sound of it? Does that make me a bad person ? ”
Ben ” Um hmmmm “
RickA isn’t just articulating a position because pretending that ‘it’s all the fault of the 2ndA’ isn’t an honest stance, as I pointed out a few comments back. Therefore RickA is tacitly endorsing rightwing ideology and vested interest interfering with legislation. That he fails to protest the deaths of US citizens that result from it makes him complicit in the process, albeit not as dirty as the main actors (as I also said earlier).
“…pretending that ‘it’s all the fault of the 2ndA’ isn’t an honest stance, …”
I completely agree.
I thought a bit more about this subject and came up with a sort of thought experiment.
2 people are imprisoned in Japan in about 1928 for, i dunno, murder, or stealing diamonds or somesuch.
20 years each says the beak.
Whilst in gaol, they support differing positions on the governments policies and actions. One fully supportive. One opposing.
They are released in ’48 having done nothing but read comics and eat porridge all day long, or whatever prisoners do.
With regards to events in the interim, China, the co prosperity sphere, axis affiliation etc etc, are the prisoners released with one bearing somehow more culpability for government actions than the other???
I dunno.
I dont often like how people think, but
attributing culpability on thought alone makes me nervous.
The pro-government prisoner would not be culpable because isolated, not voting, not in armed service etc, but weakly complicit by endorsing the actions of the regime. Notice that I didn’t say RickA was culpable, I said he was complicit.
BBD calls me complicit.
Complicit is defined as “involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.”
I don’t think so.
I think people who propose banning guns, which results in millions more guns being manufactured and sold, are a bigger part of the problem than I am.
I didn’t write the 2nd amendment.
I don’t write to my congressperson or senator and oppose any gun control legislation.
I certainly am not involved with others in any criminal activity or wrongdoing
All I am doing is expressing my opinion about what laws are constitutional and what laws are not. And giving my advice on which laws could be upheld by the courts.
But BBD likes to name call and cast blame.
It is important to BBD that I am evil or somehow to blame.
It makes BBD feel better.
I don’t mind.
BBD’s opinion of me doesn’t affect me at all.
I don’t succumb to peer pressure, but think for myself.
BBD wants everybody who disagrees with him to just do what he says, because he says it.
Because you are. You won’t acknowledge the causal chain from gun manufacturers to Supreme Court. We could say ‘partisan’ but it nets to the same thing. Tacit endorsement. Complicity in a wrongdoing.
And in 1, 2, 3, he’ll play the victim:
And so it goes on.
People blame Marco Rubio and President Trump and republicans and the NRA. Not many people blame the killer – they focus on the tool the killer used.
Well those who have supported the NRA and who’s campaigns, at the very least, have received funds from the NRA are complicit if they do nothing to clip the wings of the NRA. Fairly simple really
The real blame goes to the 2nd amendment
Indeed it does and those who refuse to recognise that it is ill suited to modern conditions and continue to use it as an excuse to do nothing are also complicit.
But I am sure you will keep digging yourself into this immoral hole!
Your contorted logic I have seen elsewhere this week and from somebody who shows signs of being on the autistic spectrum.
Lionel:
Whether the 2nd amendment is ill suited or not doesn’t matter.
If it needs to be changed then it will get changed.
It is hard, but it has happened 27 times before.
In the meantime, I am just reporting what the current state of the law it.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Not as long as gun industry money keeps rightwing judges in ultimate charge of how old bits of paper are misrepresented for financial gain.
And your relaxed response to this fact is what makes you complicit in its endurance.
Drat, typo in html tag, its late here and SWMBO was getting edgy.
Well those who have supported the NRA and who’s campaigns, at the very least, have received funds from the NRA are complicit if they do nothing to clip the wings of the NRA. Fairly simple really
Indeed it does and those who refuse to recognise that it is ill suited to modern conditions and continue to use it as an excuse to do nothing are also complicit.
But I am sure you will keep digging yourself into this immoral hole!
Your contorted logic I have seen elsewhere this week and from somebody who shows signs of being on the autistic spectrum.
The blame lies on the democratic gun control peeps and the legislators who have not passed laws mandating armed trained security guards at schools and other soft target areas.. It really does. YOU make it so trained security forces are not allowed in these areas. They should be not only allowed but it should be promoted. Democratic anti gunners should have to pay for commercials stating that all schools are now trained and armed and are no longer soft targets for the weak criminals who pray on the unarmed. It should be mandatory that schools are protected against all threats of any kind.
https://www.redbeardcpl.com/blog/another-active-shooter-more-lost-lives-due-to-our-gun-control-laws
You are the one who is not reading the thread properly. RickA is saying that you have to change the 2nd amendment, which is done with an amendment. If you feel an amendment is not needed, you can argue so, but don’t blame me for using that as the premise.
Nope. Lie.
RickA it has pointed to the long shadow cast by DC vs Heller. But there was no constitutional amendment there. What happened was that rightwing SC judges, led by Scalia, re-imagined the 2ndA in a way which served the gun industry’s interests. The polite word for what Scalia did was interpreting the 2ndA.
So when RickA starts pretending that the 2ndA is the problem, he’s being dishonest. He knows that the real problem stems from rightwing judges reinterpreting the 2ndA in such a way as to suit the interests of the gun industry – but not of American children:
See: just slippery dishonest bollocks. Anything but admit that the causal chain is: gun industry money > Republicans > subversion of legislature > dead children.
Yes, go on, keep nitpicking and trying to distract from this. There’s clearly no limit to how low either of you will go.
Rightwing judges can’t stop constitutional amendments.
Of course they can. All they need is a majority in the SC – eg. provided by Scalia in 2008.
BBD:
You might want to look up how constitutional amendments work.
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.
Just Congress and 3/4 of the states.
At this point, I truly do not give a fuck *how* your wretched, dysfunctional system ‘works’ because basically, it doesn’t. It’s been bought by vested interest. So this is yet another attempt to divert from the point by nitpicking.
BBD:
Pointing out that you don’t know what you are talking about is not nitpicking.
If you want to get something done, it really helps if you know how to do it.
Passing laws which will be upheld by the courts, and not struck down is important.
Knowing how to amend the constitution is important.
Your conspiracy ideation about Congress being in the pocket of the NRA is misguided. Even without the NRA, the 2nd amendment and the history related to it would cause laws banning guns to be struck down.
All talk of banning AR15’s does is spike the sales of AR15’s. 17 dead and hundreds of thousands or millions of additional weapons will get into circulation. Trying to do something which is banned by the 2nd amendment and is therefore actually pointless and counterproductive.
The left always wants to fix problems in unconstitutional ways:
1. Solution to corporate speech – try to ban speech. Unconstitutional.
2. Solution to crazy criminals – try to ban guns. Unconstitutional.
People on the the left appear to have lost touch with reality.
Go ahead and make speeches and march on Washington.
As if the Parents of Sandy Hook didn’t try or are stupid.
It didn’t work for them and it won’t work for this latest massacre.
Instead of trying to ban the AR15, try to get a clean bill passed just to close the gun show loophole. That might actually help and it would be constitutional.
Instead of trying to ban the AR15, try to get a clean bill passed just to ban bump stocks. That might actually help and it would be constitutional.
Don’t waste your time trying to pass laws which are unconstitutional – it just increases gun sales to no apparent benefit to society.
When did I mention anything about constitutional amendments? Never is when.
It was MikeN who injected the amendements bit into the thread from out of nowhere in an attempt – which you are now aiding – to divert from the actual problem.
Which I will repeat, since you pair of scumbags are trying to bury it:
Republicans bought with gun industry money ensure that rightwing judges remain in ultimate charge of how old bits of paper are misrepresented to keep the profits flowing. No matter how many American children die.
BBD:
You were speaking to constitutional amendments when you said:
“Of course they can. All they need is a majority in the SC – eg. provided by Scalia in 2008.” in response to MikeN’s comment:
“Rightwing judges can’t stop constitutional amendments.”
Once again – you don’t know what you are talking about.
Name calling again. How predictable.
Keep throwing your tantrum – I am sure it will be effective.
The 2nd amendment is the point. That you cannot see that is baffling.
You seem smarter than that.
If there is a constitutional amendment that overturns the 2nd amendment and allows gun bans, then rightwing judges will not stop any gun bans. They stopped a gun ban because of the existence of the 2nd amendment.
No, BBD, RickA said “If it needs to be changed then it will get changed.” referring to the 2nd Amendment.
Your response was ‘not with rightwing judges…’.
I pointed out the folly in your statement that rightwing judges don’t overturn the Constitution to fit their political preferences.
More obfuscatory bullshit.
When Scalia perversely misinterpreted the anachronistic 2ndA as a right for private individuals unaffiliated with any militia to keep and bear arms, he gave the industry exactly what it was paying for. Which is the reason the 2ndA is the problem. Which is what I have been saying all along. Now, either your are just an illiterate idiot or you understand me well enough. Assuming the latter, that makes you a dishonest, vicious scumbag.
If you don’t like being called a dishonest, vicious scumbag, stop being one. Or admit that you are a moron who cannot understand plain english and follow this discussion.
Read the thread properly. And stop trying to derail it by introducing the word amendment when the word interpretation is what is relevant. As I have explained repeatedly and will not do again.
The insane, morally repugnant, two fingered salute to the victims of mass shootings, Rapid fire rifle device on special offer in salute to Trump
Seriously?
Oh my heart fucking bleeds for that fuckwits sob story.
If ya have a factory floor and some skilled machinists ( ohhhh Ayn Rand flashback! ) maybe ya could make fucking frying pans or roofing screws
or bicycles or prosthetics or ANYFUCKINGTHING except fucking weapon accessories.
I dont know how these pricks sleep at night. Join civilization or just fuck off ya stupid cretin. Your teachers at school failed very badly.
I note our fuckwit leadership wants to attempt to join in the arms dealing game in a big way. The Liberal party is off its head.
Why not become a world leader in medical equipment or turbine blades or
ANYFUCKINGTHING except weapons.
That’s just obscene — as is the fact that Congress hasn’t done anything about bump stocks.
A few years ago, there was a church* that offered to raffle off an AR-15. But at least they thought better of it, unlike this Slidefire idjit.
* IIRC
My heart goes out to the families that are affected by the recent school shooting and to the families, friends, and others affected each day by gun related teen suicides (the number of which is orders of magnitude higher than those few sensationalized by the media). My question though is why there has not been prosecution of those responsible for putting these guns in the hands of these teens. Let’s face it, if you own a gun, you should be responsible with it and keep it out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them (including your own kids) and if you don’t then you should be held criminally negligent when your child shoots someone. There is a reason there are age limits on buying a gun (among other criteria that have to be met in order to legally possess one) and when parents circumvent those laws by allowing their children access to those guns they should be held responsible. It won’t bring peace to the dead and wounded but at least maybe when they purchase the gun, the thought of 17 counts of manslaughter would be enough to make them think about a gun safe too. I’m 42 years old now and I still don’t know the combination to my dad’s gun safe and as a result you can rest assured that I never handled one of his guns without his knowledge, and thank God for that or I may have been one of those ignored gun suicide statistics when I was a teen.
“It won’t bring peace to the dead and wounded but at least maybe when they purchase the gun, the thought of 17 counts of manslaughter would be enough to make them think about a gun safe too”
In FL you can buy an AR-15 at age 18, without parental consent. The shooter in this case was 19. He bought it legally, on his own. Blaming the parents when the parents are dead (in this case) and the 19 year old bought the gun legally is just gross.
BTW why didn’t he buy a handgun? Because he’s not 21 and federal laws apply …
Regarding teen suicides, though, I’m with you …
After the TrayVon Martin case, one group found out about the special standards in Miami schools where they were not arresting kids to keep their numbers down. TrayVon should have been in jail at the time he was shot. The site collated lots of information and notified Broward County schools about these problems, but Broward still kept the new procedures. Had the old procedure of arresting kids who do serious crimes been in place, then Cruz would not have been able to legally buy his gun.
“TrayVon should have been in jail at the time he was shot.”
is there some reason you continue to lie about that situation?
He was found at school with drugs and a burglary tool. Instead of reporting him to the police, they suspended him, per the new policy.
Broward County received warnings about this policy after the TrayVon Martin details were revealed.
This bill, which has been introduced every session since 2013 didn’t go anywhere (the Republicans shot it down):
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/4001
Apparently there is some discussion about working this or something like it into the package of legislation they are working up to respond to the latest tragedy. Maybe having a Sheriff designate certain approved individuals who can carry at Schools.
The average response time is 6 to 7 minutes, and that is how long the shooter had.
Having gun(s) or people with guns at the most common targets of mass shootings makes of sense.
If even one of the teachers killed by the shooter had a conceal carry permit and permission to carry at school, the carnage could have been reduced.
It is something to think about, along with the biometric gun safe in every classroom idea (which I totally made up and have not seen proposed anywhere).
Banning AR15’s, which is unconstitutional, does nothing about the millions that are already out there. And remember Virginia Tech – that was two handguns, and the body count was even higher. So even banning rifles (and really just future sales of certain rifles) isn’t going to stop a determined crazy person who wants to rack up a large body count from having six or seven minutes to shoot the place up with non-AR15 style weapons.
But people fixate on the AR15 and want to ban it.
My point is even if this gun were to be banned again, it won’t make school children any safer than they are now.
Being able to defend against school shooters without having to wait six or seven minutes is the solution. Cops at school, or trained shooters at school carrying weapons. I am afraid that is the direction we should be going.
“Having gun(s) or people with guns at the most common targets of mass shootings makes of sense.”
If you are a blithering idiot then yes; otherwise, it does not.
dean:
So you think all the schools which already have armed police on site already are idiots?
You think expanding that is a bad idea?
How do you feel about metal detectors at schools?
I am sure an armed shooter could never get by one of those!
Actually, the “GUNS ARE BANNED ON THESE PREMISES” signs should do the trick. Maybe we should double or even triple the signage. That will keep armed shooters out.
Well, I have my opinion and you have yours.
The point with you rickA is that you always post ideas that have no basis in reality, have had the defects pointed out, and then when defects are pointed out go to your favorite weasel out language of “opinion”.
You’ve had the reason having guns in the hands of people in schools is asinine — multiple times. I am amazed you don’t carry your stupidity to its only logical conclusion — there should be no laws against anything because people will break them.
As people (not only me) have pointed out before, you are dishonest and you are an idiot.
So you think my ideas have no basis in reality.
You think I am a liar and an idiot.
I am comfortable letting the readers judge these things.
I don’t stoop to name calling.
You peddle rightwing lies about climate change and gun control, which is fouler than anything anyone could call you. And while behaving inexcusably, you whine and play the victim, which somehow makes it even worse.
BBD:
I don’t agree with you, on climate change or gun control.
This is my right as an American.
You are entitled to your opinion of me, just as I am entitled to my opinion of you.
Then you witter on about opinions, as you always do. So once again, I need to explain something to you.
Let’s take climate change science. If you don’t understand it you can’t have an opinion on it, since opinion must be grounded in an understanding of fact. Now, read that again until you actually understand it.
What you are doing is *not* voicing an opinion. You are instead peddling lies and misinformation originating from politically-biased sources which you merely parrot. Because you are dishonest (or just thick) you aren’t analyisng what you do correctly. You don’t know the difference between opinions and parroting lies. Or maybe you do.
BBD says I am not allowed to have an opinion.
So only climate scientists can have an opinion on climate science?
Are you a climate scientist?
No patient can ever rationally get a second opinion – how dare they question the authority of the first doctor?
Perhaps you think only people who agree with you should be allowed to have an opinion.
Very dangerous thinking BBD!
Of course, I reject your opinion about my opinion.
I don’t need your permission to have an opinion or even to voice it.
My opinion is based on my knowledge of science.
I am an electrical engineer and therefore studied physics for 1 and 1/3 years, I studied chemistry for one year, I studied calculus for 1 year, I studied biology for 1/2 a year. I have been reading the scientific literature in climate change since 2009.
Of course, I am no climate scientist – but are you?
Even if you were a climate scientist, that would not take away my right to have an opinion.
I believe ECS is at the lower end of the range, because I believe that humans have caused only a portion of the warming we have experienced since 1750, perhaps 25% or 50% or 75% – but not all of it. This view is within the mainstream – as the IPCC says > 50% of the warming is caused by humans. I am sure you disagree with my opinion – and that is ok. You have that right. But the science cannot say yet what ECS is or predict the future. We will have to wait to see who is right.
In the meantime, I will continue to read and learn and voice my opinion.
You are free to disregard it.
BBD – I am very curious – what is the basis for your opinion on climate change?
Please share.
The way you write, it sounds like you just rely on what you perceive to be authority – the consensus.
Do you have any science or engineering background?
INSTANT FAIL!
I said no such thing. So the rest of your misrepresentation was a complete waste of pixels.
Oops – I actually took two full years of calc, not one.
Not that it matters – even people with literature degrees are allowed to have an opinion on climate science.
BBD:
How do you know I don’t understand climate science?
Do you understand climate science?
What is your basis for saying that?
Why are you allowed to have an opinion?
Just curious.
You demonstrably don’t have any understanding of climate science, so you can’t have an opinion about it because to opine you must first understand. If you understood, you would realise how confused your spiel actually was.
Therefore you don’t have an opinion of your own, you just parrot the self-serving lies and misrepresentations fed to you online by free market activists.
We crossed just above.
Because you write complete and utter bollocks and cannot (apparently) understand when you are corrected (no matter how many times it is done).
Better than you, as anyone who has ever read our exchanges will know.
Lots of reading; no self-serving bias towards free market ideology to bugger up my thought processes.
Oh Lordy, here we go. I rather suspect that your “opinion” is more based on your misunderstanding of how science works as a profession combined with your naïve perusal of conspiratorial websites.
Where do I even begin? The stupid; it burns.
Massachusetts banned bump stocks as of Feb 1
Four have been turned in…http://wwlp.com/2018/02/19/police-departments-arent-seeing-many-bump-stocks-handed-in-despite-ban/
Bans won’t work and holding student safety hostage to the idea that guns can/will be erased from the community IS foolish.
Based on the listing of school shootings in the USA found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States
There were 56 school shootings during the assault weapons ban period of 9/1994 to 2004.
Banning assault weapons doesn’t stop school shootings.
More data:
In the 1990’s there were 64 school shooting incidents.
In the 2000’s there were 64 school shooting incidents.
So far in the 2010’s there have been 133 school shooting incidents.
Clearly school shootings are more numerous in the 2010’s than earlier.
Why? I think it is just a fad – a great way for young people to commit death by cop and get a lot of attention – but that is just speculation and my own personal opinion.
It seems likely school shootings will continue.
Will banning future sales of AR15’s stop school shootings? No.
Will banning future sales of all firearms stop school shootings? No.
Even if passed, and upheld as constitutional, could we confiscate over 300 million firearms currently in the United States? No.
This is the reality and this is why banning guns won’t work, even if it were constitutional (which it isn’t).
“He was found at school with drugs and a burglary tool. Instead of reporting him to the police, they suspended him, per the new policy.
Broward County received warnings about this policy after the TrayVon Martin details were revealed.”
Yeah, that’s big on American Conservative, WND, and other sites of that ilk, but don’t seem to be anywhere reputable. The reports from the trial state they he had been suspended for having trace amounts of marijuana on campus. Not enough to be criminally charged.
None of which has any bearing on what happened: he was targeted because Zimmerman didn’t believe a black kid should have been in the neighborhood.
LOL, do you even know how many blacks are in that neighborhood? Or that Zimmerman was previously working with NAACP going after the police that beat up a black guy?
“We’re not compromising school safety. We’re really saving the lives of kids,” said Michaelle Valbrun-Pope, executive director of Student Support Initiatives for Broward County Public Schools.”
https://www.publicsource.org/these-districts-fought-the-school-to-prison-pipeline-can-pittsburgh-learn-their-lessons/
And no one ever gets arrested for trace amounts of marijuana and a pipe right?
This was following his previous suspension where he was busted for burglary but they instead just suspended him for graffiti.
https://www.scribd.com/document/135692728/Affidavit-From-Commander-Deanna-Fox-Williams
Jump to about halfway for discussion of the hoops they jump thru to not arrest.
With rights come responsibilities. We see here by your arguments that you have some responsibility WRT the push back against both gun control and climate change action which both have lethal consequences.
I am sure that you will keep digging your foetid hole for you appear as dim as a TocH lamp.
It certainly appears that in the Trayvon Martin case, a hateful, violent, unintelligent gun lover managed to put Trayvon Martin into a situation that Martin correctly identified as life threatening . Make no mistake about it. Zimmerman, an authoritarian racist cop-wanna-be-thug, successfully engineered the murder of a foolish young man. He engineered a fist fight by being confrontational with this young man. And, oh yeah, he just happened to bring a gun to said fist fight. He got in the face of a young man who happened to have every fucking right to be on that property at that time. Zimmerman didn’t announce that he was an armed vigilant. He didn’t “Hi. I’m part of an unofficial neighborhood watch group. How are you doing neighbor? ” No. He presented himself as a bigot itching for a fight. Trayvon rose to the bait, fought for his life, and lost. The prosecutors should be fired.
The right seems to applaud Zimmerman for successfully executing Trayvon Martin following a brief vigilante “arrest” and conviction , followed by a struggle, followed by summary execution because the cowardly perpetrator of the incident now feared for his life, giving him the excuse to use lethal force…. Trayvon Martin got the rapid right wing vigilante inquisition justice track! All for the crime of reacting to being stalked by a white thug, all whilst legally being on land associated with his father’s condo. And while the right wing dog media whistles in the usual he’s-black-and-deserved-it racist puke, they conveniently overlook the fact that it was a setup initiated by the stalker, Zimmerman. An armed vigilante initiated the assault by stalking a citizen. The citizen confronted the armed stalker and got killed. The prosecutors should be fired.
The only prosecutor who should be fired is the one who got added to the case to bring charges. The original ones did a good job. Included in the investigation was the cop who Zimmerman had protested the previous year along with the NAACP; he had a big grudge against George and still couldn’t recommend bringing charges. George did not present himself to TrayVon Martin, he went back to his truck as police instructed. You are right about the stalker part. Martin decided Zimmerman was a gay predator and attacked rather than go home.
Yes, despite the right’s continuing droning that Martin was a thug who started the encounter, the facts and prosecutors said otherwise. Just like OJ got away with murder Zimmerman did as well.
Well the prosecutors said otherwise, he must be guilty!
What are these facts that say otherwise than “Martin was a thug who started the encounter”?
Some evidence in favor are injuries to George, witness testimony of neighbor(the prosecutors tried to argue that Martin was the one being beaten by George),
The timing of the police call and video, shows Martin should have been home by the time of the shooting. His house was not very far, yet a long time later he still hadn’t reached, suggesting he circled back to take care of George.
Evidence he’s a thug- his school suspension for burglary which they couldn’t prove and had to get him on graffiti.
Videos of him engaging in MMA.
Video on his phone of a group of people beating up a homeless guy.
MMA is in context with the rest. It is possible TrayVon was engaged in the beating of the homeless guy. The neighbor testified about someone beating the other guy MMA style.
Someone in the prosecutor’s office tried to delete inconvenient text messages from TrayVon’s phone, and a whistleblower revealed this, and the state attorney fired the whistleblower.
https://youtu.be/t4EKnS_1RHA
Also included in these texts was TrayVon discussing buying and selling guns, how to mix his own drugs(the Skittles and iced tea he bought was part of this).
Correction, the iced tea was watermelon fruit juice for making his ‘lean’.
16 months earlier, family member says about TrayVon, Do I need to do a bail fundraiser?
After his dad is complaining about how bad he is.
His mom doesn’t show up for many days after hearing he’s dead. She just wasn’t surprised he got into more trouble. It’s why she kicked him out of the house to begin with.
From wikip…”Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation, and recalls advising: “If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out…. Observe from a safe location”. The director of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) said Zimmerman’s “alleged action … significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program”. The Neighborhood Watch program that employed Zimmerman was overseen by the local police department rather than the NSA.”
Zimmerman went back to his truck, but then he got out again and claims he was looking for another address. He then claims that Trayvon Martin confronted him. Zimmerman did not identify himself as an armed neighborhood watch member, which is stupid and cowardly and was apparently a self engineered setup to make himself look like a hero.
“…[Police officer] Chris Serino sent a capias request to the state’s attorney recommending charges of negligent manslaughter against Zimmerman, though Serino maintains he did not believe they had the evidence to support those charges and that manslaughter was only included in the capias in order for the prosecutor’s office to continue with their own investigation. The capias states, “the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party’s concern…. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.”
Zimmerman was an incompetent amateur cop who wanted to be a right wing hero and he was very successful in killing a suspicious unarmed person …. something the neighborhood watch program is not meant to do. Zimmerman completely botched his assigned task, did not follow instructions, and killed an unarmed youth.
I am glad that Zimmerman spent a big chunk of his life in a courtroom as a defendent. He deserved that. Oh, and did I mention that Zimmerman was accused of abusing his girlfriend? Or ” that Witness No. 9 accused Zimmerman of molesting her when they were children”? Or that Zimmerman In July 2005, was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.” But, probably thanks to his white privilege in being the son of a judge, “The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program.”
Zimmerman has that familiar stink of a violent authoritarian criminal misogynist and dehumanizing racist. He has the standard traits of a gun killer. That the right wing came so strongly to his defense says a lot about them and their own insecurities.
>No indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.”
Other than attacking George.
It’s also worth noting that the trial played several call to police from Zimmerman on other nights: in each he was complaining about “blacks hanging around and loitering”, and in general being in places he didn’t think they should be. He finally found someone he felt comfortable confronting and attacking.
Some states are going in the direction of more guns, not less:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/21/new-hot-ticket-ohio-teachers-free-concealed-carry-classes/
This is rational thinking, and I expect a lot more people will begin to think the same way.
“Other than attacking George.”
Debatable — Martin was being followed, and threatened, by someone who was to all appearances a goon.
Did you know that the Auroro CO shooter researched the eight movie theaters in his area, and picked the only one which banned guns on its premises. Gun free zones make them targets for crazy killers. People are beginning to see that.
We didn’t know that because it is complete bullshit.
The claim:
“Out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned”
Notes from the shooter’s diary for why he chose that theater:
* South side of theater optimal due to 15 screens
* He chose his parking location next to theaters 10 and 12 because “those are the best targets in the complex”
* He listed as a pro “many people packed into a small space”
* He made notes about the “many doors and hallways” available for people to escape
Nowhere in his diary did he reference selecting it because guns were banned. He intended to enter through an emergency exit directly into the theater, not through the main door, to avoid detection. He also noted that the Aurora Police Department and a Colorado National Guard faculty were close:
“ETA response in approximately 3 minutes” was in his planning list. He wrote “being caught is 99% certain”
Fox News seems to have started the “he scouted to find a theater that banned guns” lie. His diary, and other evidence from the trial, shows that to be a lie.
Rick A sez “. . only one which banned guns on its premises. …”
* shakes head *
Ummmm, now look here you stupid yanks. How the flying fuck can a cinema arbitrarily decide on the saftey rules by which it is governed???
Dean sez . ” …. diary … “!!!!!!
Thats just an incredible bit of luck investigators that the alledged baddy
was sort of extra nutzoid to keep detailed written plans of research into the intended crime. What sort of baddy does that?
I can imagine a bank robbery being planned with alot of research, but no fucking bank robber is gunna write it down, unless they are particularly stupid.
Or maybe thats just the norm for yanks, and theres a kind of national stupidity that runs through citizens
( this cinema shooter who keeps a diary ), corporations ( cinemas who just arbitarily decide saftey regs instead of
all being compelled to follow best practice , and government, which dosnt
appear to understand governance if they just let cinemas do whatever the fuck they want .
So if what Rick A says about cinemas choosing not to be gun free is true , ( in which case i think ya nation is doomed)
or hes misinformed or lying, ( in which case theres a glimmer of hope).
For fucks sake. Cinemas should not get a choice about if patrons can bring explosive deadly weaponery onto the premises.
This from one who wouldn’t know a rational thought if it hit him in the ribs.
But then RickA could just be deliberately winding us up.
Newsflash! Not everybody thinks like you do, or agrees with your opinions.
Why, even some very educated and smart people might even disagree with you.
Personally, I do think that letting a crazy killer have seven minutes to shoot up our kids without being able to fight back, having to just hide or lock doors, is not a good plan.
I would rather see trained people carrying protection at the school so they can defend the children.
You disagree – and that is your right.
Each school will end up deciding and I am sure some will agree with me and some won’t.
That is ok.
In America we are not all required to agree with each other or the government.
We think for ourselves.
Trying to ban guns is a logical response to mass shooting – but doesn’t address the 300 million guns already owned by the population.
I am sure it makes people feel like they are doing something, to try to ban assault guns, so that is ok with me. 1st amendment freedom and all that.
I am focused more on the six to seven minutes it takes the police to respond to the typical call (and this last school shooting).
What is your plan to address that?
I think it is rational to think about a firearm in each classroom, in a biometric gun safe keyed to the teacher(s) fingerprint or handprint. I would put it by the fire extinguisher.
If you don’t go for that, than I think it is rational to think about trained people being permitted to conceal carry at schools.
Than instead of covering children’s bodies with their own, maybe, just maybe someone who had a weapon could defend the children (and themselves) and knock the body count down.
That is my personal opinion.
Constitutionally, every time society saw there was an opportunity to form a better unit:
The vote,originally for causians eligible and 21 only
To a vote for blacks
Then a vote for women and finally a vote for Indians
Changes were achieved by amending the part of the Constitution voting to include these.
When society believed a progibition of alcohol would make us safer, an amendment to THE CONSTITUTION was required. And when society realized prohibition didn’t stop drinkers but only escalated crimes because of the bot legging business, Congress amended the Prohibition Amendment, effectively ending it.
BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED FOR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, as weapons became more and more powerful, it seems impossible to compare a powder and ball musket and or pistol gun owners might possess when the Constitution was ratified to semi,automatic and special sniper rifles in existence today.
For example in those days, horses,and horse driven buggies were in use and I am sure laws were put in place to insure safety and expedite safe traffic in cities.
Those same laws even though cars are also means of transportation would never suffice in todays world and tgat’s before considering flying cars which would require a whole new set of laws to insure air traffic could continue to be managed in a safe way.
From the time the 2nd amendment was authored, it has never been amended.
Courts have rendered interpretations but what court could render interpretations when the first repeater rifle was fabricated and somehow say our Founders intended tge rights of gun owners who required a few seconds to load and shoot one round to suxh a weapon, or to compare it to a weapon with a chamber housing more than one bullet, forget banana clips.
Now a court is trying to interpret law for a horse to be used by people who own flying cars without any legislation or updating.
I have pointed out that amendments were affected to insure the rights would include women,blacks and Indians. But why was an amendment necessary, as long as they were born or naturalized,21 and citizens? Because of race and gender, these two small changes, They were all citizens.
We don’t ned sensible gun laws,the second amendment needs to be amended to include of todays society.
No one hunts deer with a machine gun.No one who cherishes the lives of family members in their home would unload an automatic machine gun at an intruder because of the possibity of errand bullets accidentally killing tbeir loved ones.
Weapons that can wipe out a militia like George Washington might have started out with in a few minutes are weapons of warfare.
Does anyone honestly think our Founders would have included those as a part of the right to bear weapons? Not even for the purpose of use by or in a militia- the negative that a British mole may use one to decimate a good part of Washington’s encampment on the Delaware would have been unthinkable.
Why didn’t founders include tge personal use of cannons in any of their letters, If somehow it was intended for Americans to have a right to bear weapons with power to slay many in a matter of seconds.
The NRA has always ridden high on court interpretations of a gun owners laws which were entirely Unconstitutional because a change from a rifle with one shot(ball) l, powder and ramroded down before a shot was taken has absolutely nothing to do with weapons introduced from just before the civil war and on to now, except they are weapons
Such opinions are legislation from the bench which by law exist to interpret the law,not rewrite it or update it.
“…British mole may use one to decimate a good part of Washington’s encampment … ”
Mmmmn id suggest such a scenario to highly likely seeing as what poms did in Australia well after Washingtons time.
One or more poms go into camps and slaughter people for wierd pom reasons.
Got me curios actually about yank governments reaction and diplomatic efforts when they knew of what poms were doing in Oz.
Maybe cuz they were such complete pricks themselves it was happliy condoned. Dunno.
Every organization around the world with a European influence or foundation seems to have been at odds with their own christian influences or foundations to the point grotesque hypocrisy.
Its mindblowing.
“No one hunts deer with a machine gun.”
Mmmm why is this?
If i wished to kill a deer it would seem a reasonable option to consider utilizing.
There may be technical considerations im not aware of. Noise? Calliber? Fuck knows.
A ranger mate involved with feral camel control has blown away thousands from helicopters , but i dont think it was with a machine gun.
You all need to listen!!!!! All of these school shooting stem from kids who get bullied on a regular basis. All of you parents out there with kids who think they are better than others and put others down? YOU are the ones responsible for these kids getting murdered in school!!!!!! When ALL of the bullying stops, then so will the shooting. Don’t you people understand that?????
No more bullying, got it.
I keep on hearing that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war”.
Technically that might be true, but tell me this. Was the single action revolver not a weapon of war at one time? Was the musket not a weapon of war at one time? Was the bow and arrow not a weapon of war at one time? Was the spear and knife not a weapon of war at one time? Liberals need to give it a break. You know why? Because the single action revolver, the traditional muzzleloader, the bow and arrow, the spear, the knife, and the sword are ALL still made and used today and no one says a word. Imagine that.
Liberals’ heads will explode if they read what I am about to say. Guns evolve. It’s EVOLUTION. I never thought as a young earth creationist I would ever use the term “evolution” in a positive manner, but I guess science fiction terms do have some merit after all.
“No one hunts deer with a machine gun”. TRUE. But they do hunt hogs from a helicopter with a machine gun. Costs $2000 or more per person all day long in Texas. Deal with that. Also the AR is not even remotely close to wanting to be a “machine gun”. For “educated” people, you sure are stupid. Besides that the second amendment was not written to protect humans from invading deer armies. It was written in order that private citizens could protect themselves against invading forces and even their own government should it become tyrannical and start killing its own citizens. For proof, see a history book and look up Abraham Lincoln who sent military forces to occupy his own people. Sure his side won, but only after loosing over half a million of his own and 4 years of war. Had nothing to do with invading deer armies.
Harold, do you ever try to make a real point?
Ignorance or dishonesty? Which made you omit the part about the South starting a war by firing on Fort Sumter? Especially since the reason for the South’s rebellion was their leaders’ desire to be able to continue holding slaves?
Try to keep up.
Why am I not surprised?
Lincoln did in fact attack Americans with military force and was met with a fierce resistance that still continues to this day.
Harold you clueless dishonest fuck.
TL;DR we can fix all death problems by writing laws that can only be unforced if we also remove protection against unlawful searches. We should keep schools as hunting preserves for the mentally ill, they need to release their rage against our young.
A more direct interpretation: you have no clue about this so you make things up.
Wonderful! Your words betray you as one who is along a line that has failed to continue to evolve. ‘Why Evolution is True’ to Coyne a book title. Sea also ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’ and ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’. Young earth creationism indeed. Maybe you should exercise that laryngeal nerve more often.
Everyone disagrees on gun laws, but I think we can all agree that school shootings are horrible. This is a reoccurring problem and requires action to be taken immediately. Since the Florida shooting, there have been almost 20 schools that have shut down due to threats. Personally, I think it stems from the heavy broadcasting of the topic. Instead of sitting on social media arguing with one another, let’s demand actual change from the government.
They should have left his name out of media reports. Some number of them are doing it for notoriety.
I do believe they should make all guns illegal, let us pass this law. But they should be illegal for everyone, including the police, security forces, private detectives, anyone that is on American soil, not even the military should be able to deploy on American soil with any type of weapon. Then it will truly reflect what good this type of law can do. Now if you want to twist this as you see fit that is ok you should be in office because then the laws would not be for everyone, just the ones you would choose.
Sorry – but such a law would infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. So such a law would be ruled unconstitutional. The constitution trumps law.
I guess Rick you did not see my point then. I apologize but thank you for the ability to better explain. This law would be fair because no one would have guns except the criminals, then all the politicians, rich, famous, anyone who has a body guard would be at risk to anyone with a gun. This would also allow us to accept any invading force with open arms and ask them to please put their guns down as they are illegal. So I am not arguing this for the benefit of those that would make them illegal but for those of us who wish to have guns for the reason the founding fathers wanted us to have them. To be able to defend our families, our friends and our country, even the ignorant who do not understand what they ask for. I have already pledged to protect this country as part of the military and do not plan on giving up the ability to go on doing so. Thank you.
Rick, you misunderstood.
Yes – I did misunderstand.
Sorry about that.
The more research one does on the statistics of gun violence, the more surprising these issues become. Basically, it appears there is legislation/directives in many states ‘not to collect’ gun violence statistics. Most of them come from the health professionals, not the life safety side (cops). If you dig deeper into those legislative decisions and directives, it is even wilder to see the lobbying that went on to enact them.
On another side of the issue: it always has surprised me how easy it is to buy a gun, but impossible to buy a bullet proof vest, unless you are basically in the law and order profession or the military….
It’s pretty easy to buy bullet proof vests, you can get one one for $120 that is rated for six 7.62×51 rounds, a bullet much larger than the AR-15’s usual caliber choice. It’s not lightweight though, at least 18 lbs. Nonetheless, you can just go online and buy one, like at Jet.com
This blog is well spoken and well written and I’m kinda with you. To lock up your guns is fine but without ammo is unconstitutional. Like you stated it could be related to mental health issues and we should exploit that issue rather than gun control.
I grew up in a family and region where all sorts of hunting is still common. I have never seen anything negative because everyone was taught to respect forearms, they actually know what the results of firing on someone else is.
The thing that is being ignored by everyone is that the ability to fire a deadly weapon on another is not something most could or would do when I grew up, born in 60s
I believe that the shooting video games of today that these kids grew up with have numbed them to the effects of firearms and made it easier for them to pull that trigger. They do it all day and night for fun on their Xbox or whatever.
If we are going to point fingers at causes of shootings, the willingness to shoot another over something we would have just had a fight over when I was in school resulting in a shooting is the result of poor parenting, ignorance of consequences of firing on another by a lot of young people that were allowed to play games where killing is graphic since they were way too young.
Gun control seems to only come to light when a triggering event takes place. Triggering events include mass shootings like the recent events in Parkland, FL. The problem is, that soon after the triggering event, discussions about gun control start to trend downward. This is a problem that we as American citizens need to fix. We must not so easily give up. We must continue to fight for more strict gun laws and hold those that break gun control laws accountable. There is absolutely no reason as to why an American citizen should own semi-auto and automatic assault rifles. I hope that the latest triggering event sparks change in gun laws that have never been seen before. But the only way that this will happen is if we continue to be heard in the months and years to come.
Mike A:
While I agree with the thrust of your post, I do take issue with your opinion that there is no reason an American citizen should own a semi-automatic rifle.
Just to clarify, you realize that means you have to load a round each time you pull the trigger?
I can think of lots of reasons, but here are a couple: you are using your gun for self-defense and your first shot misses. Or you wound with the first shot, but the bad guy is still charging. Or there is more than one bad guy.
So I respectfully disagree with your opinion.
I personally am not in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons in America.
Correction:
I looked up the definition of semi-automatic and my understanding is not correct. I apologize.
I thought semi-automatic meant one shot at a time, like a bolt action rifle.
In fact, it means that the energy from the previous shot advances the next.
So a revolver, like the classic six shooter handgun, is not considered a semi-automatic. In my previous post I was lumping revolvers in as semi-automatics, and they are not considered to be semi-automatics.
So that does partially address my issue with self-defense.
I would still be against a ban on semi-automatics, but thought I should clarify.
There’s no reason why anyone would need an assault rifle (semiauto but with compact form factor and large capacity magazine). You could argue for semiauto hunting rifles but for such a fixed magazine with 3 or 4 rounds capacity is all that could ever be justified. Even that is 2 – 3 rounds more than a competent marksman actually needs or would ever fire at moving game (it moves after the first shot, usually at speed). The same applies to small calibre rifles for vermin control. Also shotguns. Shotguns are infinitely superior to all other classes of firearm including revolver and semiauto handguns. If you can’t stop a home invasion with 3 x 12 bore shells you’re going to die anyway.
So there is no justification for Americans to own assault rifles, revolvers, semiauto handguns or any kind of hunting rifle or shotgun with a mag capacity of over 4 rounds.
Whatever the gun nuts and the liars in the NRA claim. BS, the lot of it.
Should have written:
“Shotguns are infinitely superior to all other classes of firearm [for home defence] including revolver and semiauto handguns.
I am glad you believe what you do, that makes this still a free country. Now if we outlaw these weapons who it going to make sure the criminals, also I do have at least one definite reason to have large capacity magazines, semi automatic weapons. This is an invasion deterrent. I think that any army invading the United States would have more trouble out of an armed populace than that of an unarmed one. Then my favorite it Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America and the worst gun crime. Now to argue let take away the guns so there is less crime, now that is not very smart because you want to pass a law, now the last I checked a criminal is someone who breaks the law, ie laws don’t work for criminals.But please by all means volunteer to hand in your guns if you want, I am a Veteran and I will not willingly do so, I have sworn an oath to protect everyone that for me that doesn’t stop because I am no longer in the military. Now I think there should be more severe punishment for anyone committing crimes with weapons. This would actually be a better deterrent that taking away someones ability to defending themselves and their families. You commit a violent crime with a gun and minimum of 20 years, 30 years, life not sure that would be up to the ones that actually make the laws. But an unarmed populace would mean that no one could actually defend themselves against anyone or anything.
Ha! Funny. So your main reason why assault weapons should be legal is fear of an invasion fantasy that will never, ever happen? Not a great basis for keeping the buggers in play, is it?
As for home defence, it’s all the usual industry BS. f push comes to shove, a 12 bore shotgun is a superior deterrent because if you fire it, you get a yuge bang and a vast hole in anything even vaguely in the way of the shot cone. The bang, the whole big moving air thing, and the huge hole is all you will ever need to make your point about whose house it is. If you are a veteran, you know this. You’d be more scared of the shotgun than the M4.
BBD said “So there is no justification for Americans to own assault rifles, revolvers, semiauto handguns or any kind of hunting rifle or shotgun with a mag capacity of over 4 rounds.”
Lets just talk about revolvers for a second.
You don’t think that the classic six shooter revolver should be commercially available in the USA?
Samuel Colt invented his revolver in 1836, so you are advocating taking away a type of gun which has been commercially available for 182 years.
I think that is an overreach and will never happen.
I am planning on buying a Henry AR-7 survival rifle, which is the commercial version of the classic gun which was under every military aircraft seat. It has an 8 round clip and fires .22LR. It breaks down with all parts stored inside the stock and is an all around great weapon, just in case.
But 8 is greater than 4, so it would be banned under your vision of the future.
So I would be against that.
Although I respect your right to hold an opinion different than my own, and to advocate for and fight for your future, just as I will advocate and fight for my vision of the future.
That is what makes America great.
They were specifically designed for murdering people, then and now. So there’s no sane justification for general public ownership. If you did that, you’d end up with absolutely sky-high gun death rates… oh, wait…
Great little rifle, the Henry. But what practical difference would it make if it came with a 4 round magazine? None whatsoever. First shot and everything flees. Second shot a miss unless you are a shit-hot marksman. Third and fourth? Forget it. This kind of rhetoric won’t work on anyone who has ever used a gun for vermin control or hunting because it is absolute and utter bullshit.
Absolute and utter bullshit deployed in the name of keeping the gun industry fat and political donations rolling in will not make America great.
Donnie K sez … “But an unarmed populace would mean that no one could actually defend themselves against anyone or anything.”
Oh man! Wowee!
This is some out there shit.
How is it that billions of people live their lives to old age, dealing with the various dramas and traumas life brings,
and they dont carry personal firearms around with em or keep em in their dwellings?
Why? Whats the science behind this magic whereby they dont have a gun and they dont ever have a use for one?
This is what needs looking into.
Donnie, would you agree never needing a gun in ones lifetime is a good thing?
How can such a situation be en couraged do ya reckon?
What are the attributes of people who have need for a gun at least once in their life compared to attributes of people who never need one?
( just wondering if its reasonable to make a similar study around fire extinguisher need, and it probably is reasonable, for comparison and discovery of methodological issues ).
Fuck me, if one finds themselves anticipating need to kill, theres some fucking wacko shit going on and maybe one needs to look at ones life.
I cant believe psychology some yanks seem to live daily with. Its like some undeclared war against um, indefinable baddies.
However, a thought. How come Jerry Sienfeld and his mates on telly never needed a gun? What were they doing that gun needers were not doing?
So my argument is not sound but your is that no one needs them without any reason is valid. Then you point out because I am a veteran and you spout that I should know like you know something and that I should know it. Where is you valid points, something beside opinion. Funny how a lot of arguments about guns between pro gun and non guns non guns say pro guns reasons are not valid but their reason (because) is the best reason out there. I only ask that people actually educate themselves, and Facebook is not a good place to come up with ideas on how things should be. Read up on history. The second amendment was put into the constitution actually not so that citizens could protect themselves from criminals, believe it or not, it was actually put in to help protect the citizens from government that would and could try to enforce doctrine by force. So you say no one should have (guns/rifles/M4) or what term you would like and I say why not. Stricter sentences for criminals who use guns actually makes sense to sane people but over in that place a lot of non guns people live if we outlaw the guns, then anyone who breaks the law will have to listen to the law and obey. Just like in Chicago. And as far as the fantasy that no one will ever invade, you should really read and learn history. There are several countries, empires and nations that thought the same thing and they are no longer writing their own history. Now please go read a book and stop trying to sound like you know more about this then a veteran. And please stop trying to take freedoms away, as they don’t effect you, you have the freedom to not own guns, and by all means post a sign in you front yard, wear a t-shirt too that says if I am held up, shot at, or scared for my life by anyone please do not use a gun to save me as I am against anyone owning guns.
The level of stupidity required to believe that a few fat teabaggers with AR-15s would be able to fend off an enemy military powerful enough to get past our military and mount an invasion is mind-boggling — yet here is someone who believes it.
No dipshit, they do not have the strictest laws. The laws that were in place were overturned many years ago — I want to say 2010 or 2012 or so. Your line is common from the no-nothings on the right, but it is a fabrication.
Military invasion of the continental US is a complete fantasy. On supply logistics alone. I thought you were a veteran. Stop spouting embarrassing crap please.
There ask a (Democrat) probably hate to cubbyhole but seems to be more true than not, to read and they go out and spurt offences, call names, and just completely tell falsehoods. LOL so I am stupid thinking that Americans could actually defend this country. Then again you keep spouting on about AR15s because that is the evil weapon. Do you have any idea of anything, do you have an IQ above 50, do you have the ability to actually think critically. So let us address the ramblings of an true uneducated ignorant person.
“The level of stupidity required to believe that a few fat teabaggers with AR-15s would be able to fend off an enemy military powerful enough to get past our military and mount an invasion is mind-boggling — yet here is someone who believes it.”
So I don’t remember when I referred to this group you keep mentioning? But then you see what you want and argue the extreme and act as if everyone else is stupid. See arrow on the person shirt beside you.
Now on to the last part where you call me a dipshit and you researched the information in you unstable mind.
No dipshit, they do not have the strictest laws. The laws that were in place were overturned many years ago — I want to say 2010 or 2012 or so. Your line is common from the no-nothings on the right, but it is a fabrication.”
Well holy crap I must agree with you Chicago has rolled back a lot of its gun laws according to the sources, you can even conceal and carry there now, sorry I am from Illinois and I did not think they would ever change so I did not actually check that fact, but now on to the other side of the coin since they are pull back the gun law restrictions and let conceal and carry in Chicago, oh my god the gun violence has gone done. So this also proves my argument. Wow so I can admit I was wrong can you?
That is the universal problem with you clowns: you care so little for facts that you never bother to see if what you is ever correct.
The AR-15 comment was made solely for because that’s the weapon that has been discussed most on this discussion. Replace it with whatever you wish. Your idea that you and your ignorant buddies would be able to fend off a modern military strong enough to manage an invasion is a complete load of crap. You’d be wiped out before you knew the opposition was within miles of you.
When I’m wrong I do admit it. Nothing in my previous post or this one was wrong. Your idea is asinine and you are an idiot for believing in it.
And you have waited all this time, and used so many words to argue against (which is really what you are doing) gun control and you don’t even know what semi-automatic means. Clearly my post where I described my experiences with SMLE .303 and SLR (aka FLN) flew right over your head.
But this is the level of ignorance, let alone logical failures, we are dealing with where the likes of RickA are concerned.
Hey Rick as a lawyer do you establish the facts first? You know before you start bending them to suit whatever agenda has come across you.
I’m sure Donnie K has played some first person shooter on his computer from his mom’s basement. If you are stupid enough to believe armed citizens would be able to repel a modern military (which is the typical teabagger/libertarian male masturbatory fantasy) having that computer experience qualifies you as a veteran.
This is why arguing with idiots is like, they are extremely stupid, do not read and then they like to project themselves on anyone else they can. This one seems to have some type of fantasy about men. And to not have any evidence to say the contrary on who is or isn’t a veteran. I really think there is no hope for people like this. But I do think education should be free so maybe some type of intelligent thought might be able to be accomplished between, what every stupid self inflicted sex games he is playing. Have fun with that dean. And get out of your mother basement, get a real job. Stop Trolling and being an idiot. Or at least tell me about you education and all your degrees that you have accomplished online. LMFAO you would not have even made it through MEPS.
dk, if you don’t want to be known as an idiot stop saying foolish things like armed civilians would provide any resistance to a modern military. That is beyond stupid, and is why I doubt you are a real veteran: the men and women I’ve had (and currently have) in class (undergraduate stat/graduate stat/data science) who’ve been in military service are intelligent, well spoken, and can write. You demonstrate none of those capabilities.
Your lack of rational thought, poor grasp of reality, and unwillingness to consider facts all contributed to my assessment of you, and nothing you’ve said changes it.
So you saying no armed populace has ever stood up to a modern military, now who is saying stupid things, please tell me what college you are going to so I know that I don’t want to send my children there. Now Dr. Dumbass I do believe we have a situation in
Afghanistan, Iraq, then there is the situation in Poland where the armed citizens are fighting the Polish Army. I think you might want to stop with college and go get a job at McDonalds if you qualify because what ever your imaginary degree is going to be in you are going to really mess something up if you managed to get hired.
Oh by the way I have no more time to have fun poking at the lower lifeforms that like to inhabit these forums and try to make themselves sound way smarter than they are, please let me know when you get your degree and what field you are in so when it is time for you to get a job I make sure I don’t ever need your expertise, or well if I did start eating at McDonalds again I might not be surprised if you messed up my order.
Try to think dk, you’re doing so poorly even I feel bad for how you are embarrassing yourself.
Think about the difference between training, supplies, and resources your tea-bagger friends would have here compared to the similar things the fighters in the places you named have. No comparison.
You’ll have to supply a reference to the Polish issue you cite.
We’ll see if you really land your flounce dk. People like you, who can’t muster an argument that rests on reality, rarely do.
Hi, my name is Michael Casali, I’m a professional composer. I recently wrote a song about gun violence in the USA, and would like to share it with your followers. With your permission I could email you an MP3 or a link to the song? Thanks for all you do, Michael Casali. mrc708@comcast.net
Michael, the owner of this website deleted another gun topic thread.
He must be trying to cover something up.
Did you know that nearly 6,000 pedestrians are killed each year!
How about a tune for that?
Like Dean, I somehow missed that. What an extraordinary coincidence. Or perhaps you are lying?
Ah, the stink of false equivalence in the morning.
I’m pretty sure I’ve never deleted a gun topic thread, but during a recent transition between servers, links were lost. Give me more info, and I may be able to find it.
Look! Over there! A Squirrel!
Classic Whataboutism defense.
Does the surge in pedestrian deaths have anything to do with distracted, self indulgent , smart phone wielding drivers?
Does the need for some males to own an arsenal and constantly put neurotoxic lead into the air, soil, water, and human bodies having anything , anything at al, to do with their self indulgent needs to live out childhood hero fantasies and to protect the flagging testosterone levels that lead helps induce? Now that is an interesting feedback mechanism that needs a lot more investigation. Gun nuts, as they used to say, probably really do, on average, make lousy lovers.
I personally feel that a thorough background check to smoke out things like criminal tendencies, mental instabilities, tendencies towards violence, tendencies towards impulsive behavior, general immaturity, and physical incapacities [ for instance, things like uncrontrollable finger twitching] should be made before allowing someone to buy and own a firearm. And the checks should be repeated every year or so to make sure that lead induced neurodegeneration hasn’t progressed to the point of loss of qualification. That would probably prevent more needless deaths and maimings than happen to pedestrians every year. Oh, and penalties for criminal possession of a weapon should be greatly increased.
The Non Rational Axis however, appears to want to keep gun show loop holes in place, and will invoke the second amendment religion whenever possible, so as to increase employment and profits in the gun and ammo industry. And if you or a loved one get killed or maimed by a mental or moral defective who managed to get their hands on a gun, you are no more than a human sacrifice to the gods of profit. Human sacrifice is still going strong in the 21st century. Who would have thought it?
But after all, more pedestrians die each year than children, infants, and toddlers blown to shit by guns mishandled by fools.
Anyway, that is my opinion. Have a nice day.
OK which one no longer appears in this list?
https://gregladen.com/blog/category/violence-and-guns/
Whatever, it matters little when all you can do is bring up a red herring.
And what SteveP wrote.
Thank you, Lionel, for the link. I could not find it.
To the site owner, it was about suicides and murders at gun
ranges.
Really? Where? (I know, expecting billyR to provide evidence is a lost cause, but you have to try.)
It’s more likely that he can’t keep more than one thing in his mind.
No lisa, rickA is just a congenital liar, bigot, racist, misogynist, science denier, and libertarian (and yes, I realize “libertarian” by itself includes those other categories.
“No lisa, rickA is just a congenital liar, bigot, racist, misogynist, science denier, and libertarian (and yes, I realize “libertarian” by itself includes those other categories.”
Man, you certainly are a hateful soul.
Those descriptions fit rickA’s commenting history billyR. Not hateful, factual.
Not that facts or reality mean a whole lot to you either.
The Americans have a romantic notion on guns which they have inherited from the part. It is not only from great battles and armies, but from fiction and facts. Let me ask a question, why most of the Americans keep personal guns at home? Safety and security issues have to be monitored by the federal government. Create a culture in which no guns are kept in shelves at home. See how the instances of school shooting can be curtailed.
https://www.classessays.com/
An article discussing how school shootings are something of a fad:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/31/school-shooters-find-idea-becoming-notorious-alluring/
We should refer to them only as “A sick individual . . .” or perhaps “the mentally ill Parkland shooter . . .” or words to that effect.
If the media did that (voluntarily of course), perhaps it would cut down on the fad effect.
hi there! It’s great site. so many topics and opinions. I used to read, basically washingtonpost but now your site one of my favorites. Thank you!
Solving the issues of violence (gun or not, they are both bad) is easy, and they are things that i think we can all agree on.
Lets make the following illegal:
Murder
Suicide
Robbery
Theft
Assault
We can also make it against the law for criminals to buy a gun, or for someone to buy a gun for them. Oh! The children! Lets ban guns from being carried onto school property! BAM! No more school shootings.
Lets also ban all weapons from any and every establishment so criminals wont bring a weapon inside a building that we are shopping. Plus, if someone starts shooting in the parking lot, just run inside, they cant follow you with a gun. They will see the sign and be forced to try and cause harm with their fists or just leave.
Gun control works. If it didn’t work, the Vegas shooter and the Florida school shooter would have used fully-automatic weapons and killed far more people. The one-time mass shooters are clearly using the most lethal weapons they can get without too much friction. Fully-automatic weapons are expensive, less available, and can create a paper trail with purchase. That’s evidently enough friction to make them not the weapon of choice. Therefore, the existing gun controls on fully-automatic weapons seem to work.
i am mentioning a website for more references plz check
https://wellregulatedmilitia.com/
NRA GUNFAGS ARE TOTALLY GAY! MEGA GAY! MAGA GAY, EVEN! GUNFAGS ARE ALMOST AS GAY AS MIKE PENCE! NOW THAT’S FUCKING GAY!
So, here we are in 2018, with the Russians helping the NRA! Who would have thought! Russian disinformation trolls infiltrate our websites trying to sow discord among Americans and others around the world every day. Many of the posts we see here have distinct roots back in Russia, either directly or indirectly, in fact or in spirit. This is not a good thing. American insularity and narcissism induced stupidity has made us a ripe fruit for plucking by Russian FUD specialists. This is definitely not a good thing.
Gun control is the process of implementing laws, to not take away guns, but protect American citizens from individuals who should not own weapons. Protecting people is an important part of laws and thinking of the safety and well-being first is the foundation of any law. Gun Control laws in America can help educated gun owners about proper weapons handling and also protect individuals from possible mishaps. With proper education and background checks, individuals can go through proper avenues of gun ownership. Impeding the ability for individuals who may want to harm others or themselves to own weapons. Gun control should not impede the individuals from owning guns but should protect individuals from criminals by impeding their ability to own weapons. Gun control can stop gun violence by protecting people first.
I can consider loads of reasons, however here are a couple: you are utilizing your firearm for self-protection and your initially shot misses. Or on the other hand you twisted with the principal shot, yet the trouble maker is as yet charging. Or then again there is in excess of one miscreant.
Interesting:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/12/17/uh-oh-stoneman-douglas-votes-overwhelmingly-arming-trained-teachers/
Arming teachers is still the stupidest idea since allowing the general public unfettered access to handguns and assault rifles.
But so long as rightwing American administrations continue to value gun industry profits over and above the lives of children, mass school shootings will keep happening.
And idiots like you will nod and smile.
Never assume universal deniers of reality like rickA will ever exhibit anything resembling rational though or basic decency.
And also are selective with the facts. Who were these members of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission? Worth looking into their affiliations IMHO. Note to self, see what else I can turn up.
Whatever, they went against the advice and wishes of those most affected:
Also this:
So a not that well trained teacher with a gun is going to behave differently to those cited as derelict above. The logic is non existent.
Decision likely more to do with extreme views of the likes of “Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, the Commission’s chairman” who is sure to be NRA supported.
I really appreciate you writing this article because I have seen Gun Control be a problem in my life. A year ago last month my best friends brother was messing around with the scoop on the gun with his friend (they were 15) and his hands slipped off the gun and the gun fired and shot him in the head. Paramedics were unable to do anything about it. They were able to get into the gun because the friends father who had it did not lock it up properly. His way of it being locked away was in a tuber ware container in his closet where the boys knew exactly where it was. It is sad that people are that uneducated that they can’t by a simple safe. It shouldn’t be that easy for kids to get into a safe. There has to be better laws to keep everyone safe no matter the circumstances. I just don’t understand how people cannot see that this is a serious issue. How can we get people to open there eyes enough to show them that it isn’t necessarily the gun but the hands the gun is in and the access to it.
Although there are many who fight to keep their guns because of the second amendment and supposed personal safety, gun control should be more strict due to the many firearm related incidents all over the country.The Las Vegas shooter proved that it is far too easy to purchase firearms. It was stated that when he was taken down he had several high powered assault weapons that were modded and thousands of rounds of ammunition still unused (Campion, Morrissey, Malina, Sacks, & Drazen). From this incident and the many others that have happened there is a sense of change that needs to happen to prevent incidents like this from happening. Having a stricter control on guns in the US will lower homicide rates. There is precedent of lower homicide rates in Australia and the UK when guns are more strictly controlled.After certain events involving firearms, guns were banned very heavily starting off with automatic rifles and then moving on to semi automatic rifles and handguns (Sarre). After these bans, the homicide rate has fallen drastically in both of these countries. With the advent of stricter gun control laws, we will follow in the footsteps of other countries and their lower homicide rates.
References
Campion, E., Morrissey, S., Malina, D., Sacks, C., & Drazen, J. (2017). After the Mass Shooting in Las Vegas – Finding Common Ground on Gun Control. The New England Journal of Medicine, 377(17), 1679-1680.
Sarre, Rick. (2015). Gun Control in Australia: A Criminological Perspective. Salus Journal, 3(3), 1-13.
Another day, another US mass shooting, and another repeat of the primacy of the 2nd Amendment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/31/virginia-beach-shooting-government-building
In any other other country this would garner immediate 24 hour media analysis, and likely tightening of gun control laws. In the US it is subsumed by navel-gazing about Trump taxing his own people via a 5% Mexican tariff, and about the minutiæ of the national lampooning that is the TrumpUK Vacation…
#PrioritiesPeople
I read that the killer used 45 caliber handguns with sound suppressors (a silencer).
While the handguns cannot be banned under the 2nd amendment, the silencer could be. After all, whether the sound of the shot is muffled or not does not prevent one from keeping and bearing arms.
So a law targeting silencers could be upheld, just as a law targeting bump stocks could have been upheld (instead a rule was passed banning bump stocks).
I hope the gun control people can try to pass targeted measures which can pass and be upheld, rather than bans which will get struck down by the courts.
Again, laws closing the gun show loophole, banning bump stocks, requiring registration and banning silencers could all be passed and upheld (in my opinion).
Of course, none of these measures would have stopped this latest shooting incident. Only armed municipal city employees could have cut down on the death total (perhaps).
I’m ever-curious as to what it would take for you to admit that the current interpretation of the 2nd A (thanks Antonin!) is pernicious and requires correction to bring policy in line with the Declaration of Rights.
The heap of dead US citizens rises by the month, year and decade. Republicans and their industry sponsors argue for the status quo from within the shadow it casts. It’s ironic that those making a supposedly historically justified argument are on the wrong side of history.
BBD:
I happen to agree with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. So I cannot ever see myself agreeing that the present interpretation is wrong.
What will it take for you to admit the current interpretation is correct?
A question in response to a question is not an answer.
I asked what would be necessary to persuade you that the current free for all on gun ownership is being set above the right to life.
Each murdered US citizen is deprived of the most fundamental of all rights because of an artfully distorted anachronism. I cannot understand why you endorse this, so it would be helpful if you would set some kind of upper bound on the number of people who have to be deprived of their right to life (and liberty, and happiness) before you would be prepared to consider a change to the status quo.
BBD:
It is curious that you think I endorse murder. I do not.
The murderer should be punished. This one was shot and killed. Good enough.
The thing is that the person is the criminal, not the weapon.
Murder is still murder, whether it is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat or a golf club.
Do you think that if a gun control measure is passed that murder will cease? I rather doubt you are that foolish.
It is not possible to stop the act of murder, else we would have stopped murder long ago.
Banning assault rifles would not have stopped this murder spree.
With 300,000,000 plus weapons in the USA, even banning all guns wouldn’t stop murder by firearm.
No – I do not endorse murder, no matter what weapon is used.
I simply agree that the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms – but it is illegal to murder with the arm. This is true whether it is a sword, a dagger, a handgun, a rifle or a shotgun (or any other arm).
I am pro second amendment – but against murder.
I am pro self-defense.
Had several of the municipal workers carried a gun at work, perhaps the death total would be smaller. Perhaps not.
The world is a dangerous place, which is why the ability to defend yourself is important. That is what the 2nd amendment is all about – the ability to defend yourself.
Obviously not all agree with me. But you can strive for a world in which weapons are not necessary for self-defense. Or you can strive for a world in which one can always have a weapon for self-defense (just in case). I think you know which path I have chosen.
Don’t by tricksy with me, you sly fuck. I said – twice – that you endorse the status quo which *facilitates* all forms of gun crime.
Nope, more devious misdirection; see above. The availability of guns *enables* the criminal, which is why availability is strictly limited in civilised countries.
* * *
God but your incessant dishonesty and slipperiness is offensive, especially given the seriousness of the issues you sleaze around. This is why even the typically courteous Dean is driven to strong language. It’s because of your vile behaviour.
So as ever, you can fuck off with the tone trolling.
Playing both sides of the coin — the universal sign an asshole too lazy to think.
The 2nd amendment has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and likely misinterpreted so many times that we’ll never know what the original intent was, other than partly to keep slave states on board with the new Constitution. But hey, you’re dealing with libertarians here, and their “might makes right” viewpoint says that as long as others get hurt there is no need for real concern, only the fake crap folks like ricka spew out.
dean:
As usual, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
“As usual, we will simply have to agree to disagree.”
As usual, we will simply have to identify you as a horrible person who repeats his loved lies and has no concern for society as a whole.
dean:
It is interesting that in all our interactions, I have never called you a liar or a horrible person. Yet you resort to name calling quite frequently.
I wonder what that says about you.
We disagree. We have different opinions.
Nothing wrong with that.
You have the right to your opinion – just as I have the right to my opinion.
Why do you find that so threatening? Why the name calling? What does it really accomplish? It has no effect on me at all. Maybe it makes you feel better, or more in control.
What do other readers think of name calling? Does dean’s name calling make you think less of me? Or dean? I am very interested in this, as I personally believe name calling takes away from an arguments effectiveness.
Everybody knows perfectly well that your passive aggressive pose is deliberately provocative and your endless resort to tone trolling on the back of contemptible attitudes and behaviour is just tedious.
RickA
Calling somebody out for what they are is only name calling from being an apt description of one who repeats a tired old and discredited argument on the 2nd Amendment.
Now on what I think of your claim about another’s name calling, every time you raise argument about the difficulty of changing or repealing the 2nd amendment you invite being called out for what you are. If you don’t like it you know what to do.
“It is interesting that in all our interactions, I have never called you a liar or a horrible person. ”
Let’s see. You repeatedly lie
* about the science of climate change, and when those are pointed out, you attempt to weasel and refer to your lies as opinions, implying that the science that proves you wrong is nothing more than opinion
* you’ve lied about incidents of several mass shootings — and then, when those are shown to be wrong you write them off to “misreading the article” or some such bullshit (reference the shooting in florida where you claimed that a man with a gun had stopped it, when the article you referenced showed that the gunman had left and an off-duty police officer had an interaction with him
Then there are your assertions that the “antifa” supporters are evil, threatening, and a threat, all while you assert that you’ve not seen any evidence that Trump is a racist, and no comments against the nazis, white supremacists, etc., who support trump. No small surprise why you side with right wing extremists against people who oppose them, as you don’t like rights being extended to those you don’t like.
Disagreement isn’t why you’re labeled as a despicable person and liar. I have disagreements with family, co-workers, and neighbors all the time. The difference is that in these disagreements it may be the case that neither of us changes the mind of our opponent, but then neither of us willingly lie to support our case, the way you do. And, when it comes to “opinions” in these disagreements, the opinions are on the level of “carbon versus titanium” as the better choice for a bicycle frame — again, not the lies you give as opinions.
So: I don’t believe you’re confused about the reason I find you fundamentally evil, and I’m not stupid enough to think you care that I do. As long as you continue your habit of lying, and continue to pass off blatant dishonesty as “opinion”, and show off your racism by supporting the current collection of nazis, white supremacists, and president, my opinion won’t change.
Since you’ve never presented a valid argument about anything that quote is hilarious.
Go back to playing your favorite video game:
Jesus Strikes Back: Judgment Day
dean:
You need to figure out the difference between lying and being wrong.
For example, I don’t recall ever saying that antifa was evil. That doesn’t sound like me (to me), so I challenge you to find the quote you are referring to and prove I actually said that.
If you cannot find the quote and if I never called antifa evil – does that make you a liar or just wrong?
Yes – I have been wrong. When I am wrong I admit it and correct myself.
You should try that sometime. When I straightened you out about first hand versus second hand, you simply doubled down instead of admitting you were wrong. I could have called you a liar – but didn’t because I simply assumed you were wrong.
I don’t lie. That doesn’t mean I have never been wrong.
But being wrong and being a liar are not the same thing – you need to study up.
Yes – I refuse to change my opinions, especially about the future and events which have yet to unfold. When someone says sea level will rise by 8 feet by 2100 or ECS will turn out to be 3.0 or 3.5 or some other prediction (those are just examples I do not impute these to you) – I refuse to agree (when I don’t think the prediction is accurate) and I say – lets wait and see.
Apparently you classify that as lying. Why I do not know. I get that this pisses you off, but again, you need to learn what lying actually is – because refusing to agree with a prediction before waiting to see if it is right is not lying.
I have to get back to my video game now.
Mostly you don’t, preferring instead to repeat your bollocks in the face of repeated, often detailed corrections. So this claim is a lie.
Don’t be such a disingenuous shit. You were karaoke -ing the rightwing lie about antifa being violent and dangerous until I showed you that the threat to US citizens from violent rightwing extremists is vastly greater.
Then – despite being asked multiple times – you refused to acknowledge this let alone disavow the behaviour of the extreme right.
So you are lying about this as well.
Dishonest scum that you are.
“I don’t lie. ”
That is a portion of a classic puzzle in logic. (You’re on an island and three people stand in front of you…)
” I refuse to change my opinions,”
That summarizes why your comments about wanting to learn and your being open to discussions are pure bullshit. It doesn’t matter how much the evidence is against you, you won’t change your opinions.
“you need to learn what lying actually is ”
I do know. You provide fresh examples with each of your posts.
Both a troll and a nutter, imo.
Worth noting that Rick ‘not a liar’ A has still not answered the original question but instead indulged in the usual evasive scuttling about. Here it is again:
Each murdered US citizen is deprived of the most fundamental of all rights because of an artfully distorted anachronism. I cannot understand why you endorse this, so it would be helpful if you would set some kind of upper bound on the number of people who have to be deprived of their right to life (and liberty, and happiness) before you would be prepared to consider a change to the status quo.
Since Rick ‘not a liar’ A is whining again about how cwuel and mean we all are, here’s something he must consider:
The usual evasive scuttling about instead of a straight answer strongly implies that there is no upper limit to the number of murdered US citizens he would countenance rather than see the gun industry / rightwing coalition’s status quo overturned in favour of the right to life.
The fact that he won’t just come out and be honest about his position – vile though it is – contributes to the stink of self-serving lies in the room.
People like rickA have opposed the right thing for decades: expanding the right to vote beyond white men, they opposed: civil and voting rights acts people like him opposed, and more. Technology has simply made it easier for them to make themselves heard.
BBD:
Murder is not caused by firearms, although murder is sometimes committed with firearms. So your hypo makes no sense.
But still – I will play.
How many people have to die before I will consider a change to the status quo?
Well, in order to change the status quo the second amendment must be changed. That will take 2/3 of both bodies (the house and senate), plus ratification by 3/4 of the states (in other words greater than 50% support in 3/4 of the states). So that is a lot of people – at least 50% of the population of the country (and maybe quite a few more to get 2/3 support in the house and senate).
So the question becomes, how many people have to die before more people support changing the 2nd amendment than oppose changing the 2nd amendment?
The hard part is calculating the party and/or position on amending the 2nd amendment of the murder victims. Do I assume that every murder victim would support amending the 2nd amendment or oppose amending the second amendment, or is it a mixture? Hmmmm.
If 50% of the people in America are murdered, would the remaining 50% be more likely to support amending the 2nd amendment or less likely to support amending the 2nd amendment?
I couldn’t find any data on the party of murder victims. However, my guess is that more democrats are murdered than republicans – but that is just a guess. But I honestly don’t know the answer. If my guess is correct, than opposition to changing the 2nd amendment actually rises the more people that are murdered! How perverse. And yet, I would imagine that the desire for self-defense would certainly rise while 50% of the population was being murdered – so perhaps this makes some sense.
My guess is that the remaining 50% would still be split on the issue of gun control and remain about the same as they are now (trying to be fair here, when really I suspect after 50% of America was murdered, everybody would be walking around armed at all times) – so even then I doubt you could muster support amounting to 2/3 of the house and senate and more than 50% in 3/4 of the states.
So that logic takes it down to 3 people per state, or a total of 150 people left in America (you need 3 people per state for 2 senators and at least one representative).
Once everybody is murdered but for 3 people per state – all bets are off. I have no idea how those 150 people will vote – either at the level of the house and senate or at the level of the state.
So my best guess is 327,000,000 – 150 (the population of the USA minus the 150 people left to fill out the house and senate).
Lets say the 150 remaining people went on a murder spree and there were only two people left in America. If there were only two people left in the USA, I suppose one could murder the other – or one could kill the other in self-defense. It is most likely that the murder would be committed by firearm (as those are the stats), but it is also most likely that if the attempted murderer is killed in self-defense they are also most likely killed by firearm. So perhaps the last two people in America both support gun ownership?
Very tough question.
So final answer – 327,000,000 (the entire population of the USA).
So there is an upper limit – but one that is imposed by the total number of people in the USA.
Also, what is your position on murder by knife. How many people need to be murdered by knife before you think knives will be banned? Since knives are an arm – I guess they fall under the 2nd amendment and the same logic applies as above.
Lately people have been murdered by vehicle. I wonder how many people have to be murdered by vehicle before we ban vehicles? You know, when I think about it – I think more people are killed by vehicles (accidents) than are murdered by firearm. Hmmmm. I wonder why we don’t ban vehicles – think of the lives we would save. Vehicles are not even an arm – so they are not protected by the 2nd amendment. They could be banned much more easily than firearms. And yet they are not banned. Really makes you think – doesn’t it.
Lots of fun things to wonder about.
So you would countenance the genocidal extermination of the entire US population before acknowledging that the vicious collaboration between the gun industry and the political right is at odds with the most fundamental of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Rights.
Thank you for you candour.
You are a sociopath.
“Lately people have been murdered by vehicle.”
Are you so fucking stupid that either:
– you don’t understand that there is only one purpose for a gun: killing something, but that isn’t true for cars/trucks/motorcycles etc?
or
– you think you’re making a valid comparison with this
or are you (this is the most likely answer) you just that dishonest?
“Really makes you think – doesn’t it.”
Odd that it hasn’t come close to making you think — but you’ve shown nothing ever does.
He keeps trying the vehicle bullshit on and he’s been told it’s utter nonsense, so more dishonesty is on display.
I really don’t know where you go from here.
Vehicles can be used for legal things – or they can be used illegally.
Guns can be used for legal things – or they can be used illegally.
Yes – that is totally different.
Most handguns and all assault rifles are designed for killing human beings.
All cars are designed for automotive transport.
Stop lying about definitions.
Yeah, botched that to high heaven: ignore the second “you”. Apologies.
Notice how to evade seriously addressing the question I repeatedly put to him above, Rick ‘not a liar’ A tried to make a fucking joke out of the murder of US citizens. A great big longwinded joke to distract from the fact that he dodged any meaningful engagement.
What kind of sociopathic, dishonest shit behaves like that?
Would you share your joke with the parent of a murdered child RickA? I would *so* like to be in the room.
BBD:
It was your question which was a joke.
I answered it as honestly as I could.
I am happy to share my opinions with anyone at anytime (as I do on this blog).
Thank you for your medical diagnosis and your name calling.
Yeah, he has no respect or concern for others, and as the latest “pipeline” post shows, no concern for the environment.
Real piece of work he is, in the absolute worst sense of that saying.
Ironically, probably actually the truth…
More tone-trolling from the sociopath who joked about murdering the entire US population.
Fuck off.
“I answered it as honestly as I could.”
Thank you for demonstrating, again, that you don’t understand the meaning of “honesty” and that you do not have a shred of decency or compassion for murder victims.
Since we already know your “opinions” are based on your horrid worldview you’ll get no thanks for “sharing your opinions at anytime” — too much of a view into your psychopathic mind is troubling.
I feel bad for murder victims, no matter how they are murdered.
You only care if they are murdered with a firearm.
I care whether they are shot, stabbed, clubbed or merely beaten to death.
Why I even care if they are driven to death (vehicle homicide).
You focus on the tool used to murder – while I focus on the act of murder itself.
I condemn the act of murder – no matter the manner in which the murder is carried out.
RickA pushes the boundaries of truth and logic again:
Which demonstrates that you don’t do honesty as does this:
Which is patently untrue and an attempt at deflection.
But then what else to expect from some lawyer types, where it is the win that counts not truth or justice.
You really are on the wrong side of logic and decency on this one.
Lionel A:
Perhaps you could try your hand at answering BBD”s question:
Each murdered US citizen is deprived of the most fundamental of all rights because of an artfully distorted anachronism. I cannot understand why you endorse this, so it would be helpful if you would set some kind of upper bound on the number of people who have to be deprived of their right to life (and liberty, and happiness) before you would be prepared to consider a change to the status quo.
This question exhibits the fallacy of false dilemma by unfairly limiting me to two choices – allow murders or consider a change to the status quo.
Or perhaps this question exhibits the fallacy of false cause – Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another.
I have to confess that I am not an expert in fallacies – but like pornography, I know one when I see one.
Perhaps one more versed than I could diagnose the fallacy or fallacies present in BBD’s question. However there is no doubt (to me) that there is one or more fallacy present in BBD’s question.
Which is why I answered as honestly as I could – as it is very difficult to answer a question with one or more fallacy embedded in it.
You try it – and see for yourself.
You see – I don’t actually have any control over the number of people murdered with firearms (or any type of weapon for that matter). Each one is caused by the independent actions of another person (the murderer) – actions over which I have no control. So my opinion on the second amendment has nothing to do with the actions of a murderer. To imply that one has anything to do with the other is what is patently untrue.
But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps BBD’s question is fair and contains no fallacies.
Lionel – give me your best answer to BBD’s question.
Even if you were a mind reader that would *still* be a lie.
Still lying about that? Wow. No shame at all, have you?
We focus on the collaboration between the gun industry and its bought-and-paid-for rightwing enablers that puts guns in the hands of criminals.
As you have been told, half a dozen times already on this thread. So stop your endless lies.
The choice is crystal clear, which is why you are lying about it: endorse the collaboration between the gun industry and its bought-and-paid-for rightwing enablers that puts guns in the hands of criminals or condemn it and seek to change things for the better. You endorse, so we condemn you along with the filthy backroom deals that keep the gun show on the road and the corpses of US citizens piling up, day by day, month by month, year by year.
You are completely fucked on this – again. But that’s what you get for trying to defend the indefensible.
More logical fallacies from BBD:
“The choice is crystal clear, which is why you are lying about it: endorse the collaboration between the gun industry and its bought-and-paid-for rightwing enablers that puts guns in the hands of criminals or condemn it and seek to change things for the better.”
Wow – hard to count the fallacies embedded in that quote.
Nope, it’s very easy. The answer is: zero.
“You only care if they are murdered with a firearm.”
You know, it’s appalling enough to read your lies and asinine “but that’s just my opinion” bullshit you toss out after you misrepresent science or other things, but that comment is amazing in its offensiveness, even for you.
There really aren’t things too low for you to say are there?
True, but remember: counting is related to math, and he has no concept of things mathematical. When he said “hard to count the fallacies …” he wasn’t implying there were too many to count, he was saying he couldn’t manage it.
🙂
https://soundcloud.com/michael-casali/die-today-in-the-usa
Nice article, i love this blog. keep posting such like this amazing article.
Hi, if you need more visitors you should read about one good method. Just search in google: Jemensso’s tricks
Sometimes in the school, there’s fraternity or gangs. The School always have inspections every entering the school. That the common solution for gun shooting in the shool.