or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 8

post #281 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

First, just because such a measure would protect one space but not others is not a logical reason to not take measures to protect that one space.

 

Second, some of those spaces (e.g., malls and theaters) are the responsibility of the owners of those facilities to protect their customers if they chose to.

 

Third, ultimately the responsibility to protect yourself falls to you. So you've just made an argument for individuals to be armed and trained and practiced in the proper use of firearms for defensive purposes. Well done.


So... in other words, it's okay for the USA to become an armed camp to protect its citizens... either that or, in your thinking, f*ck the children at the mall and the movie theatre... as long as they are safe at school.

 

The descent into madness continues at an ever increasing clip...

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #282 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

So... in other words, it's okay for the USA to become an armed camp to protect its citizens.

 

How clever of you. You inferred something I did not say. Was this intentional or was it simply born out of generally poor logic that plagues your thinking?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

The descent into madness continues at an ever increasing clip...

 

Indeed, but not in the way you assume.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #283 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

How clever of you. You inferred something I did not say. Was this intentional or was it simply born out of generally poor logic that plagues your thinking?

 

You were the one who said that the mall and movie theatre owners and any other business could protect their property if they chose to. I would say then that you agree that it's okay for them to have armed guards at every door in America.

 

Poor logic indeed.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #284 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Third, ultimately the responsibility to protect yourself falls to you. So you've just made an argument for individuals to be armed and trained and practiced in the proper use of firearms for defensive purposes. Well done.

 

From the statistics I've seen, that arming citizens to protect themselves is really working out rather well for you in the USA.

 

8500 dead from handguns. Must mean more people need guns.

 

Well done.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #285 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

You were the one who said that the mall and movie theatre owners and any other business could protect their property if they chose to. I would say then that you agree that it's okay for them to have armed guards at every door in America.

 

Poor logic indeed.

 

If your fallacious reasoning is going to continue, I'm going to have to just block you.

 

I said that the owners of private locations are and should be responsible for the security and safety of their patrons. However they chose to implement such safety measures is up to them, consistent with good business. This doesn't mean an armed guard at every door an America. Please don't be obtuse.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #286 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

From the statistics I've seen, that arming citizens to protect themselves is really working out rather well for you in the USA.

 

8500 dead from handguns. Must mean more people need guns.

 

Well done.

 

Again, more fallacious thinking. Do you want to actually have a discussion here?

 

If you, then feel free to break the statistics down so we can discuss them. Also feel free to support the statement "arming citizens to protect themselves is really working out rather well for you in the USA" (which I infer as a sarcastic statement.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #287 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I said that the owners of private locations are and should be responsible for the security and safety of their patrons. However they chose to implement such safety measures is up to them, consistent with good business.

 

I'm confused by those statements. Are you suggesting that owners of private businesses are and should be required to protect patrons, or just that they may choose to do so? Any legal liability if they don't? There is no current requirement that I am aware of for private business owners to protect their patrons against mass murderers. And what does "consistent with good business" mean in this context?

post #288 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm confused by those statements. Are you suggesting that owners of private businesses are and should be required to protect patrons, or just that they may choose to do so?

 

May chose to do and should be free to do so.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Any legal liability if they don't?

 

I think that would be for courts to judge to be honest. It would have to determine if a business knew of and was being negligent in providing reasonable security and safety for its patrons. There are certainly things that are quite unpredictable and unforeseeable. The Aurora theater shooting might be a good example...before it it happened. Since it has happened, I would think that other theaters might be reasonable in taking some measures to avoid what happened happening again in the future (e.g., copycats). Thus there more be a case for liability and negligence is some reasonable measures were not taken and this happened again.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

There is no current requirement that I am aware of for private business owners to protect their patrons against mass murderers.

 

No, and beyond the normal reasonable expectations of safety and security...kinda like the "fitness for use" doctrine. I seem to recall that there is/was a common law legal doctrine that was referred to as something like "fitness for use" wherein there is a presumption that a good or service being sold is a priori assumed to be fit for its proposed use. For example, food being sold it automatically presumed to relieve some hunger and provide some nutrition and not make someone sick or kill them. In other words, if a food being sold did make someone sick or kill someone it has violated the presumed purpose.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And what does "consistent with good business" mean in this context?

 

I simply mean that every business would need to strike the right balance between scaring the shit out of their customers by having armed snipers on the roof (or some such nonsense) and providing a safe environment. In fact you see these various degree in various businesses in various locations today. Go to certain business in downtown/urban areas and you see physical infrastructure and even personnel (e.g., guards) that give off the vibe that they have a higher security burden in that particular area (because if you go to the same establishment in a suburban or rural area you see something different.) Same story with places like banks and other places that deal with high value, targetable things (e.g., large quantities of money.) I went into a place to buy gold coins. That's all the place deals with. There was a VERY clear presence of (armed) security (like a bank for example.) People most likely expect that...but perhaps not as much as if you're shopping in Victoria's Secret or a local confectioner's shop.

 

Movie theaters now (for example) and in some areas (perhaps more than others) ought to be reviewing their situations and determining if measures can (or should) be taken to provide additional security and safety given the recent event that could be tempting for a copycat. These measures need not include armed guards (or it might...and it might depend on the movies being show.) It could involve additional and more attentive surveillance, better door security (the Aurora shooter allegedly snuck in through a theater exit) and better procedure to deal with an event IF it starts happening (it supposedly took a long time for theater lights to be turned on in Aurora.)

 

I'm simply saying that every individual and institution should take responsibility for its security and safety and that of the people it accommodates and use measures it deems appropriate for the specific situation they/it find themselves in.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #289 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm confused by those statements. Are you suggesting that owners of private businesses are and should be required to protect patrons, or just that they may choose to do so?

 

May chose to do and should be free to do so.

 

That is already the case isn't it? Any business can employ security guards.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Any legal liability if they don't?

 

I think that would be for courts to judge to be honest. It would have to determine if a business knew of and was being negligent in providing reasonable security and safety for its patrons. There are certainly things that are quite unpredictable and unforeseeable. The Aurora theater shooting might be a good example...before it it happened. Since it has happened, I would think that other theaters might be reasonable in taking some measures to avoid what happened happening again in the future (e.g., copycats). Thus there more be a case for liability and negligence is some reasonable measures were not taken and this happened again.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

There is no current requirement that I am aware of for private business owners to protect their patrons against mass murderers.

 

No, and beyond the normal reasonable expectations of safety and security...kinda like the "fitness for use" doctrine. I seem to recall that there is/was a common law legal doctrine that was referred to as something like "fitness for use" wherein there is a presumption that a good or service being sold is a priori assumed to be fit for its proposed use. For example, food being sold it automatically presumed to relieve some hunger and provide some nutrition and not make someone sick or kill them. In other words, if a food being sold did make someone sick or kill someone it has violated the presumed purpose.

 

You are confusing civil with criminal negligence. Assuming that you really mean civil liability even though I don't think there is any precedent for that, then the assumption of responsibility for 3rd party criminal action would be a huge extra burden on businesses that would inevitably require additional insurance against compensation claims. If it were made a legal requirement then that would add penalties for criminal non-compliance. The only winners I see with that scheme are the lawyers, and maybe the insurance companies. And, of course, gun manufacturers.

post #290 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is already the case isn't it? Any business can employ security guards.

 

So far as I'm aware, yes.

 

But, if I recall, I was addressing a poster that appeared to be implying that after securing the government schools (a government responsibility) that "our" attention would need to turn to securing other potential targets. I merely said that the security at such places as mall or movie theaters might be the responsibility of their owners or fall to individuals themselves. I would add that things such as liability and who provides such security might get muddled where a private property owner declares his property to be a "gun free zone" (perfectly in his/her rights to do) but then fails to provide adequate security for his patrons against individuals who wantonly disregard this rule. Clearly individuals are free to avoid patronizing such places if they feel they personal safety would be too greatly compromised (and letting the owners know it by communicating their concerns.) All of which would be consistent with individual liberty and property rights.

 

Schools present an particularly interesting situation though: a) money is taken (by force) from people to build and operate the schools, b) laws are passed (and enforced by force) disallowing firearms on or near their premises. Now "b" would be just fine, but "a" has likely put a number of people in the position of having little choice but to use the schools because their money will be taken for the school regardless of whether they attend. In other words, yes they are "free to go somewhere else, but this freedom has been seriously diminished by the money taken (which could have been used for other options). So most people, by default, just use the "free" schools. But have, unwittingly, put their children in a potentially risky situation (setting aside, for a moment, the outlier nature of these events.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #291 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

It's amazing the utter insanity of your argument.

 

I have worked in public education for nearly 15 years, 14 of which have been in elementary schools.  Do you think I might have some perspective on this situation?  

 

 

Quote:
 Put your emotions aside and read it logically, and maybe you'll reach a point of reason

 

False dilemma.  I do not need to put my emotions aside to think logically.  Further, reaching a "point of reason" doesn't equate with agreeing with you.  

 

I'm telling you...we need armed personnel in schools.  I'm telling you...we have no defense against the kind of thing that happened in Newtown.  None.  We have 500 children in little boxes just waiting to be attacked by insane killers.  We don't have a single person who can even access a weapon to stop or limit such a thing.  

 

 

Quote:

 

It's time the NRA and gun fetishists in this country accept responsibility for their actions.

 

 

 

Let me ask you:  Why is the NRA responsible?  Why are gun enthusiasts responsible for tragedies like this?  By the way, I'm neither an NRA member, nor a gun owner.  So beat that with a stick, as they say.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I would be a fascinating, but enormously risky sociological experiment to see it that reduced or increased gun crime. 

 

Why?  

 

 

 

Quote:
But it would also be hideously difficult to administer.

 

Why? 

 

 

Quote:
 The burden and cost of all the assessing, training and licensing would be huge.

 

I doubt that.  Individuals would pay for their own training.  

 

Quote:
Would this be like a general auxiliary police force?

 

Not officially.  But it would function as one.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Then effectively you also make a two-tier society - those who are armed and those who are not.

 

Uh, guess what?  We have that now.  The only difference is some folks want to take guns away from law abiding citizens.  

 

 

Quote:
 That could be both demeaning and intimidating to those who are not.

 

Who cares?  Aren't unarmed people intimidated now...by armed people with nefarious intentions?  I'd feel a lot better about being in a public space knowing 50% of the people are armed, trained and background-checked.  

 

 

Quote:

The logistics look impossible to me, quite apart from the appearance of creating basically a vigilante law enforcement structure.

 

 

You seem to be thinking of this as some government program to create a pseudo-police force.  It's not.  We're talking about allowing people to possess and carry weapons.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

 

You might have to triple that. If the schools are guarded then they'll go to the shopping mall, and if the shopping mall is guarded then they'll go back to the movie theatre, and if the movie theatre is guarded then they'll go to City Hall, and if City Hall is guarded etc. etc. etc.

 

The NRA... No Regard for Anyone.

 

Tell ya what...let's just not have armed guards anywhere or for anyone.  After all, if you guard Nikki Minaj, they'll go after Alec Baldwin.  And if you guard Alec Baldwin, they'll go after Kiefer Sutherland.  etc. etc. etc.  

 

By the way, I'll tell you the same thing I told anonymouse:  Until you work in a school, you can take your opinion and shove it.  You and your ilk know nothing.  You're anti-gun bloviating is an insult to all victims of school gun violence, and to every teacher and student in America.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #292 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Uh huh.

 

You liberals always have such an amazingly simplistic analysis of these things its astonishing that none of your grand plans for engineering Utopia ever work.

The solution is really simple. Ban all assault weapons, and take away all such weapons from current owners. Trivial solution. Quick and easy. No down side.

 

Only someone who wants to not solve the problem would say the problem is hard.

post #293 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

The solution is really simple. Ban all assault weapons, and take away all such weapons from current owners. Trivial solution. Quick and easy. No down side.

 

Only someone who wants to not solve the problem would say the problem is hard.

 

And, I rest my case.

 

Plus, you've given us further evidence that liberals are authoritarian totalitarians. Thanks.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #294 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That is already the case isn't it? Any business can employ security guards.

 

 

You are confusing civil with criminal negligence. Assuming that you really mean civil liability even though I don't think there is any precedent for that, then the assumption of responsibility for 3rd party criminal action would be a huge extra burden on businesses that would inevitably require additional insurance against compensation claims. If it were made a legal requirement then that would add penalties for criminal non-compliance. The only winners I see with that scheme are the lawyers, and maybe the insurance companies. And, of course, gun manufacturers.

 

 

I can see the NRA pushing "good Samaritan" clauses for gun toters.

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #295 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That is already the case isn't it? Any business can employ security guards.

 

 

You are confusing civil with criminal negligence. Assuming that you really mean civil liability even though I don't think there is any precedent for that, then the assumption of responsibility for 3rd party criminal action would be a huge extra burden on businesses that would inevitably require additional insurance against compensation claims. If it were made a legal requirement then that would add penalties for criminal non-compliance. The only winners I see with that scheme are the lawyers, and maybe the insurance companies. And, of course, gun manufacturers.

 

 

I can see the NRA pushing "good Samaritan" clauses for gun toters.

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

I could envisage that too, but it would be addressing a different issue - inappropriate use of force rather than negligence in protecting patrons.

post #296 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I would be a fascinating, but enormously risky sociological experiment to see it that reduced or increased gun crime. 

 

Why?  

 

Fascinating because it is not obvious, at least to me, whether the outcome would be the desired suppression of crime or a proliferation of gun-fueled disputes.

 

Quote:
Quote:
But it would also be hideously difficult to administer.

 

Why? 

 

Quote:
 The burden and cost of all the assessing, training and licensing would be huge.

 

I doubt that.  Individuals would pay for their own training.  

 

How so? Why would they do that?

 

Quote:
Quote:
Then effectively you also make a two-tier society - those who are armed and those who are not.

 

Uh, guess what?  We have that now.  The only difference is some folks want to take guns away from law abiding citizens.  

 

We don't have a two-tiered society in the sense of a large number of armed citizens.

 

Quote:
Quote:
 That could be both demeaning and intimidating to those who are not.

 

Who cares?  Aren't unarmed people intimidated now...by armed people with nefarious intentions?  I'd feel a lot better about being in a public space knowing 50% of the people are armed, trained and background-checked.  

 

Not to the degree that would arise if many of the people that you meet and work with were armed.

 

Quote:
Quote:

The logistics look impossible to me, quite apart from the appearance of creating basically a vigilante law enforcement structure.

 

You seem to be thinking of this as some government program to create a pseudo-police force.  It's not.  We're talking about allowing people to possess and carry weapons.

 

Yes - I don't see an alternative. In most states there is already the option to train for and obtain a concealed carry permit, but very few people do that, probably due to the effort and expense. How would that change without some kind of government-sponsored initiative.

 

I see no detectable effort even to attempt to explain how the details of this idea would work in practice. See also my discussion with MJ on this subject where he has consistently ignored all practical objections that I have raised, focussing instead on isolated points.

post #297 of 1058

Gun nuts now want to deport Piers Morgan for speaking out about guns.

 

They weren't content with not listening to him, not tuning in to CNN or just telling him to bugger off.

 

This reaction is part of the problem!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #298 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This discussion is certainly following the standard progression. You have apparently moved on to the position that mass murder is not very common and no different from accidental death, and so we really don't need to worry about it.

 

Assuming that you know what the term "statistical outlier" means, you presumably are referring to the observation that if one plots the frequency of events as a function of number of deaths per event, one gets a distribution that exhibits a maximum at 1 and decreases monotonically, but non-linearly, with increasing number leading to a tailed distribution, and that we can state that mass murder events are out on the tail. That is correct. But there have been over 50 mass murder shootings (FBI definition) in the last 30 years, killing around 450 victims, or an average of 15 per year (not the 4 that you quoted), and that only works as an argument if (1) you are comfortable dismissing those events as rare and (2) one restricts the discussion to mass murder. Not that it needs to, but is there a reason why this discussion does not include all gun-related homicides, which, in the US, number around 15,000 per year (excluding suicides) and represent about 2/3 of all homicides?

 

And what point are you trying to make relating to auto deaths? That provided that guns are not the leading cause of death (even though the are the leading method of homicide) we don't need to worry about them. That we shouldn't try to control gun crime unless we also try to prevent drink-driving? QED.

 

First mass murder isn't that common. The point is, as always, to look at the big picture to consider policy, not an aberration or outlier. The point isn't to say it is the same as accidental death, the point is the say that there are limits on the returns you can get with certain actions and at some point, you become counter-productive. If there isn't a return for the additional actions then why undertake them?

 

On the second point, I wasn't claiming that there are only four victims per year. I was noting that the FBI considers four victims a mass murder event and that it is actually a small number. Normally we don't think of events affecting four people as a mass event. I'm providing context for how we see this. That is the point for comparing it to drunk driving. If we had one family murdered by drunk driving between Christmas and New Years Day using the same definition as we do for shootings, we would say we had a mass drunk driving murder spree. Yet it would only be one event with four victims. (Average this every three months for the year) The language would cause us to mentally paint a different picture than the numbers actually suggest. If someone suggested expensive changes to cars (say installing breathalyzers in every vehicle), confiscation of cars, or banning alcohol for everyone, it would make sense to question whether everyone forgoing their rights and undertaking expensive additional actions would actual drive that number to zero. That said the rate of death from vehicles is much, much higher than this and no one would ever dare be considered reasonable in asking for any of those measures mentioned because they would demand so much of everyone while providing so little statistically as a return. We make our trade-offs and yes, there is sadness if someone is shot and also if someone is killed while driving by someone else. However the sadness is outweighed by the benefit we all receive in being allowed to exercise our rights.

 

Quote:

So you have taken the argument one step further; you have arbitrarily defined mass shootings as rare, and now posit that since mass murder using explosives is also rare, they should be regarded as equivalent. In contrast to the 50+ shooting events in the last 30 years, there has been one using explosives, ever, as far as I can tell. The gun homicide rate, as mentioned above, is currently running at ~ 15,000 per year, while the explosives homicide rate is, and has been since 1995, zero. So, yes - I'm relatively unconcerned about a recurrence of the Oklahoma City event.

 

Could you just clarify what trend you are not seeing here? Would you like to reconsider your statement that they are equally rare?

 

Consider also, aside from the actual occurrence rates, the prerequisites for the two kinds of event:

 

  1. Explosives: illegal possession without an ATF license, specialized knowledge, access to unavailable components, substantial expense and planning time;
  2. Guns: legal to buy with minimal regulation, readily available, easy to use, no preparation needed, inexpensive.

 

Which of those would you expect to be the problem, and which would you direct your efforts at reducing?

 

Explosives are a red herring, but even worse, you are still trying to use them to disguise a fundamentally flawed premise - that unless we can prove in advance that any particular regulatory mechanism will eliminate these events then we should not even attempt to try to reduce them. And then you top it all with a sanctimonious "we should address the root cause instead". What would that be then, and how might you propose to address it instead?

 

 

Look, I think we are both having a discussion here in good faith and we've had a habit of arguing past each other when we both are trying to make good points. Let's try a bit harder here to clarify. I'll start first.

 

It seems like you're getting a bit worked up about rare and common and the numbers associated with each. As you note, homicide is much more common than mass murder events. We end up arguing around law definitions because it is the law that defines whether it is a homicide versus a mass murder event. On the flip side we tend to take explosions and call them terrorist actions rather than just mass murder events. Oklahoma City was classified as a domestic terrorist event. If we are talking about explosive events I'd add the Atlanta Olympic Bombing, the first WTC bombing, the actual event of 9/11 to the mix just off the top of my head.

 

There are plenty of people, myself included among them, who assert we've given up far too many rights to try to fight the relatively rare bombing and in addition to giving them up, we really aren't any safer because crazy suicide driven folks just often aren't stopped by every day preventative measures nor do they stop what they are doing because a law says they can't do it.

 

Are homicides rare? Yes. They are profoundly rare. .004531722054% of the population will be involved in a homicide this year. When we talk about mass murder events like what happened in Connecticut, that number is several thousand times smaller, as you noted 50 events across 30 years resulting an average number of deaths of 15 per year. More people are going to be killed being struck by lightening every year than from mass murder events involving firearms. .000004531722% of the population will be involved with a mass shooting event and I do not believe there is any additional efforts that we can undertake that will push that number to zero or that are worth pursuing in terms of the trade-offs on how the other 331 million plus people have to live their daily lives that will yield a significant return because the number is already statistically insignificant.

 

Again speaking of red herrings, I have not declared we should get rid of any current gun laws or measures. In this instance they worked as intended and the shooter could not purchase a gun. I'm simply stating that short of confiscating the weapons and denying the rights of 331 million people, that additional legislation won't get us any lower than the average 15 deaths per year without causing massive inconvenience and denial of rights for those 331 million people and that the rights of those people outweigh the good intentions of those seeking additional legislation. Those making the case for additional legislation must show that the benefits outweigh the costs. I don't think given the numbers that a reasonable case can be made. The number will never be zero. It isn't even in countries where all fire arms are illegal. Are 15 deaths per year a reasonable trade-off for the rights of 331 million, I believe so. It sounds callous but we make this choice in all walks of life.

Quote:
You haven't seen a decline? How do you know that with increasing population, changing culture and demographics, and more overall crime, that there would not otherwise have been an increase? See - I can do that too. There are many unknowns. One thing that is not unknown is that guns are the tool of choice for the majority of homicides.

 

The purpose of any additional legislation would be to create a positive change. If the case cannot be made that it will create a change then the right should prevail. I do look at the known numbers and I don't see actionable items. I do see numbers that seem large but are actually very small percentages of even more massive numbers. For example you mentioned 15,000 homicides per year. That looks like a terrible number until you look at the reports from the CDC and see that 25,562 died this year from falling. That isn't a red herring. Everyone dies at some point. When you saying something is preventable and it is already far below the rate of accidents or other unintentional actions, I'm not certain a strong case can be made.

 

I'm going to cut the gasoline discussion because of claims of red herrings related to explosions by you anyway so why not just focus the discussion back to firearms with regard to us.


Edited by trumptman - 12/24/12 at 4:29am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #299 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

First mass murder isn't that common. ...

 

While this particular, horrible incident was one of mass murder, it was also an incident of gun violence. The fact that it was an incident of gun violence is the very reason why the death toll was so high. Gun violence is far too common. And the idea that the solution to gun violence is more guns is like saying the path to world peace is a global arms race. Sure, maybe after a global catastrophe, where we nearly wipe out humanity, we might come to our senses and end the arms race, but there's no guarantee of that even then.

 

There is no instance in history where the problem of gun violence was solved with more guns. Returning us to the anarchy of the Wild West isn't going to solve the problem of gun violence, it's just going to breed more gun violence. Turning schools, shopping malls, theaters, public spaces into armed camps, while continuing to sell assault weapons, handguns, high capacity magazines isn't going to make gun violence go away, it's just going to turn America into a giant prison camp and make a mockery of the idea of a free society. Guns beget insecurity, not security. Guns beget gun violence.

 

Logic, evidence, facts, including the facts of human nature, are not on the NRA's side, and it hardly matters whether you are a member or not if you support their policies.

 

The bottom line is that there is no reason for anyone to own these weapons, and there's no reason that we, as a society, ought to cater to the whims of gun fetishists who want to. (And, as I've stated before, anyone who has a desire to own these weapons of mass destruction is either a fetishist or a person with ill intent, in either case, by definition, mentally disturbed.) And, while I don't believe you've made the argument, anyone who claims we need to have these guns available so we can "revolt against the government" isn't a patriot, they're a traitor, a traitor to the every idea of democracy and everything America stands for. We already have a method in place for overthrowing the government, and we do it every time we go to the ballot box. There is no place for guns or gun violence in a democracy.

post #300 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

The solution is really simple. 

  

Oh, OK.

 

 

 

Quote:
Ban all assault weapons, and take away all such weapons from current owners.

 

1) Unconstitutional.  

 

2)  You don't seem to understand what an "assault weapon" is.   

 

3)  An "assault weapon" was not used in Newtown.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Trivial solution. 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Quick and easy.

 

Not quick, not easy.  Good luck with confiscating hundreds of thousands of weapons people don't want to give up.  Enforcement would be a nightmare.  

 

 

 

Quote:
No down side.

 

Sure, not except for cost, resistance from armed persons, it being blatantly unconstitutional, the term "assault weapon" being vague, and the previous ban being narrow and completely ineffective.  None at all.  

 

 

Quote:
Only someone who wants to not solve the problem would say the problem is hard.

 

Amazing that you can be so misguided.  You could ban all guns and still have the problem.  The say problem of gun violence is multi-faceted is the understatement of the year.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Fascinating because it is not obvious, at least to me, whether the outcome would be the desired suppression of crime or a proliferation of gun-fueled disputes..

 

OK.

 


 

 

Quote:
How so? Why would they do that?

 

Uh, because they would?  Because people do now?  

 

 

Quote:
We don't have a two-tiered society in the sense of a large number of armed citizens.

 

Yes, we do.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Not to the degree that would arise if many of the people that you meet and work with were armed.

 

How do you know that?  And why does it matter?  We're going to start worrying about people's feelings now?  

 

 

 

Quote:
Yes - I don't see an alternative. In most states there is already the option to train for and obtain a concealed carry permit, but very few people do that, probably due to the effort and expense. How would that change without some kind of government-sponsored initiative.

 

Wow.  First, while there are many "shall issue" states (no valid reason needed, just background check, training, etc), there are also many jurisdictions that prevent concealed carry (e.g. "gun free zones").  Secondly, it changes when you remove many of those restrictions.  People will work to protect themselves.  As a non-gun owner, I'm now considering getting trained and purchasing one.  Government cannot protect us from everything, and people are starting to realize it more and more.  Hence, the reports of Wal-Mart and others selling out of guns last week.  

 

 

 

Quote:
I see no detectable effort even to attempt to explain how the details of this idea would work in practice. See also my discussion with MJ on this subject where he has consistently ignored all practical objections that I have raised, focussing instead on isolated points

 

I went back and read the exchanges, and it's clear to me he's making an effort to address all of your points.  The problem is that you seem married to the notion that he's talking about a shadow police force created with the assistance of the government.  Nothing could be further from the truth (especially coming from MJ, I would imagine).  We're talking about eliminating certain restrictions and impediments to carrying a gun for protection.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #301 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

While this particular, horrible incident was ......

 

If you aren't going to engage what people type/say then what is the point if reading your ranting. The whole you just made was addressed. There's a reason you didn't quote it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #302 of 1058

Oh, oh... now we'll have to have an armed guard on every fire truck. This could get expensive.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/24/webster-new-york-firefighter-shot/1788917/
 

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #303 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This discussion is certainly following the standard progression. You have apparently moved on to the position that mass murder is not very common and no different from accidental death, and so we really don't need to worry about it.

 

Assuming that you know what the term "statistical outlier" means, you presumably are referring to the observation that if one plots the frequency of events as a function of number of deaths per event, one gets a distribution that exhibits a maximum at 1 and decreases monotonically, but non-linearly, with increasing number leading to a tailed distribution, and that we can state that mass murder events are out on the tail. That is correct. But there have been over 50 mass murder shootings (FBI definition) in the last 30 years, killing around 450 victims, or an average of 15 per year (not the 4 that you quoted), and that only works as an argument if (1) you are comfortable dismissing those events as rare and (2) one restricts the discussion to mass murder. Not that it needs to, but is there a reason why this discussion does not include all gun-related homicides, which, in the US, number around 15,000 per year (excluding suicides) and represent about 2/3 of all homicides?

 

And what point are you trying to make relating to auto deaths? That provided that guns are not the leading cause of death (even though the are the leading method of homicide) we don't need to worry about them. That we shouldn't try to control gun crime unless we also try to prevent drink-driving? QED.

 

First mass murder isn't that common. The point is, as always, to look at the big picture to consider policy, not an aberration or outlier. The point isn't to say it is the same as accidental death, the point is the say that there are limits on the returns you can get with certain actions and at some point, you become counter-productive. If there isn't a return for the additional actions then why undertake them?

 

On the second point, I wasn't claiming that there are only four victims per year. I was noting that the FBI considers four victims a mass murder event and that it is actually a small number. Normally we don't think of events affecting four people as a mass event. I'm providing context for how we see this. That is the point for comparing it to drunk driving. If we had one family murdered by drunk driving between Christmas and New Years Day using the same definition as we do for shootings, we would say we had a mass drunk driving murder spree. Yet it would only be one event with four victims. (Average this every three months for the year) The language would cause us to mentally paint a different picture than the numbers actually suggest. If someone suggested expensive changes to cars (say installing breathalyzers in every vehicle), confiscation of cars, or banning alcohol for everyone, it would make sense to question whether everyone forgoing their rights and undertaking expensive additional actions would actual drive that number to zero. That said the rate of death from vehicles is much, much higher than this and no one would ever dare be considered reasonable in asking for any of those measures mentioned because they would demand so much of everyone while providing so little statistically as a return. We make our trade-offs and yes, there is sadness if someone is shot and also if someone is killed while driving by someone else. However the sadness is outweighed by the benefit we all receive in being allowed to exercise our rights.

 

Quote:

So you have taken the argument one step further; you have arbitrarily defined mass shootings as rare, and now posit that since mass murder using explosives is also rare, they should be regarded as equivalent. In contrast to the 50+ shooting events in the last 30 years, there has been one using explosives, ever, as far as I can tell. The gun homicide rate, as mentioned above, is currently running at ~ 15,000 per year, while the explosives homicide rate is, and has been since 1995, zero. So, yes - I'm relatively unconcerned about a recurrence of the Oklahoma City event.

 

Could you just clarify what trend you are not seeing here? Would you like to reconsider your statement that they are equally rare?

 

Consider also, aside from the actual occurrence rates, the prerequisites for the two kinds of event:

 

  1. Explosives: illegal possession without an ATF license, specialized knowledge, access to unavailable components, substantial expense and planning time;
  2. Guns: legal to buy with minimal regulation, readily available, easy to use, no preparation needed, inexpensive.

 

Which of those would you expect to be the problem, and which would you direct your efforts at reducing?

 

Explosives are a red herring, but even worse, you are still trying to use them to disguise a fundamentally flawed premise - that unless we can prove in advance that any particular regulatory mechanism will eliminate these events then we should not even attempt to try to reduce them. And then you top it all with a sanctimonious "we should address the root cause instead". What would that be then, and how might you propose to address it instead?

 

 

Look, I think we are both having a discussion here in good faith and we've had a habit of arguing past each other when we both are trying to make good points. Let's try a bit harder here to clarify. I'll start first.

 

It seems like you're getting a bit worked up about rare and common and the numbers associated with each. As you note, homicide is much more common than mass murder events. We end up arguing around law definitions because it is the law that defines whether it is a homicide versus a mass murder event. On the flip side we tend to take explosions and call them terrorist actions rather than just mass murder events. Oklahoma City was classified as a domestic terrorist event. If we are talking about explosive events I'd add the Atlanta Olympic Bombing, the first WTC bombing, the actual event of 9/11 to the mix just off the top of my head.

 

There are plenty of people, myself included among them, who assert we've given up far too many rights to try to fight the relatively rare bombing and in addition to giving them up, we really aren't any safer because crazy suicide driven folks just often aren't stopped by every day preventative measures nor do they stop what they are doing because a law says they can't do it.

 

Are homicides rare? Yes. They are profoundly rare. .004531722054% of the population will be involved in a homicide this year. When we talk about mass murder events like what happened in Connecticut, that number is several thousand times smaller, as you noted 50 events across 30 years resulting an average number of deaths of 15 per year. More people are going to be killed being struck by lightening every year than from mass murder events involving firearms. .000004531722% of the population will be involved with a mass shooting event and I do not believe there is any additional efforts that we can undertake that will push that number to zero or that are worth pursuing in terms of the trade-offs on how the other 331 million plus people have to live their daily lives that will yield a significant return because the number is already statistically insignificant.

 

Again speaking of red herrings, I have not declared we should get rid of any current gun laws or measures. In this instance they worked as intended and the shooter could not purchase a gun. I'm simply stating that short of confiscating the weapons and denying the rights of 331 million people, that additional legislation won't get us any lower than the average 15 deaths per year without causing massive inconvenience and denial of rights for those 331 million people and that the rights of those people outweigh the good intentions of those seeking additional legislation. Those making the case for additional legislation must show that the benefits outweigh the costs. I don't think given the numbers that a reasonable case can be made. The number will never be zero. It isn't even in countries where all fire arms are illegal. Are 15 deaths per year a reasonable trade-off for the rights of 331 million, I believe so. It sounds callous but we make this choice in all walks of life.

Quote:
You haven't seen a decline? How do you know that with increasing population, changing culture and demographics, and more overall crime, that there would not otherwise have been an increase? See - I can do that too. There are many unknowns. One thing that is not unknown is that guns are the tool of choice for the majority of homicides.

 

The purpose of any additional legislation would be to create a positive change. If the case cannot be made that it will create a change then the right should prevail. I do look at the known numbers and I don't see actionable items. I do see numbers that seem large but are actually very small percentages of even more massive numbers. For example you mentioned 15,000 homicides per year. That looks like a terrible number until you look at the reports from the CDC and see that 25,562 died this year from falling. That isn't a red herring. Everyone dies at some point. When you saying something is preventable and it is already far below the rate of accidents or other unintentional actions, I'm not certain a strong case can be made.

 

I'm going to cut the gasoline discussion because of claims of red herrings related to explosions by you anyway so why not just focus the discussion back to firearms with regard to us.

 

That was a surprise. You just went and made what I think is the only intellectually honest argument (or perhaps more accurately - judgement call) for not increasing gun controls - that gun homicides are the cost, and a relatively small one compared to overall death rates, of maintaining the right to bear arms. There is very little in your post that I can disagree with in terms of points of fact or reasoning, but there are a few questions that it suggests.

 

Firstly, are you sure that all the proposed enhancements to gun control laws that are sort of on the table would actually infringe existing rights in a significant way. Some might, such as the demands to ban certain classes of weapons. But, for example, if one considers proposals such as requiring a license to own guns, requiring all guns to be licensed, requiring a waiting period, and requiring some level of security of storage for weapons in the home - do those really infringe any rights? Automobile-related deaths have often been cited with the argument that cars are just as dangerous as guns, and yet we have much tighter regulations on car ownership and use than on guns (all cars required to be registered and insured, all drivers required to be licensed), and no one argues that those are unreasonable.

 

When you say that the guns laws succeeded in the recent case, I would agree that as they stand, that is true. But had his mother been required to keep them locked away, it would not have been as easy for him to take them and shoot her. Not impossible, perhaps, but harder, and so in a statistical ensemble of similar situations we might expect fewer such events to occur.

 

Secondly - the judgement call itself - that the cost of defending the right is bearable. I would have an easier time accepting that if I were convinced that we had taken all practical steps to reduce the problem associated with that right, such as described above, but I do not believe that we have exhausted the practical options. It will be interesting to see how public opinion shapes that debate.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

post #304 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

If you aren't going to engage what people type/say then what is the point if reading your ranting. The whole you just made was addressed. There's a reason you didn't quote it.

 

No, it wasn't addressed. It may have been waved away.

 

Just today, two firefighters shot to death responding to a fire, several others wounded, all so you and other gun fetishists can keep your precious firearms. It's time we stopped allowing this country to be controlled by crazies and repeal the 2nd Amendment, because if that's what it takes to stop the gun violence, that's what we need to do.

 

Some of you may think that the lives of a few firefighters, cops, children, are a cost we can bear. I think it's the cost of not stopping this gun madness years ago. The 2nd Amendment, perverted out of its purpose by corrupt Supreme Court Justices owned by the gun industry, is a gangrenous appendage that needs to be cut off.


Edited by anonymouse - 12/24/12 at 8:50am
post #305 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
How so? Why would they do that?

 

Uh, because they would?  Because people do now?  

 

Quote:
Yes - I don't see an alternative. In most states there is already the option to train for and obtain a concealed carry permit, but very few people do that, probably due to the effort and expense. How would that change without some kind of government-sponsored initiative.

 

Wow.  First, while there are many "shall issue" states (no valid reason needed, just background check, training, etc), there are also many jurisdictions that prevent concealed carry (e.g. "gun free zones").  Secondly, it changes when you remove many of those restrictions.  People will work to protect themselves.  As a non-gun owner, I'm now considering getting trained and purchasing one.  Government cannot protect us from everything, and people are starting to realize it more and more.  Hence, the reports of Wal-Mart and others selling out of guns last week.  

 

One of us is missing something here. My point is that even while it is currently allowed, relatively few people get trained and carry weapons. I'm trying to figure out why you think anything is going to change that. Research has shown repeatedly that the spikes in gun sales that occur after these events are more attributable to the fear of gun control laws changing than for self-protection.

 

Are you actually proposing that gun-free zones be abolished? That business owners no longer have the right to determine whether guns are allowed on their premises? And that this would encourage more people to buy guns, get trained and obtain carry permits? Otherwise, which restrictions are you proposing to be removed?

 

Quote:
Quote:
We don't have a two-tiered society in the sense of a large number of armed citizens.

 

Yes, we do.  

 

Really? You meet a lot of people carrying firearms?

 

Quote:
Quote:
Not to the degree that would arise if many of the people that you meet and work with were armed.

 

How do you know that?  And why does it matter?  We're going to start worrying about people's feelings now?  

 

Ah yes - the old "prove it" argument. OK - if it's not obvious to you then disregard. But if it were to happen then yes, I do worry about that.

 

Quote:
Quote:
I see no detectable effort even to attempt to explain how the details of this idea would work in practice. See also my discussion with MJ on this subject where he has consistently ignored all practical objections that I have raised, focussing instead on isolated points

 

I went back and read the exchanges, and it's clear to me he's making an effort to address all of your points.  The problem is that you seem married to the notion that he's talking about a shadow police force created with the assistance of the government.  Nothing could be further from the truth (especially coming from MJ, I would imagine).  We're talking about eliminating certain restrictions and impediments to carrying a gun for protection.  

 

I was addressing that criticism of a lack of details at you also. As for MJ, no, he almost never makes an effort to address all points. You only need look back in this thread to see that he ignores entire posts, selectively picks one or two points from a post that he can use to avoid the substance of the argument, or just uses dismissive one liners. It is really quite challenging to hold a debate with him, and not for the reason he suggests in his signature.

 

And I'm not married to any particular notion - I'm just trying to see how to put most of the comments and suggestion into any kind of practical reality. The specific suggestion that I am pursuing is that the solution is to arm and train as many members of the public as possible. The specific question, given that this is already an option in most states, is how to make that happen. Who is going to organize arming and training them, or if, as you are suggesting, it is of their own individual volition, why are they going to do that in much larger numbers than they already are?


Edited by muppetry - 12/24/12 at 10:01am
post #306 of 1058

I don't often visit these forums, but being from CT myself I do want to voice my opinion on this (haven't read anything past the first page of this thread though).

 

I've heard the debates for gun control, and our state does have some of the strictest laws for guns in the country. I can't understand the need for people to have anything other than a handgun for home defense. I get people want their rifles for hunting and for sport, but it's insane we let people continue this "hobby" when it results in so much violence. The whole argument of an armed security guard with a gun, or a teacher with a gun in ever classroom is equally problematic. How many shooters do we see with high powered rifles, multiple weapons, and ballistic vests? Nevermind any shooter will have the advantage of surprise when confronting this "security guard". 

 

People say guns don't kill people, but rather people kill people. Well, that is true, but the majority of people kill other people with guns. Want to reduce the deaths? THEN REDUCE THE AVAILABILITY OF WEAPONS USED TO KILL! I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand, but maybe next time this happens to their state and effects the people they know, they'll come around to thinking.

 

On another note, I'd love to see a hypothetical assessment on how much damage a determined gunman with legally purchased weapons could do if he decided to shoot up the NRA headquarters. That organization is full of shit in my opinion.

post #307 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

As for MJ, no, he never almost never makes an effort to address all points.

 

Now that's pure lying bullshit.

 

Granted, there are times when I am selective about the portions of a post I chose to address, primarily because certain points may be muddled or otherwise unworthy of a response.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You only need look back in this thread to see that he ignores entire posts, selectively picks one or two points from a post that he can use to avoid the substance of the argument, or just uses dismissive one liners.

 

I'm also sorry if you feel I have an obligation to address every post. I don't. First, some people are on ignore. Second, not all posts are worth addressing.

 

I'm sorry that you feel I have avoided the substance of the argument. I disagree and believe this is merely your biased interpretation of my posts. But taht's fine.

 

I'm also sorry you feel I've not addressed your issues adequately.

 

I give this forum the limited time it deserves which, sometimes, does not warrant lengthy responses.

 

Finally, certain points and posts only deserve dismissive one-liners. Sorry that you disagree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #308 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Now that's pure lying bullshit.

 

Granted, there are times when I am selective about the portions of a post I chose to address, primarily because certain points may be muddled or otherwise unworthy of a response.

 

 

 

I'm also sorry if you feel I have an obligation to address every post. I don't. First, some people are on ignore. Second, not all posts are worth addressing.

 

I'm sorry that you feel I have avoided the substance of the argument. I disagree and believe this is merely your biased interpretation of my posts. But taht's fine.

 

I'm also sorry you feel I've not addressed your issues adequately.

 

I give this forum the limited time it deserves which, sometimes, does not warrant lengthy responses.

 

Finally, certain points and posts only deserve dismissive one-liners. Sorry that you disagree.

 

What a great way to deal with issues. Ignore the ones you can't address. Ignore the people whose arguments you can't counter. Ignore everything that points out how absurd and irrational your beliefs are.

 

Sticking your head in the sand is always such an effective way to address problems.

post #309 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

What a great way to deal with issues. Ignore the ones you can't address. Ignore the people whose arguments you can't counter. Ignore everything that points out how absurd and irrational your beliefs are.

 

Sticking your head in the sand is always such an effective way to address problems.

 

Still sticking with the fallacious thinking huh?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #310 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Still sticking with the fallacious thinking huh?

 

Still don't know what "fallacious", or for that matter, "infer" means?

post #311 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Still don't know what "fallacious", or for that matter, "infer" means?

 

Be gone troll.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #312 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That was a surprise. You just went and made what I think is the only intellectually honest argument (or perhaps more accurately - judgement call) for not increasing gun controls - that gun homicides are the cost, and a relatively small one compared to overall death rates, of maintaining the right to bear arms. There is very little in your post that I can disagree with in terms of points of fact or reasoning, but there are a few questions that it suggests.

 

Firstly, are you sure that all the proposed enhancements to gun control laws that are sort of on the table would actually infringe existing rights in a significant way. Some might, such as the demands to ban certain classes of weapons. But, for example, if one considers proposals such as requiring a license to own guns, requiring all guns to be licensed, requiring a waiting period, and requiring some level of security of storage for weapons in the home - do those really infringe any rights? Automobile-related deaths have often been cited with the argument that cars are just as dangerous as guns, and yet we have much tighter regulations on car ownership and use than on guns (all cars required to be registered and insured, all drivers required to be licensed), and no one argues that those are unreasonable.

 

When you say that the guns laws succeeded in the recent case, I would agree that as they stand, that is true. But had his mother been required to keep them locked away, it would not have been as easy for him to take them and shoot her. Not impossible, perhaps, but harder, and so in a statistical ensemble of similar situations we might expect fewer such events to occur.

 

Secondly - the judgement call itself - that the cost of defending the right is bearable. I would have an easier time accepting that if I were convinced that we had taken all practical steps to reduce the problem associated with that right, such as described above, but I do not believe that we have exhausted the practical options. It will be interesting to see how public opinion shapes that debate.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

 

Licensing would, I believe, be considered a massive infringement. As our driver education classes loved to remind us, licensing is done because driving isn't a right but a privilege. I think you would see this problem immediately if it were applied to other rights. Do you want to get a license to have your speech or to go to church? Do you want a license to get an abortion? The issue about the waiting period speaks more to technology than time in my view. When the Brady Law was passed, things like the internet didn't exist yet. It took time for a background check but like many things in this day and age, the checks are almost instant. The Brady Act does require a background check on anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed gun agent.

 

I can see your point about the mother locking the guns away and I haven't read anything one way or another that indicated whether the guns were locked or not. The only reason though I would be skeptical about the overall effect of this because of the extraordinary lengths the shooter went to in this case. I mean he killed his own mother. That wouldn't stop him from cutting a lock with bolt cutters, taking a key off a ring after she was dead, etc. There was the suggestion of biometric locks but again, if someone is willing to murder someone for their guns, then why would they stop at less measures like cutting off a finger to activate a lock?

 

I guess the point is that when someone is going commit murder, I don't have a problem believing they would commit lesser crimes or at least actions to obtain a weapon.

 

You mention practical options. Part of the definition of practical involves being effective in real circumstances. In real circumstances a lock isn't going to stop anyone who will go to extraordinary lengths. These mass murderers are by definition, extraordinary with regard to statistical likelihood and actions. I'd say as a norm within whatever profile we can attempt to draw on them, that they aren't acting quickly or rashly. Most of their actions appear to be premeditated, go to extraordinary lengths and break an array of laws on all levels.

 

I mean we are talking about incidents that are half as likely as being struck by lightening. What on a practical level can make that go lower? Suppose this mom had locked up her guns. She was killed and after being murdered her guns could be unlocked. Some percentage of the population won't be in complete compliance because no law is ever complied with 100%. (If it were again, we would have no criminals.)

 

People are mentioning Australia as a model.

 

Quote:

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[40] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[41] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[42]

 

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no effect detectable with ARIMA statistical analysis of the data.[43] Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[44] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[45]

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #313 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Still don't know what "fallacious", or for that matter, "infer" means?


It's MJ1970's go to rebuttal when he doesn't know what else to say.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #314 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Licensing would, I believe, be considered a massive infringement. As our driver education classes loved to remind us, licensing is done because driving isn't a right but a privilege. I think you would see this problem immediately if it were applied to other rights. Do you want to get a license to have your speech or to go to church? Do you want a license to get an abortion? The issue about the waiting period speaks more to technology than time in my view. When the Brady Law was passed, things like the internet didn't exist yet. It took time for a background check but like many things in this day and age, the checks are almost instant. The Brady Act does require a background check on anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed gun agent.

 

I can see your point about the mother locking the guns away and I haven't read anything one way or another that indicated whether the guns were locked or not. The only reason though I would be skeptical about the overall effect of this because of the extraordinary lengths the shooter went to in this case. I mean he killed his own mother. That wouldn't stop him from cutting a lock with bolt cutters, taking a key off a ring after she was dead, etc. There was the suggestion of biometric locks but again, if someone is willing to murder someone for their guns, then why would they stop at less measures like cutting off a finger to activate a lock?

 

I guess the point is that when someone is going commit murder, I don't have a problem believing they would commit lesser crimes or at least actions to obtain a weapon.

 

You mention practical options. Part of the definition of practical involves being effective in real circumstances. In real circumstances a lock isn't going to stop anyone who will go to extraordinary lengths. These mass murderers are by definition, extraordinary with regard to statistical likelihood and actions. I'd say as a norm within whatever profile we can attempt to draw on them, that they aren't acting quickly or rashly. Most of their actions appear to be premeditated, go to extraordinary lengths and break an array of laws on all levels.

 

I mean we are talking about incidents that are half as likely as being struck by lightening. What on a practical level can make that go lower? Suppose this mom had locked up her guns. She was killed and after being murdered her guns could be unlocked. Some percentage of the population won't be in complete compliance because no law is ever complied with 100%. (If it were again, we would have no criminals.)

 

People are mentioning Australia as a model.

 

Quote:

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[40] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[41] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[42]

 

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no effect detectable with ARIMA statistical analysis of the data.[43] Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[44] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[45]

 

I'm not sure about the argument that owning a gun is a right while owning a car is a privilege. The privilege statement regarding driving is not found anywhere in law - it's an established educational message to try to get new drivers to understand the responsibility that they are taking on. And arguing that because we do not require a license for everything we do means that we should not require a license to own guns is a generalization fallacy. We license things and activities that are deemed worthy of accountability of some kind.

 

The constitution says nothing about criminals or mentally unstable people not having the right to own guns, so if you take the constitutional argument to its logical conclusion then background checks are pointless because it would be an infringement of constitutional rights to deny ownership whatever the outcome. So, if one is willing to accept that there should be any restrictions on gun ownership then the absolute interpretation of the constitution becomes moot and one is forced to a more pragmatic approach that may include caveats and requirements.

 

Taking that further, in contrast to denying firearms to people who fail background checks, I see nothing in the constitution that makes it unconstitutional to require the registering of firearms, obtaining a license to own firearms or to store firearms securely, so how can any of those be construed as infringing on rights?

 

The storage argument continues to puzzle me. Making criminal acts harder (as opposed just to imposing penalties for committing them) is central to almost all crime prevention strategies. For example, we lock away our money, whether at home or in a bank, precisely to make it more difficult to steal. Yes - a determined thief can still rob your house, or a bank, but would you argue that the security that we use does not reduce the occurrence of such thefts? The utility of security to reduce crime seems so obvious to me that I can't help but feel that the objections are disingenuous, and on top of that, since they in no way interfere with the basic right to own firearms, I'm confused why the objections are raised at all. Accepting the need for greater security seems like a small price to pay to help win the argument for continued, and largely unrestricted, gun ownership.

 

It is not clear to me that all these perpetrators go to "extraordinary lengths". McVeigh certainly did, but unlike those kinds of events, where the determination has to arise and be maintained over a substantial period of time, the thing about shooting sprees is that the absence of barriers enables it as an impulsive act. You mentioned that the recent shooter went to extraordinary lengths in shooting his mother, but I disagree. Since he shot her after taking the weapons, shooting her was not a prerequisite to carry out the attack - it was part of the attack. The only lengths that he needed to go to were to take weapons from his home. How much easier does it get?

 

The Australian example is useful up to the point where it is admitted that the data do not really support a conclusion. The problem is that the simple application of common sense tells many (maybe most) people that things like better background checks, waiting periods and more secure storage will likely help alleviate these occurrences, and I believe that the resistance to those ideas, based on arguments like "you have no proof that it will work" (not required)  and "that infringes our constitutional rights" (not even necessarily true) is not helping the case for status quo.

post #315 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...The constitution says nothing about criminals or mentally unstable people not having the right to own guns, so if you take the constitutional argument to its logical conclusion then background checks are pointless because it would be an infringement of constitutional rights to deny ownership whatever the outcome. So, if one is willing to accept that there should be any restrictions on gun ownership then the absolute interpretation of the constitution becomes moot and one is forced to a more pragmatic approach that may include caveats and requirements.

 

Taking that further, in contrast to denying firearms to people who fail background checks, I see nothing in the constitution that makes it unconstitutional to require the registering of firearms, obtaining a license to own firearms or to store firearms securely, so how can any of those be construed as infringing on rights? ...

 

If you mistakenly interpret the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to weaponry, then a literal reading, based on that mistaken interpretation, would mean that the government can't prevent you from owning fully automatic weapons, tanks, artillery, even nuclear devices -- all of them are, after all, arms. Clearly, that approach is a rapid descent into anarchy and madness.

 

It was recognized some time ago that such an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was not only untenable, but dangerous to the welfare of the people. So the literal reading was rejected, yet, intense lobbying and corrupt Supreme Court Justices continued to push the mistaken interpretation of it as an individual right to weaponry, despite their tacit acknowledgement of the insanity of a literal reading with that foundation.

 

The Constitution of the founders, including the Bill of Rights, is not a perfect document. In its original form, for example, it sanctioned slavery. We realized, after much suffering and bloodshed, that slavery was a terrible mistake and abolished it. (And, no, making slavery illegal, didn't completely abolish it, and, yes, today, only outlaws have slaves, but that doesn't mean abolishing it legally was a mistake.) It's time we realize that the path the gun industry has led us down in terms of how the 2nd Amendment is misinterpreted as an individual right is, like slavery, a terrible mistake. That the harm of unfettered gun ownership far outweighs any possible benefits. That while guns may once have been necessary for the populace, they are now no longer, and they represent so much greater a danger than the founders could have possibly anticipated, even if an individual right had been their intent.

 

The time has come to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It, like slavery, is a greater threat to our society than any good that might come of it. And, frankly, there isn't really any good in it today. Only pain, heartache and suffering, inflicted on the innocent in the name of "rights" claimed to the detriment of anyone else, and, more than anything, so that gun manufacturers can rake in profits from the blood of the victims of gun violence.

post #316 of 1058

To buy a car, which is designed for transportation, one needs a license, which can be lost or suspended.  Cars are taxed and registered.  They also are required to undergo inspections from time to time.

 

 

Guns are designed for killing.  Why is it easier to own a gun than to own a car?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #317 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

To buy a car, which is designed for transportation, one needs a license, which can be lost or suspended.  Cars are taxed and registered.  They also are required to undergo inspections from time to time.

 

 

Guns are designed for killing.  Why is it easier to own a gun than to own a car?

Cars are not written into the bill of rights.

post #318 of 1058

Neither are modern handguns.  If one interprets arms from an 18th century perspective, you are welcome to carry around these.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #319 of 1058

Isn't in humorous (well, really, hypocritical) when the "living constitution" folks don't want it to be "living" when it's inconvenient for their agenda?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #320 of 1058

There's no way around it, if you want to change the constitution regarding such an important aspect that deals with states' citizens having the arms to organize an armed resistance against the federal government's standing army should the need arise, then only a broad and honest discussion within the US-society followed by a general referendum can do the trick.

 

If the US-society decides in the referendum that the right to have arms in citizen's hands is too important to give up, then that means it accepts the price of crazy people using these arms to cause havock every once in a while.

 

The reason why imho a referendum is necessary is because getting rid of that right to arms means to forcibly disarm the population. Such a drastic move needs considerable legitimation that only a referendum can give.

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut