58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[Town Heretic]

Nope

Saying "Nope" may wow them wherever you're from, but it's neither logic, authority, nor proof. So until you offer one of those you're just making noise, metaphorically speaking. Meanwhile, I am literally speaking to laws that impact gun safety and mass shootings. That's the literal term for what I'm speaking about. To use any other term would be less precise.

I'd wonder at what someone who attempted to assert that training qualified him to exclude the opinions of others on matters of justice and morality

A peculiar complaint given I haven't done anything of the sort. In fact, I only just asked you for particular ideas. Apparently you'd rather do this. I won't be doing much more of it with you though, if this is your long and short.

When you ban cars, traffic fatalities drop.

Absolutely, but we can't ban cars in our country, they're integral to our commerce and other vital issues. So we have to settle for laws that demand they be made safer. And we've done a pretty good job of that with seat belts and airbags and by having people take minimum proficiency tests before they're allowed to drive one.

Guns aren't a practical necessity, but they're a part of our traditions and have been given a good bit of protection as a basic right. As a gun owner who was taught safety and marksmanship I have a great respect for that tradition and the respectful use of the instrument. We can lower the risk of accidents with mandatory training in safety and significantly impact mass shootings and the deaths and injury they cause by a number of measures I've noted prior, tested in our cousin democracies, without eliminating the right to ownership and use of firearms.

It looks like you're making an appeal to emotion.

If our conversation has demonstrated much it's that my writing and your reading are only tangentially related.

Regulations never save anyone.

Rather, every Western democracy has adopted much stronger and universal gun laws and every single one that has does a dramatically better job at protecting their people from gun violence and mass shootings, which is rather the point.

 

[Nihilo]

We've had a solid month and half now to consider this problem. For the record, here's where I stand personally:

1. I believe in the RKBA, and that this civil and human right means the right to possess and to carry standard issue military and police weaponry, which includes selective fire service rifles and carbines, and full size semiautomatic handguns. Therefore, countries where this right is denied or effectively denied, are civil rights violators.

2. The FBI background check needs to be fixed, because it is broken. Kelley in particular wouldn't have been able to purchase his AR if the system wasn't broken.

3. I continue to believe that smaller handguns should be banned, and retroactively, because of their implication in crime, accidental shootings, and kids shootings, plus, that the RKBA never means the right to own such weapons, which are inherently more dangerous than their full size counterparts, and no military uses them. They are for spies and other special operatives exclusively.

4. Arguments against civilians owning the weapons I mentioned above, fail to explain why police and military should have them. The Fort Hood shooting rampage was perpetrated by a military man, and the BLM movement (and the Black Panthers movement before that) is targeted at murderous police shootings against black people. Police and military are treated dismissively by most anti-gun rights people, and I feel that it is without warrant. IOW, if you're going to argue against civilians possessing and carrying these weapons, then you need to provide justification for why the police and military should be permitted to.

5. Concealing deadly weapons ought to be criminal. There ought to be no permission to conceal weapons, and so the whole movement towards concealed carry is wrong right from the start. This used to be the common opinion, and the only reason that it's become acceptable and encouraged, is because of laws that have forbidden the open carrying of deadly weapons, in reaction to gangsters (themselves sprouting from Prohibition) and the Black Panthers (who were combating police murders).

6. Corollary to #5., carrying rifles openly should be favored to concealing handguns. Rifles are better weapons in all regards when you remove concealed carry as legitimate and legal. Furthermore, rifles and shotguns, longguns, are less likely to be involved in accidental shootings, due to their size/length. All laws forbidding the open carrying of rifles and shotguns should be stricken.

7. RPGs and other weapons designed and used as anti-material (as opposed to anti-personnel) are not standard issue by any military or police, and so are not implied by the RKBA. .50-caliber BMG rounds can be chambered in strictly anti-personnel weapons, and so that round should be included in the RKBA, but not the M-2 machine gun, which is used for anti-material and anti-personnel when mounted on vehicles.

8. Criminals of all types, but especially violent criminals and those committing dangerous felonies, have forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. This should also be retroactive, and not dependent upon conviction. I.e., when criminals are convicted, they should also be subsequently charged with illegal possession going back to the date of the crime they are convicted of.

9. There is a problem with murder in the world. Too many murders go unsolved, which leaves murderers walking among us innocent people. And it is by definition murderers who are prompting us all to consider the possibility of denying innocent and peaceable people the freedom to possess and carry standard issue military and police weaponry.

10. Handicaps. I don't know where the line is, but I know where well beyond the line is. Cases that are beyond the line void the RKBA for that victim, and must be reflected in the FBI background check system somehow.

11. "Gunshow loophole." I don't know the reason against requiring private sales and transfers (e.g., gifts, prizes) from somehow engaging an FBI background check on the buyer/recipient. It does stand to reason, that if there are free citizens who do not possess the RKBA, then there ought to be some way of actually preventing them from acquiring such weaponry. If there is another means to achieve this besides a background check, I would like to know what that is.

I know we disagree, but that is where I stand.

Believing in the RKBA makes me an Antifederalist, a libertarian. We believe in rights, because we don't believe in Antifederalism. We saw it fail from afar after the battle for independence. The first years for America under the Antifederalist Articles of Confederation, which recognized non-centralized power as equal to central power was a dumpster fire. America was fixed with the ratification of the United States Constitution, which codified a federalism that was divided by a balance of powers, and which was mandated to protect the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, even against the states. Both the separation of powers, and the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, are Antifederalism.

The federalism many years later waged the Civil War. There is no spokesman for Antifederalism, because it's an idea, and it's a plain one. The Antifederalist position is always unambiguous, it is freedom. Antifederalists believe that we can have an an-anarchic existence from and through freedom. Antifederalism is baked into America, such that even if there were no more Antifederalists, the idea of Antifederalism would continue to be prolonged and even strengthened from federalists being good federalists, when those federalists are federalists administrating American federalism.

All it takes is a good Antifederalist and he can make a big move for freedom. All freedom is better than no freedom, and there's no doubt that when there's less than all freedom, that towards all freedom is always by getting more freedom, and not by taking away freedom.

But you have to believe the Civil War was just, and not an aggressive, criminal war. If you don't condemn the Civil War, then you validate American federalism, which makes you a federalist, and that's what every unthinking human is, because if you want to get your way, and that's not immoral, then that's federalism when it's written larger. Antifederalism says that what someone else wants can be of equal value to what you want, and federalism, which is the human default, denies this. President Lincoln acted out as if federalism is the correct interpretation of the Constitution, and his interpretation is more powerful than any Supreme Court ruling on any matter. President Lincoln interpreted the whole Constitution, and the whole idea of America, when he waged war on America.

Because he waged war against America, we must never let our freedoms recede wrt the RKBA, and never underlined; never, we should never never do that.

Why should federalists have the freedom to possess and carry weapons of mass destruction? Like nuclear weapons? I'm asking you federalists to defend your freedom, which you'll retain for yourselves of course, while you go about compulsory-buybacking our guns, why do you get to have machine guns and rockets and nuclear bombs and nerve gas (that you promise you won't use, no crossed fingers behind your back)?

If you believe that President Lincoln waging the Civil War was just and moral and legal, then you're a federalist. And federalists believe that the military and police should have weapons of mass destruction, and that civilians can't even have a standard issue service rifle, because we can't be trusted with them.

 

[Nihilo]

We've had a solid month and half now to consider this problem. For the record, here's where I stand personally:

1. I believe in the RKBA, and that this civil and human right means the right to possess and to carry standard issue military and police weaponry, which includes selective fire service rifles and carbines, and full size semiautomatic handguns. Therefore, countries where this right is denied or effectively denied, are civil rights violators.

2. The FBI background check needs to be fixed, because it is broken. Kelley in particular wouldn't have been able to purchase his AR if the system wasn't broken.

3. I continue to believe that smaller handguns should be banned, and retroactively, because of their implication in crime, accidental shootings, and kids shootings, plus, that the RKBA never means the right to own such weapons, which are inherently more dangerous than their full size counterparts, and no military uses them. They are for spies and other special operatives exclusively.

4. Arguments against civilians owning the weapons I mentioned above, fail to explain why police and military should have them. The Fort Hood shooting rampage was perpetrated by a military man, and the BLM movement (and the Black Panthers movement before that) is targeted at murderous police shootings against black people. Police and military are treated dismissively by most anti-gun rights people, and I feel that it is without warrant. IOW, if you're going to argue against civilians possessing and carrying these weapons, then you need to provide justification for why the police and military should be permitted to.

5. Concealing deadly weapons ought to be criminal. There ought to be no permission to conceal weapons, and so the whole movement towards concealed carry is wrong right from the start. This used to be the common opinion, and the only reason that it's become acceptable and encouraged, is because of laws that have forbidden the open carrying of deadly weapons, in reaction to gangsters (themselves sprouting from Prohibition) and the Black Panthers (who were combating police murders).

6. Corollary to #5., carrying rifles openly should be favored to concealing handguns. Rifles are better weapons in all regards when you remove concealed carry as legitimate and legal. Furthermore, rifles and shotguns, longguns, are less likely to be involved in accidental shootings, due to their size/length. All laws forbidding the open carrying of rifles and shotguns should be stricken.

7. RPGs and other weapons designed and used as anti-material (as opposed to anti-personnel) are not standard issue by any military or police, and so are not implied by the RKBA. .50-caliber BMG rounds can be chambered in strictly anti-personnel weapons, and so that round should be included in the RKBA, but not the M-2 machine gun, which is used for anti-material and anti-personnel when mounted on vehicles.

8. Criminals of all types, but especially violent criminals and those committing dangerous felonies, have forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. This should also be retroactive, and not dependent upon conviction. I.e., when criminals are convicted, they should also be subsequently charged with illegal possession going back to the date of the crime they are convicted of.

9. There is a problem with murder in the world. Too many murders go unsolved, which leaves murderers walking among us innocent people. And it is by definition murderers who are prompting us all to consider the possibility of denying innocent and peaceable people the freedom to possess and carry standard issue military and police weaponry.

10. Handicaps. I don't know where the line is, but I know where well beyond the line is. Cases that are beyond the line void the RKBA for that victim, and must be reflected in the FBI background check system somehow.

11. "Gunshow loophole." I don't know the reason against requiring private sales and transfers (e.g., gifts, prizes) from somehow engaging an FBI background check on the buyer/recipient. It does stand to reason, that if there are free citizens who do not possess the RKBA, then there ought to be some way of actually preventing them from acquiring such weaponry. If there is another means to achieve this besides a background check, I would like to know what that is.

I know we disagree, but that is where I stand.

Believing in the RKBA makes me an Antifederalist, a libertarian. We believe in rights, because we don't believe in Antifederalism. We saw it fail from afar after the battle for independence. The first years for America under the Antifederalist Articles of Confederation, which recognized non-centralized power as equal to central power was a dumpster fire. America was fixed with the ratification of the United States Constitution, which codified a federalism that was divided by a balance of powers, and which was mandated to protect the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, even against the states. Both the separation of powers, and the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, are Antifederalism.

The federalism many years later waged the Civil War. There is no spokesman for Antifederalism, because it's an idea, and it's a plain one. The Antifederalist position is always unambiguous, it is freedom. Antifederalists believe that we can have an an-anarchic existence from and through freedom. Antifederalism is baked into America, such that even if there were no more Antifederalists, the idea of Antifederalism would continue to be prolonged and even strengthened from federalists being good federalists, when those federalists are federalists administrating American federalism.

All it takes is a good Antifederalist and he can make a big move for freedom. All freedom is better than no freedom, and there's no doubt that when there's less than all freedom, that towards all freedom is always by getting more freedom, and not by taking away freedom.

But you have to believe the Civil War was just, and not an aggressive, criminal war. If you don't condemn the Civil War, then you validate American federalism, which makes you a federalist, and that's what every unthinking human is, because if you want to get your way, and that's not immoral, then that's federalism when it's written larger. Antifederalism says that what someone else wants can be of equal value to what you want, and federalism, which is the human default, denies this. President Lincoln acted out as if federalism is the correct interpretation of the Constitution, and his interpretation is more powerful than any Supreme Court ruling on any matter. President Lincoln interpreted the whole Constitution, and the whole idea of America, when he waged war on America.

Because he waged war against America, we must never let our freedoms recede wrt the RKBA, and never underlined; never, we should never never do that.

Why should federalists have the freedom to possess and carry weapons of mass destruction? Like nuclear weapons? I'm asking you federalists to defend your freedom, which you'll retain for yourselves of course, while you go about compulsory-buybacking our guns, why do you get to have machine guns and rockets and nuclear bombs and nerve gas (that you promise you won't use, no crossed fingers behind your back)?

If you believe that President Lincoln waging the Civil War was just and moral and legal, then you're a federalist. And federalists believe that the military and police should have weapons of mass destruction, and that civilians can't even have a standard issue service rifle, because we can't be trusted with them.

America consists of 50 Western democracies. Two of them recently, the states of Texas, and Nevada, experienced large mass shooting rampages, and 48 of them did not recently experience them. One of the original 13 Western democracies of America, Connecticut, experienced a large mass shooting rampage at one of their elementary schools about five years ago, it hadn't had one before that, nor has it seen one since. The 50 Western democracies of America have dealt with gun freedom differently, a couple of them going so far as to require a complete redesign of the AR (the state of California), and one even banning the sale of new civilian semiautomatic ARs completely, in the state of Massachusetts. If you want to live in a Western democracy that's banned the sale of new semiautomatic civilian ARs and AKs, and still live in America, you can move to Massachusetts.

 

[Town Heretic]

America consists of 50 Western democracies.

Rather, the United States is a Western democracy comprised of 50 states with a shared vision and Constitution, a Republic of unified parts.

Two of them recently, the states of Texas, and Nevada, experienced large mass shooting rampages, and 48 of them did not recently experience them.

Rather, in this year 36 of our 50 states have seen mass shootings approaching 400 in number.

This is madness writ large. Doing nothing or the same things we've done is worse unless we approve of it.

Universal gun law can alter that bloody landscape. No amount of rationalization in defense of the status quo will.

 

[Yorzhik]

I was speaking to your ditch all the laws and change them to three

Certainly you could argue I proposed *nothing* if this is all I proposed. But since I proposed some other things you're being disingenuous.

Just like striking down prohibition didn't happen. Oh, wait...

That's a bizarre way to attempt a point.

No, it's an example of the law changing which you said couldn't happen.

You made no real proposals on the few concrete and possible points you raised, Yor. We must do something about gangs and black markets? We are and have.

Don't forget, stating that we should actually solve certain problems is still a proposal. Stating that we could get rid of a black market or certain gangs like we've done in the past is a specific proposal.

I make these proposals in contrast to your regulations, which the data show will do nothing.

Yeah, that's my master plan all right, to create criminals, people who just aren't responsible for their actions in owning or trafficking in illegal goods.

I realize you don't understand the consequences of your proposals. So answer this: if bibles where made illegal to possess, would the people who possessed them be criminals? And if you answer 'yes' then the more important question to answer would be 'why?'.

Rather, enacting universal and tougher gun laws are a means to impact our unacceptable level of firearm related death and mass shootings. Their efficacy is demonstrated in literally every other Western democracy that has them.

You're just plain wrong. The data shows your regulations will do nothing. And let's not forget you are proposing registering every gun ownership change and banning any gun beyond a breech-loader for regular civilians.

As the failure of the status quo is demonstrated in our own land.

The status quo is trying half measures, regulations, and restrictions. We should try changing what works instead - restricting black markets, gangs, and broken families like I'm proposing.

The dots he tries to diminish, the things he calls "statistically insignificant" and not the thing for which laws should be enacted are American lives. Thousands of them can be saved by serious, universal gun laws and safety mandates. But not if you listen to Yor.

Somehow fixing the problem of both black AND red dots isn't saving American lives but focusing on the red dots only like you propose is?!?!?! You use an emotionally-driven-but-statistically-insignificant example to kowtow people. You try and kowtow them into not trying to solve the problem of the black dots and focus on the red dots. It's bad practice.

Each dot is homicide from 2016. The red ones from mass homicide incidents.
View attachment 26048

13 Mass shootings in Australia in the two decades before the laws and four in the twenty plus years since. Zero if you require the death of five to qualify, but four by FBI standards. Pretty dramatic decrease.

And the homicide trend remained the same, there was no change, even with the spike in homicides when the gun ban was enacted.
View attachment 26049

Beyond that, your sample size is too small from Australia to use mass shootings as a foundation to create regulations. Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare.

 

[Stripe]

Saying "Nope" may wow them wherever you're from, but it's neither logic, authority, nor proof.

Luckily, that's not all I said.

But you seem intent on ignoring anything that doesn't bow to your arrogance.

A peculiar complaint given I haven't done anything of the sort. In fact, I only just asked you for particular ideas. Apparently you'd rather do this. I won't be doing much more of it with you though, if this is your long and short.

You're not getting anything else until you deal sensibly with what's in front of you.

We can't ban cars in our country, they're integral to our commerce and other vital issues. So we have to settle for laws that demand they be made safer. And we've done a pretty good job of that with seat belts and airbags and by having people take minimum proficiency tests before they're allowed to drive one.

You don't want safer. You want bans.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

You don't want safer.

Then proposing mandatory safety courses is a really odd way of accomplishing that.

You want bans.

Bans on certain guns and aids also, sure.

Certainly you could argue I proposed *nothing* if this is all I proposed. But since I proposed some other things you're being disingenuous. ...Don't forget, stating that we should actually solve certain problems is still a proposal.

If people were starving in the streets and I suggested particular programs to feed them I'd be proposing something to impact the problem. If you said, "We need to feed people and do something about supply" you wouldn't really be saying anything that can be used to directly address the problem. You'd be voicing laudable sentiment, but not really fielding a proposal that impacts.

That's what you're doing now, outside of the "change everything legally" daydream, which really doesn't look like one of those "easy" solutions you said were to be had, if unvoiced by you. When you fail to move beyond sentiment except in proposing the impossible you're a friend of what remains. The status quo.

I make these proposals in contrast to your regulations, which the data show will do nothing.

They're laws. Laws and regulations are often used interchangeably by laymen, but they aren't the same thing.

And the data doesn't show that, which is why our country, with a lack of universal tough gun laws has an astonishing degree of firearm violence and mass shooting compared to countries that have those laws. A thing you should be rational enough to recognize.

So answer this

You can make it about Bibles or puppies or polio vaccines but the law doesn't make criminals, it defines criminal activity. People make themselves what they are in relation to law by choice.

Somehow fixing the problem of both black AND red dots isn't saving American lives but focusing on the red dots only like you propose is?

Sentiment isn't solution. How that escapes you is anyone's guess. What I'm focusing on is the problem of firearm violence and mass shootings/murders. And I've addressed how to impact that specifically.

You use an emotionally-driven-but-statistically-insignificant example to kowtow people.

No, I note that's what you call the mass murder of people. I don't agree with you. I doubt most people will. I don't even believe you do.

And the homicide trend remained the same, there was no change, even with the spike in homicides when the gun ban was enacted.

I've spoken to the problem of that chart. To sum, if you bundle enough you can hide a particular as easily as you can hide a hippo in a stream. I also noted that behavioralists have long established the truth of extinction events relating to the stoppage of any particular behavior you want to alter. It's fairly common to observe a spike before you see the move to extinction.

There were 13 instances of mass murder by firearm in Australia over an eighteen year period where five or more people lost their lives prior to a change in law there and the enacting of universal gun laws and restrictions there. In the more than twenty years since there have been none. Using the reduced, FBI threshold there have been 4. That's pretty dramatic.

 

[Nihilo]

Rather, the United States is a Western democracy comprised of 50 states with a shared vision and Constitution, a Republic of unified parts.

That's not accurate. Each state is a nation. The Constitution is a federalist compact that unifies them, so that where it benefits them to do so, we can act all together as one.

Rather, in this year 36 of our 50 states have seen mass shootings approaching 400 in number.

"Large mass shooting rampages" is what I said, how is this "rather?"

This is madness writ large.

It sure is madness what these murderers are doing, agreed.

Doing nothing or the same things we've done is worse unless we approve of it.

I don't understand what you mean by "unless we approve of it." What's "it?"

Universal gun law can alter that bloody landscape. No amount of rationalization in defense of the status quo will.

I haven't been arguing for status quo. But I would like to know why some people ought to be free to possess weapons of mass destruction, and other people can't be permitted to have standard issue service rifles and carbines. I'm afraid that we're going to just dismiss this without answering the matter, but there is a massive disparity already between the haves and have-nots, and you're only proposing that we widen it further, and with zero justification so far.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's not accurate. Each state is a nation.

That's...untethered from reality Nihilo. No, each state is not a nation. We are one nation comprised of states. If you had any doubt about that one the Civil War put punctuation to it. Or you could just recite the pledge of allegiance.

"Large mass shooting rampages" is what I said, how is this "rather?"

You got it wrong. Mass shootings have happened in 36 of the 50 states this year. Only 14 states were fortunate enough to escape any impact from them directly, God willing (that we don't see more between now and the year's end that undoes that). Creating a time line of demarcation to make it 48 to 2 was misleading.

It sure is madness what these murderers are doing, agreed.

And we have it within our power to make what they're doing less likely, to dramatically impact the death and destruction they leave behind, as they have in every other Western democracy, using universal and tougher gun laws, coupled with mandatory registration, and mandated safety user courses. Of course, the much more successful models in Europe aren't all of one approach and differ in both particulars and efficacy.

I don't understand what you mean by "unless we approve of it." What's "it?"

The status quo. Unless we find it acceptable, the trade between being able to possess the weapons and aids of those mass murders and the damage done with them.

I haven't been arguing for status quo.

Not entirely, but close enough. You think it's a good idea for people to be able to walk around armed like citizen soldiers.

But I would like to know why some people ought to be free to possess weapons of mass destruction, and other people can't be permitted to have standard issue service rifles and carbines.

That's too unequal and ambiguous to answer. Who are the some people? What are their weapons of mass destruction? Who is the other group you're comparing them to, soldiers? Criminals? :idunno:

there is a massive disparity already between the haves and have-nots, and you're only proposing that we widen it further, and with zero justification so far.

If you mean soldiers and/or police that's a good thing. If you mean criminals and ordinary citizens, you're wrong as a rule. And we can impact their access and, ultimately their ability to obtain the weapons. The justification is found in the loss of life, the hundreds of dead and the thousands injured each year in hundreds of mass shootings that pepper our landscape.

 

[Nihilo]

That's...untethered from reality Nihilo. No, each state is not a nation. We are one nation comprised of states.

And back when the United States was named, what exactly was a "state?" It was a nation. In today's vernacular, we would have been called the "United Nations." Today's UN, by contrast, is a loose confederation, which is exactly what the United States were back before the Constitution was ratified. The idea of the UN didn't work from 1776 to 1789, and it's not working now. The only union of nations that's ever worked is a strong federation, and that's what the United States under our Constitution is.

If you had any doubt about that one the Civil War put punctuation to it.

As I've already mentioned, the Civil War was only just, moral, and legal, if the idea codified in the Constitution, a strong federal union, is valid. The Civil War, barring some future condemnation of it (by whom? IDK), proved just how strong a federation the Constitution implies. Once you're in, you can't get out. It's stronger than any other contractual union that we know of; stronger than marriage, stronger than business mergers, stronger than counties. There is no escape clause in the Constitution.

Or you could just recite the pledge of allegiance.


You got it wrong. Mass shootings have happened in 36 of the 50 states this year. Only 14 states were fortunate enough to escape any impact from them directly, God willing (that we don't see more between now and the year's end that undoes that). Creating a time line of demarcation to make it 48 to 2 was misleading.

I repeat, "Large mass shooting rampages" befell two of our states, two Western democracies, this year. How large are the mass shooting rampages you're referring to?

And we have it within our power to make what they're doing less likely, to dramatically impact the death and destruction they leave behind, as they have in every other Western democracy, using universal and tougher gun laws, coupled with mandatory registration, and mandated safety user courses.

Only dramatically tougher and draconian gun laws would have hoped to prevent these large mass shooting rampages. The other two ideas you've got there wouldn't have touched those large mass shooting rampages, and won't touch any future ones either, as these mass shooting shooting rampage domestic terrorist murderers knew they were engaging in unsafe behavior, and planned to die during the events anyway, so registration would have stopped and told us nothing. Also, as we've examined, there have been large mass shooting rampages perpetrated by only handguns, and some have been committed by military personnel themselves, and other people working closely with the military.

Of course, the much more successful models in Europe aren't all of one approach and differ in both particulars and efficacy.

Europe is blessed with fewer murderers than the United States at moment. That isn't a reason to further strip freedoms from peaceable and law abiding people.

The status quo. Unless we find it acceptable, the trade between being able to possess the weapons and aids of those mass murders and the damage done with them.

Those murders are committed by murderers, and murderers exclusively.

Not entirely, but close enough.

I disagree, because status quo is denial of the RKBA, which is the right to possess and carry standard issue service rifles and carbines, weapons that every military in the world outfits their lowest ranking warriors, because they are good weapons for self defense in hostile situations, which is what we have in America, with all these mass and standard murderers roaming around freely.

You think it's a good idea for people to be able to walk around armed like citizen soldiers.

Supra.

That's too unequal and ambiguous to answer. Who are the some people? What are their weapons of mass destruction? Who is the other group you're comparing them to, soldiers? Criminals? :idunno:

You're being coy. The people with whom we all trust weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons for one, RPGs perhaps if we want to get right down in the ditches, are the military, and less so the police, especially SWAT.

It's not ambiguous. Why do we permit some people to possess weapons of mass destruction, and other peaceable, law abiding people we deny the freedom to even possess standard issue weapons?

If you mean soldiers and/or police that's a good thing.

Why?

If you mean criminals and ordinary citizens, you're wrong as a rule.

Why do you lump together these two groups? And what do you mean by "as a rule?"

And we can impact their access and, ultimately their ability to obtain the weapons.

"Their" being criminals and ordinary citizens? Why do you lump them together?

The justification is found in the loss of life, the hundreds of dead and the thousands injured each year in hundreds of mass shootings that pepper our landscape.

All perpetrated by just one of the groups that you lump together; the criminals. And you don't need to be reminded of all the murders perpetrated by police and military throughout just the last century, right? Some of them Americans. And the Civil War itself, being a war waged by Americans against other Americans?

 

[Town Heretic]

And back when the United States was named...

Sorry Nihilo but it's a settled point.

One nation, under God...and so it remains.

I repeat, "Large mass shooting rampages" befell two of our states, two Western democracies, this year. How large are the mass shooting rampages you're referring to?

Yeah, I'm not doing that. Why? Because it doesn't represent the problem. It's a way of isolating so that a thing that is a national problem looks less like one.

Only dramatically tougher and draconian gun laws would have hoped to prevent these large mass shooting rampages.

What I've actually noted (the Draconian is just another attempt to color) is that every other Western democracy, differ as they do on particulars, has a markedly better record of preserving life and limb, of stemming mass shootings and the commiserate human suffering, than we do. And that if we have the will power we can manage it too.

The other two ideas you've got there wouldn't have touched those large mass shooting rampages, and won't touch any future ones either, as these mass shooting shooting rampage domestic terrorist murderers knew they were engaging in unsafe behavior, and planned to die during the events anyway, so registration would have stopped and told us nothing.

That's a lot of work to say registration wouldn't have stopped mass shootings. My answer is that not every point I made was tailored to that. Early on I noted that gun safety courses and registration could make us safer from unintended gun violence (aka accidents) and make it easier for authorities to track weapons used in crimes. Registration could also be used as a red flag for potential problems, putting people who suddenly stockpile weapons on the radar screen. Given that can correspond with deteriorating mental capacity, as appears to be the case with the Vegas shooter, it might very well impact the issue.

Also, as we've examined, there have been large mass shooting rampages perpetrated by only handguns, and some have been committed by military personnel themselves, and other people working closely with the military.

Yeah, I don't know what or that we can do much about military personnel. That will have to be accomplished on base.

Europe is blessed with fewer murderers than the United States at moment.

I know they have far fewer mass shootings and firearm related homicides. And that's not so much blessing as a reflection of reasoned law.

That isn't a reason to further strip freedoms from peaceable and law abiding people.

No one is losing the right to own firearms by any of my proposals. And not even you want them to be able to possess every sort of weapon.

Those murders are committed by murderers, and murderers exclusively.

Funny thing about mass murderers. Until they kill someone they're not.

You're being coy. The people with whom we all trust weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons for one, RPGs perhaps if we want to get right down in the ditches, are the military, and less so the police, especially SWAT.

I wasn't being coy. I didn't know what you meant by it. And we aren't in opposition or competition with the police or military.

It's not ambiguous. Why do we permit some people to possess weapons of mass destruction, and other peaceable, law abiding people we deny the freedom to even possess standard issue weapons?

Because the job of the army and police force warrants it. It's also why they're given extraordinary training in the use of those weapons and why they mostly don't have them in their possession outside of the parameters of their work.

Why do you lump together these two groups?

I was just speculating about what you meant.

And what do you mean by "as a rule?"

There's probably an exception in any circumstance.

And you don't need to be reminded of all the murders perpetrated by police and military throughout just the last century, right?

Of course not. The rule being otherwise, of course.

Some of them Americans. And the Civil War itself, being a war waged by Americans against other Americans?

How is that on the topic?

 

[Nihilo]

Sorry Nihilo but it's a settled point.

One nation, under God...and so it remains.

And so the UN is also "one nation," except that's not how it works with the UN, and that's not how it worked with the United States from 1776 to 1789 either. They were 13 nations trying to economize in certain matters, and remain fully sovereign in others. It takes a strong federation (Federalism) to make any kind of union between sovereign countries/states/nations/democracies work effectively together as a unit/union. That's what we've seen, and that is how it is, and that is how it remains.

Yeah, I'm not doing that. Why? Because it doesn't represent the problem. It's a way of isolating so that a thing that is a national problem looks less like one.

So then, what is it about the laws of the 14 states that haven't been victimized by a mass shooting shooting rampage domestic terrorist murderer this year that we can learn from? Or maybe the laws aren't really the point, since some of the states that haven't been so victimized are probably among the most lax wrt gun rights?

What I've actually noted (the Draconian is just another attempt to color)

That's just tit-for-tat in this conversation, Town. You provide plenty of color yourself.

is that every other Western democracy, differ as they do on particulars, has a markedly better record of preserving life and limb, of stemming mass shootings and the commiserate human suffering, than we do. And that if we have the will power we can manage it too.

They don't differ that much. They all deny their peaceable law abiding civilians the freedom to possess standard issue service rifles and carbines, as we currently do here in the States.

That's a lot of work to say registration wouldn't have stopped mass shootings.

And mandatory safety training.

My answer is that not every point I made was tailored to that.

You included it in this stream, as if it was related. That's on you.

Early on I noted that gun safety courses and registration could make us safer from unintended gun violence (aka accidents)

Which isn't the thrust of this discussion, nor of your argument. I've proposed already that we can do a lot to limit crime, suicides, and accidental shootings by banning micro-guns, and retroactively, since they are those implicated in many crimes, suicides, and accidental shootings.

and make it easier for authorities to track weapons used in crimes.

We don't need registration to do that. What we need instead is to shore up the NICS/FBI background check system. What we need perhaps is to require that private sales and transfers involve a fixed and not broken NICS check. This will make it more difficult for criminals and mentally incapacitated people from acquiring guns in the first place.

Registration could also be used as a red flag for potential problems, putting people who suddenly stockpile weapons on the radar screen. Given that can correspond with deteriorating mental capacity, as appears to be the case with the Vegas shooter, it might very well impact the issue.

That can be accomplished through tracking NICS checks though, within a stipulated limited period, defining whatever is meant by "suddenly" and "stockpile," assuming that we do require NICS checks in private sales (and not non-sale transfers, which can happen upon the death of a collector). That's no reason for registration, which would, as has been noted, only make it easier to administer a compulsory buyback. I know that option's in your playbook, but it's not in mine.

Yeah, I don't know what or that we can do much about military personnel. That will have to be accomplished on base.

That's too convenient for me. If law enforcement and military people have always been trustworthy with deadly weapons, then that's one thing, but it's not reality. There are murderers among us, and they manifestly don't self-select their way out of police and military careers.

I know they have far fewer mass shootings and firearm related homicides. And that's not so much blessing as a reflection of reasoned law.

They have far fewer murders/homicides in general, and that's not because of their laws. That is because they have less murderers, and that is a blessing for them. In fact, it makes much more sense to study the social situations of those certain countries who are able to prevent more of their people from turning sour, than it does to focus on their gun laws, since the doubling in gun ownership over the past 50 years in the US, hasn't resulted in a doubling of murders. The murder rate today in the US is the same as it was 50 years ago.

No one is losing the right to own firearms by any of my proposals.

We can't lose a right. Either we have the right, or we do not have the right. The law can be either just or unjust, in recognizing our rights, or not. (Anti-federalism.) Your proposals further erode laws that already fail to recognize the right to keep and bear arms.

And not even you want them to be able to possess every sort of weapon.

But I do want to see justification for why police and military should be able to possess weapons of mass destruction, because I think it will shed a lot of light upon the matter of how much freedom the law ought to protect for peaceable and law abiding private citizens, to possess and to carry standard issue service rifles and carbines.

Funny thing about mass murderers. Until they kill someone they're not.

I don't understand why you permit yourself the freedom to make light of this issue, but then condemn others for doing so, in arguing against you.

I wasn't being coy. I didn't know what you meant by it. And we aren't in opposition or competition with the police or military.

Not until we are, you mean. As I mentioned, the Black Panthers, BLM, and Colin Kappernick were/are all in reference to murderous policemen. And, the Civil War, which is always a potential within a strong federalism like ours.

Because the job of the army and police force warrants it.

And my job as patriarch of my family is to protect both myself and them from hostile, murderous bad guys.

It's also why they're given extraordinary training in the use of those weapons

They're given this because they are required in their job to use them.

and why they mostly don't have them in their possession outside of the parameters of their work.

That's not why. That's part of the justification that I'm asking for. And police regularly bring their sidearms home with them, and plenty of LEOs carry them even when off duty.

I was just speculating about what you meant.


There's probably an exception in any circumstance.


Of course not. The rule being otherwise, of course.


How is that on the topic?

America waged war against America, and you've not indicated that you believe that was immoral, unjust, or illegal; how is it not on the topic?

 

[Town Heretic]

So then, what is it about the laws of the 14 states that haven't been victimized by a mass shooting shooting rampage domestic terrorist murderer this year that we can learn from?

Not much given that 14 doesn't hold as a constant.

A few states do better than others. Hawaii has some of the strictest gun laws and has had no mass shooting incidents in the past 5 years. I can't speak to further back as I lack the data presently. I note Hawaii because its isolation means that it can't have the problem of a wet/dry county dynamic, where there's easier access next door to reduce the efficacy of gun laws.

Gifford's Org./ Law Center gives out grades to states relating to gun control. They also track gun related violence and fatalities. Using some of their data then.

Hawaii has 3.6 firearm deaths per 100k.

The only other states to have 0 mass shooting fatalities in the past five years are: Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

Top 5/bottom 5 states ranked by tough to weak gun law - deaths by gun per 100,000 citizens.

1. California - 7.7 deaths per 100,000
2. Connecticut - 5.3
3. New Jersey - 5.3
4. Mass. - 4.0
5. New York - 4.1
46. Idaho - 14.8
47. Arizona - 13.8
48. Missouri - 17.9
Kansas - 11.3
50. Mississippi - 19.5

Re: our European models.

They don't differ that much.

Switzerland would beg to differ, but there's more agreement than disagreement to be sure.

They all deny their peaceable law abiding civilians the freedom to possess standard issue service rifles and carbines, as we currently do here in the States.

You'd deny me the right to an RPG or a bazooka. Why you'd do that is less important than that you would. The rest is simply cost/benefit.

And mandatory safety training.
You included it in this stream, as if it was related. That's on you.

I'm not avoiding it, I'm reminding you of the context. And registration has some potential for helping impact the problem. But at the outset I addressed a number of ideas to impact gun violence, while focusing my main effort on the topic of significantly impacting mass shootings, the worst illustration of that violence.

I'll stop here for now and the sake of brevity.

 

[Town Heretic]

We can't lose a right.

People once had the right to own people here, so it depends. Women gained the right to vote. They didn't have it once. And so on.

Either we have the right, or we do not have the right.

That said, I haven't at any point suggested that we don't have the right. In fact, I've noted that I own guns. But I've also noted that no right is without balancing against the state's interest and your neighbor's exercise of his rights. That's where the law steps in. So you can speak your mind, but not in my living room, etc.

The fact is that few would argue that children have a right to go to school carrying any sort of firearm. Few would argue that I should be able to fly to New York with a submachine gun in my lap. So the only real debate is over what restrictions are reasonable within the balancing of interests and exercise. That's this discussion.

Your proposals further erode laws that already fail to recognize the right to keep and bear arms.

My proposals seek to do one thing, to in that balancing recognize the fundamental right to exist, upon which every other right and exercise relies and without which any discourse on right is meaningless, and to set what seems to me a technologically shifted balance back to where it was when flintlocks and bows were the crux of that examination.

I don't understand why you permit yourself the freedom to make light of this issue, but then condemn others for doing so, in arguing against you.

That's not making a joke. It's sarcasm. I don't mean to make you laugh by it, only to underscore what seems to me the problem of your advance. I've withheld a number of humorous barbs because the topic is grave. I object to any humor that trivializes the subject. Poke away else.

police regularly bring their sidearms home with them, and plenty of LEOs carry them even when off duty.

If you're in law enforcement you're always on call. And you never shed your duties/obligations. So there's justification.

America waged war against America,

No. Traitors waged war against America because they felt their right to own others was in jeopardy. It was, if not in the moment.

and you've not indicated that you believe that was immoral, unjust, or illegal; how is it not on the topic?

The topic isn't immorality and illegality. All sorts of things fit those that don't fit here.

 

[Town Heretic]

Updating a post from earlier in the month.

Meanwhile, using the FBI measure of mass shootings to tally the dead:

2013: 457
2014: 364
2015: 423
2016: 647
2017: 531 555 so far this year.

And the wounded:

2013: 1,176
2014: 1,213
2015: 1,387
2016: 1,781
2017: 1,619 1,883so far this year.

Status quo is not the answer. It's time to take action before the next tally.

 

[Yorzhik]

You were asked directly about how far you would go; what was your end game... and you deferred. You are being coy because your claim to have "reasonable" or "rational" or "sane" or "common sense" or "sensible" gun control doesn't sound so sensible when you lead with your real intentions. But you should have been clear that you wanted to ban anything beyond a breech-loader for normal citizens. And further, a citizen would have to jump through hoops to get a breech-loader. Hoops include getting a psych eval, safety courses, registration. And perhaps other checks like whether a person is on a no-fly list, house inspections to make sure the weapon is stored properly, how many weapons they already had, and a valid reason to have the breech-loader at all. And all these things must be universal because people that don't have the problem in their area must pay for the sins of those in areas where the problem exists.

So you lead with bans on bump stocks and high capacity mags.

But that's disingenuous because this little bit of control is just the beginning, and you know it. It's just the beginning because you know it won't work. You know there will be more emotionally-driven-but-statistically-insignificant events that, as Rahm Imanuel would say, should not go to waste. So you hide the results of your actions in cherry-picked stats that include only gun-related homicides and even only gun-related mass shootings. But homicide isn't defined by the weapon used. We know it won't work because we already have a great number of bans and restrictions, and they, by your own account, aren't working.

And all the stats from all the other western democracies show the same thing - lower homicide rates cannot be attributed to gun bans and restrictions. I've provided links to the data, and I'm sure you've read it, but you feel the discussion should stay planted in rhetoric because your intent is to win the debate, not solve the problem.

And what's the problem? It's homicide. It's all the dots, not just the red ones. So while you spew your rhetoric that I don't care about the red dots, I am transparent about my end game. My end game is made clear by the 3 laws. But that is not the specific things I propose. First, I propose we focus on the specific issues and look for solutions to them.

These problems are, specifically; black markets, gangs, and broken homes. And they have simple solutions. For black markets, you remove the market by ending the ban. To get rid of gangs, you take away their black markets and you reduce regulations/laws on starting business so they can find gainful employment. For broken families you change custody from (defacto) going to mothers to defaulting to the father and set domestic violence laws and divorce courts to require evidence to establish wrongdoing.

But let's say these things are politically difficult. The good part of my plan is that every step you go closer to the endgame, things get better. That's in contrast to your ideas. The bad part of your ideas is that nothing gets better until we reach your end game. Sure, there are changes in certain areas and you jump up and down with glee and point at these cherry-picked good results like lower gun deaths while homicide rates either follow the previous trend, or, as I predict, when you reach a certain point of control over the population then homicides will get worse even if they are of the legal type that Stalin committed.

Good luck with that. Society will be worse off, but you are too arrogant to discuss why that might be true or not.

 

[Nihilo]

Not much given that 14 doesn't hold as a constant.

A few states do better than others. Hawaii has some of the strictest gun laws and has had no mass shooting incidents in the past 5 years. I can't speak to further back as I lack the data presently. I note Hawaii because its isolation means that it can't have the problem of a wet/dry county dynamic, where there's easier access next door to reduce the efficacy of gun laws.

Gifford's Org./ Law Center gives out grades to states relating to gun control. They also track gun related violence and fatalities. Using some of their data then.

Hawaii has 3.6 firearm deaths per 100k.

The only other states to have 0 mass shooting fatalities in the past five years are: Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

Top 5/bottom 5 states ranked by tough to weak gun law - deaths by gun per 100,000 citizens.

1. California - 7.7 deaths per 100,000
2. Connecticut - 5.3
3. New Jersey - 5.3
4. Mass. - 4.0
5. New York - 4.1
46. Idaho - 14.8
47. Arizona - 13.8
48. Missouri - 17.9
Kansas - 11.3
50. Mississippi - 19.5

Where are Vermont and Alaska on that ranking? These two states are my No.s one and two in no particular order, so that means they should be No.s 49 and 50 for this organization, but they're not even in the "bottom five;" why would that be? They've misled you, and I wonder why they would do that.

Re: our European models.

Switzerland would beg to differ

In Switzerland, peaceable law abiding private citizens, who are former military, are permitted to possess semiautomatic, neutered, blunted "civilian versions" of standard issue service rifles, plus I believe 1000 rounds of ammo for it, no more and no less. They have complete registration, and even the ammo itself is registered unless I'm misinformed. Also handguns of all types are largely if not completely among private citizens verboten in Switzerland.

, but there's more agreement than disagreement to be sure.

Thanks for conceding it.

You'd deny me the right to an RPG or a bazooka.

Does anybody have the right to possess and carry an RPG or a bazooka?

Why you'd do that is less important than that you would.

There is either a right, or there is not a right. It's not mine to either grant or deny.

The rest is simply cost/benefit.

That's not how rights are determined.

I'm not avoiding it, I'm reminding you of the context. And registration has some potential for helping impact the problem.

No it doesn't, not at all.

But at the outset I addressed a number of ideas to impact gun violence, while focusing my main effort on the topic of significantly impacting mass shootings, the worst illustration of that violence.

I proposed a number of ideas also. Banning very small, non-standard issue sidearms, would go a long way, because they are implicated disproportionately in crimes, accidental shootings, and suicides, each of which are types of gun related deaths.

And even there, criminals commit crimes, murderers murder, and mass murdering mass shooting rampage domesitic terrorist war criminals commit mass shooting shooting rampages domestic terrorism war crimes. Nothing you've put forth addresses these people separately from peaceable law abiding people.

 

[Nihilo]

People once had the right to own people here, so it depends.

People once had permission to own other people. Rights are not permission, rights are those things that just laws recognize, affirm, and protect. Nobody ever had a right to own people. Unjust laws permitted people to own other people.

Women gained the right to vote. They didn't have it once. And so on.

Women gained the freedom to vote, when the laws changed to recognize, affirm, and protect that right of theirs.

That said, I haven't at any point suggested that we don't have the right.

That's only because your interpretation of the right differs from mine, and from the Supreme Court's. To me, it appears that you only believe that peaceable, law abiding private citizens have the right to own single shot rifles and shotguns that don't accept a detachable magazine, and I'm not sure if you believe in the right to possess and carry any handguns at all, though if you're consistent, you must only believe in the right to handguns that also do not repeat. And I can't see where you believe that anybody has the right to carry such firearms. So you think you believe in the RKBA, but from where I'm standing, you don't believe that at all, not even a little bit.

In fact, I've noted that I own guns.

Do you own guns that you don't believe you have the right to possess and to carry? Or are you preparing to turn them in, if your plans become reality? Are you a criminal in what you currently own, in the case that what you believe the laws should say manifests?

But I've also noted that no right is without balancing against the state's interest and your neighbor's exercise of his rights. That's where the law steps in. So you can speak your mind, but not in my living room, etc.

Presuming that you own your living room, then it is your right as property owner to deny other people from saying and carrying whatever you like, and you have the right to treat them as trespassers if they won't leave, or shut up.

If I won't leave or shut up, that doesn't mean I don't maintain my right to free speech or my RKBA. That's not a valid parallel.

My right to keep and bear arms is like my rights to life, and liberty, where it is absolute barring my own voluntary forfeiture through commission of crimes, and your right cannot interfere with mine, and vice versa.

The fact is that few would argue that children have a right to go to school carrying any sort of firearm.

Certain rights have age limits. Not life, but to keep and bear arms, to vote, and others, yes.

Few would argue that I should be able to fly to New York with a submachine gun in my lap.

The airlines have a right to deny you boarding privileges.

So the only real debate is over what restrictions are reasonable within the balancing of interests and exercise. That's this discussion.

No it's not, supra.

My proposals seek to do one thing, to in that balancing recognize the fundamental right to exist, upon which every other right and exercise relies and without which any discourse on right is meaningless, and to set what seems to me a technologically shifted balance back to where it was when flintlocks and bows were the crux of that examination.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Their phrase concerning what constitutes "arms" in the RKBA invoked in the Second Amendment is "in common use," for military and law enforcement. That is why I say "standard issue," because these are the weapons with which all the world's armed forces and police forces outfit their lowest ranks, because they are good weapons for both self and the common defense.

And "bows" were never in view when the Second Amendment was penned.

That's not making a joke.

I didn't say it was a joke. Your word was "funny."

If you're in law enforcement you're always on call. And you never shed your duties/obligations. So there's justification.

Same for me as patriarch of my family, and for self defense.

No. Traitors waged war against America because they felt their right to own others was in jeopardy. It was, if not in the moment.

The United States of America waged war against the United States of America, Town. You can call it other things on top, but never less than that.

The topic isn't immorality and illegality. All sorts of things fit those that don't fit here.

The topic is that you want to further erode our freedom to possess and to carry standard issue weaponry; the Civil War is right on point. Americans took up arms against Americans.

 

[Nihilo]

Updating a post from earlier in the month.

We have a murderer problem, I agree that we should and can do something about that, without eroding liberties reflective of a civil right that ought to already be better recognized, affirmed, and protected, than our current laws do.

 

[Yorzhik]

This probably should earn its own thread, but let's give it its own post for now.

You can make it about Bibles or puppies or polio vaccines but the law doesn't make criminals, it defines criminal activity. People make themselves what they are in relation to law by choice.

I don't think you understand the problem. Governments that outlaw things like bibles, puppies and polio vaccines are criminal themselves. And while it might be wise to follow criminal laws/regulations because there are more important things to consider, God blesses people for breaking laws/regulations like these.

So give us the list of laws/regulations that God would bless citizens for breaking. I've already said that banning bibles, puppies, and polio vaccines would, in general, be on the list. And after you give us the list we'll talk about why certain laws are criminal even if enacted procedurally correct.