The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: False. Guns have been around for a long time. Real mass shootings (like a dozen people shot and not just 4) is more recent. Plenty of gun access back in the 80s but no examples of a dozen kids getting shot in school. What has changed is the culture, 24 hour news and the internet. That is creating this. And video games!!!! And sex!!!!!!! And nanobots!!!!!!!
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The 2nd Amendment is not making schools dangerous. A few idiots are making it dangerous. The second amendment supposedly gives those few idiots the right to have guns.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: On a statistical basis, one is about as likely to be killed in a school mass shooting as they are to be killed by lightning. So it is a very minor problem and we should probably just accept it as the cost of doing business?
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I think it would be a much larger fight than that. I would be interesting to watch. Better to live free for a few minutes than be a slave for decades. Slavery comes in different forms. To be entirely dependent on the government for your protection is a form of slavery. Agreed, Joseph should have fought the slave traders his brothers sold him to so he could die free. Alma the Younger and his followers should have fought the Lamanites who caught them instead of enduring a period of bondage with patience. Pahoran was clearly spouting blasphemy when he told Captain Moroni that he would have his people serve the Lamanites in captivity if that is what a God wanted....and Captain Moroni said he was not a traitor for saying so. The “live free or die” credo makes for a nice bit of chest pounding machismo but is not scriptural or logical. And no, counting on my nation’s military and law enforcement for protection is not slavery. I say this as someone who does know how to and even enjoys fighting. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The second amendment supposedly gives those few idiots the right to have guns. The 2nd Amendment gives the people generally the right to own guns. 99.5% of the people who own guns do so responsibly. There are exceptions and the laws can prevent these idiots from obtaining them but that is not an issue of the 2nd Amendment. One should not blame the gun for mass shooting anymore than one should blame the car for a drunk driving accident that kills 10 people.
carbon dioxide Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, The Nehor said: So it is a very minor problem and we should probably just accept it as the cost of doing business? Overall it is a minor problem. It is like the public freaking about about ISIS. The odds of people being killed by a terrorist are extremely small but we spend billions every year to prevent a small numbers of deaths while we do little on preventing say food poisoning more that kills far more people. 1
carbon dioxide Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Agreed, Joseph should have fought the slave traders his brothers sold him to so he could die free. Alma the Younger and his followers should have fought the Lamanites who caught them instead of enduring a period of bondage with patience. Pahoran was clearly spouting blasphemy when he told Captain Moroni that he would have his people serve the Lamanites in captivity if that is what a God wanted....and Captain Moroni said he was not a traitor for saying so. The “live free or die” credo makes for a nice bit of chest pounding machismo but is not scriptural or logical. And no, counting on my nation’s military and law enforcement for protection is not slavery. I say this as someone who does know how to and even enjoys fighting. Remember the police or the government is under no obligation to protect you. If someone comes up and cuts one of your loved ones with a knife, you can't sue the police or the government for failing to protect them. The police have no legal responsibility to protect you from harm. Their job is simply to arrest those after the fact. You and only you have the primary responsibility for the protect of you and your family and nobody else. As to the book of Mormon examples, slaves have a hard time fighting against their masters. So in those situations, fighting is usually pointless. Once the citizens give up there arms, they pretty much have given up their rights and freedom and are dependent on the government. The North Koreans for example can't rise up against their government. They will be slaughtered. If they had access to many guns, their government would be overthrown. If a people give up their guns and that government turns against that population and oppresses and beats them down, I have no sympathy for that population. They get what they deserve. If Americans give up their guns and become dependent on the government, the people deserve whatever they get. Edited February 17, 2018 by carbon dioxide 1
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The 2nd Amendment gives the people generally the right to own guns. 99.5% of the people who own guns do so responsibly. There are exceptions and the laws can prevent these idiots from obtaining them but that is not an issue of the 2nd Amendment. One should not blame the gun for mass shooting anymore than one should blame the car for a drunk driving accident that kills 10 people. Yes, but cars serve a purpose other than killing things so I am more willing to tolerate them as necessary. How dangerous does something have to be before safety overrides the right to have. I am sure if you give a hundred people vials of anthrax most of them would store it responsibly but why would you do that?
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Overall it is a minor problem. It is like the public freaking about about ISIS. The odds of people being killed by a terrorist are extremely small but we spend billions every year to prevent a small numbers of deaths while we do little on preventing say food poisoning more that kills far more people. Agreed, though the nature of shootings add makes their symbolism very potent. Edited February 17, 2018 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 12 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Remember the police or the government is under no obligation to protect you. If someone comes up and cuts one of your loved ones with a knife, you can't sue the police or the government for failing to protect them. The police have no legal responsibility to protect you from harm. Their job is simply to arrest those after the fact. You and only you have the primary responsibility for the protect of you and your family and nobody else. And I think I would have a decent chance of stopping this person and either disarming him or cutting his throat. I do not need a gun for that. The court ruling I think you were referring to was less broad then you make it out to be. The idea that I or the police or anyone else can guarantee protection for anyone is ridiculous. We have a cadre in the United States dedicated to the protection of one person and there is no guarantee they will be to save the President in every situation.
mnn727 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Yes, but cars serve a purpose other than killing things so I am more willing to tolerate them as necessary. How dangerous does something have to be before safety overrides the right to have. I am sure if you give a hundred people vials of anthrax most of them would store it responsibly but why would you do that? I've had guns for almost 40 years and they've never killed anything except for paper targets - yet you gun control people would confiscate my guns but you'd never get the criminals guns.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, mnn727 said: I've had guns for almost 40 years and they've never killed anything except for paper targets - yet you gun control people would confiscate my guns but you'd never get the criminals guns. I am not completely anti-gun. I do think there can be reasonable restrictions that would allow guns for self-defense and hunting. There are even situations where a gun for self-defense makes sense despite shooting down so many scenarios. The idea that only the honest would lack guns is a bit of a myth. It would take time but taking away firearms would eventually disarm all but the most cunning and resourceful criminals (a rare breed). 1
CV75 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, mnn727 said: I've had guns for almost 40 years and they've never killed anything except for paper targets - yet you gun control people would confiscate my guns but you'd never get the criminals guns. I think in countries with strict gun control, the criminals who have them are too disciplined to commit mass shootings. This is part of the unspoken arrangement to keep the peace, and "everybody" gets "a peice o' da action."' One problem is solved while others are created and enabled. I think the real trick is to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without governments getting into bed with the criminal element, which undermines these aims in a less obvious fashion.
CV75 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 59 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The 2nd Amendment gives the people generally the right to own guns. 99.5% of the people who own guns do so responsibly. There are exceptions and the laws can prevent these idiots from obtaining them but that is not an issue of the 2nd Amendment. One should not blame the gun for mass shooting anymore than one should blame the car for a drunk driving accident that kills 10 people. I think the effectiveness of gun control depends largely on the other potentials for violence in any given nation. In Israel for example, the constant threat of terrorism and the resultant sophistication in security measures makes for a society more appreciative of the respective powers of safety and destruction. Hence we see there a receptivity for gun control and the attendant benefits which cannot be argued as attributable to other measures. So I think that something worse than occasional mass shootings, as bad as even one is, will have to affect enough people in the US to get the populace to support stricter gun control. A demonstrable reliability that the political system will render an effective control policy is also necessary.
Danzo Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) I think one of the problems is that people think gun control means "banning guns", and a "well regulated militia" means "Armed people running around without any rules or regulations." I think it would help if Gun control actually meant learning to control guns , IE more training, more education about guns and more awareness. Having a well regulated militia could actually mean that the people who have or want arms could be registered, vetted, trained and under the authority of a local Militia commander (which probably would translate to a sheriff or police chief in our day.) Militia commanders were always historically a local government official and were part of the government. The militia wasn't just a group of random people who happened to be armed. Edited February 17, 2018 by Danzo 3
carbon dioxide Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Danzo said: I think one of the problems is that people then gun control means "banning guns", and a "well regulated militia" means "Armed people running around without any rules or regulations." I think it would help if Gun control actually meant learning to control guns , IE more training, more education about guns and more awareness. Having a well regulated militia could actually mean that the people who have or want arms could be registered, vetted, trained and under the authority of a local Militia commander (which probably would translate to a sheriff or police chief in our day.) Militia commanders were always historically a local government official and were part of the government. The militia wasn't just a group of random people who happened to be armed. I agree with this. The militia is not a government controlled organization like the military and national guard but closer to the local police. People should be trained. Gun safety is probably more important than sex ed in the public school. Too many examples of kids accidentally shooting others because they do not know how to handle guns or can tell when a gun is loaded.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 17 minutes ago, Danzo said: I think one of the problems is that people think gun control means "banning guns", and a "well regulated militia" means "Armed people running around without any rules or regulations." I think it would help if Gun control actually meant learning to control guns , IE more training, more education about guns and more awareness. Having a well regulated militia could actually mean that the people who have or want arms could be registered, vetted, trained and under the authority of a local Militia commander (which probably would translate to a sheriff or police chief in our day.) Militia commanders were always historically a local government official and were part of the government. The militia wasn't just a group of random people who happened to be armed. Sounds like you endorse the Swiss model.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I agree with this. The militia is not a government controlled organization like the military and national guard but closer to the local police. People should be trained. Gun safety is probably more important than sex ed in the public school. Too many examples of kids accidentally shooting others because they do not know how to handle guns or can tell when a gun is loaded. Many people never own guns. Almost everyone will have sex. I don’t think that would be a wise priority rating.
Danzo Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Many people never own guns. Almost everyone will have sex. I don’t think that would be a wise priority rating. Incorrect use of a gun has more immediately negative consequences. Guns are prevalent enough that even those that don't want to own them are still likely to encounter them.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 minutes ago, Danzo said: Incorrect use of a gun has more immediately negative consequences. Guns are prevalent enough that even those that don't want to own them are still likely to encounter them. Sometimes I think Rowan Atkinson has it right: 1
Gray Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 6 hours ago, bluebell said: Stronger federal restrictions would probably help some. Can we really divide this into a 'red state/blue state' issue though? Only 7 states in the country outlaw assault rifles. That means 9 blue states allow assault rifles. Not all blue states require a background check to purchase a gun either while some red states do. Out of the 7 states that don't have any restrictions on gun owners, 1 is a blue state. The state with the most restrictions on gun owners is a red state. Again, it's this kind of "us vs them, me the good guy vs you the bad guy", mentality that is making so it incredibly difficult to pass any kind of gun reform. I live in Illinois. We have extra gun violence death in our state precisely because of Indiana's lax gun laws. So to me it's definitely a red state blue state problem, although all states could use stricter gun laws.
Gray Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 6 hours ago, bluebell said: Weird. Let me try again. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf It's a distinction with a difference. Saying that Trump made it so mentally ill people can buy guns is false. They are still not allowed to buy guns. Perpetuating these kind of 'loose facts that serve my purpose' (which both sides are constantly doing) is part of the reason we are in this mess. We need less spin. And yes, 51% of Americans support gun control. I'm not sure what the margin of error was on that report though so I don't know if that number alone means that we would have more gun control right now if not for the NRA. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221 Quote Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses by Ali Vitali President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun. The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database. Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database. President Barack Obama recommended the now-nullified regulation in a 2013 memo following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 first graders and six others dead. The measure sought to block some people with severe mental health problems from buying guns. Related: Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules The original rule was hotly contested by gun rights advocates who said it infringed on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Gun control advocates, however, praised the rule for curbing the availability of firearms to those who may not use them with the right intentions. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx 60% favor stricter gun laws, 96% favor background checks
Gray Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: How would you get this critical mass? Would it be a job requirement for teachers to bring a gun to school? I've been teaching for over 10 years and I've yet to hear a teacher in my school say they wish they could bring their gun to school. I'm sure there are some and I just haven't heard it, but I seriously doubt there are enough to create the critical mass you describe. Would this also alter teacher dress codes so that the gun could be concealed? I'm not up to speed on how guns are concealed beyond inside a jacket. I hear this solution all the time and it just doesn't seem practical to me. There is a HUGE training difference between our police officer (who clearly has a gun on his belt) and a civilian with a conceal permit. There were armed good guys at that concert massacre last year. Didn't help at all.
Gray Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 4 hours ago, Danzo said: Not really Name the other countries with similar incidents of mass shootings.
Gray Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: False. Guns have been around for a long time. Real mass shootings (like a dozen people shot and not just 4) is more recent. Plenty of gun access back in the 80s but no examples of a dozen kids getting shot in school. What has changed is the culture, 24 hour news and the internet. That is creating this. It's the guns. We're the only one with this problem. Our mental illness incidents aren't exceptional. But we own 40+ percent of the world's guns. Edited February 17, 2018 by Gray 1
Recommended Posts