Can we talk about the mass shootings in America?

[Duncan]

23 hours ago, longview said:

What if you had this scenario:  a couple of thugs break into your home and threaten your family.  What if they are armed with knives or guns?  If you do manage to call 911 surreptitiously, how many agonizing minutes are you going to wait before you get brutalized?  Liberals stop being liberals when they get mugged.

Home defense is best achieved with gun ownership and training.  The dominant media refuses to report on the overwhelming numbers of successful deterrence made by law-abiding citizens.  More than half the time simply displaying a weapon is sufficient to cause the invaders to turn and skedaddle out of there.

There are many security camera videos documenting the hilarious scampering of criminals jumping over each other as they high tail to their vehicles.  And sometimes we see home-owners come to their porches and yard as they continue firing at the rascals.

ETA:  We are freer when government fears an armed populace.  I remember in the 1990's the bumper sticker on many vehicles with this quotation:  "Fear the government that fears your gun".  A very true sentiment!  The American hunters constitute the LARGEST army in the world.  Bigger than the combined militaries of China, North Korea, etc.

this makes no sense, the government via your constitution or whatever made an armed populace

here's another scenario what if there was no guns for the criminals to be had? What about this scenario, why are there criminals breaking into your house in the first place? why not spend money on preventing crime than on manufacturing guns to continue crime? Every 1st world country in the planet has answered this question except yours, what is more important upholding the 2nd Amendment or upholding human life? it just seems so unworthy of LDS members to value that more than human life. It's weird too republicans are against abortion yet they freely uphold gun laws to kill human life after people are born. It's messed up thinking

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, longview said:

Everywhere totalitarianism took power (Nazi Germany, communist bloc countries, Red China, etc), the people were disarmed.

Totalitarian governments took people's guns.

Your government is taking your guns.

Therefore, your government is a totalitarian government.

 

Oops, that's a logical fallacy! Check out "undistributed middle."

16 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I guess you have never seen the movie Red dawn?

I hope we're not basing gun policy on the movie Red Dawn...

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

here's another scenario what if there was no guns for the criminals to be had?

 

 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

What about this scenario, why are there criminals breaking into your house in the first place?

Lots of possible reasons: criminal mischief, simple theft, gang initiations, attempted homicide, etc.

 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

why not spend money on preventing crime than on manufacturing guns to continue crime?

We spend a fair amount of money on crime prevention, but if there are better or more effective programs out there that are successful in other countries that we have overlooked, I would love to hear about them. What sort of crime prevention measures do you have in mind?

 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Every 1st world country in the planet has answered this question except yours, [...]

And I would prefer to live in none of them.

 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

what is more important upholding the 2nd Amendment or upholding human life?

Personally, I'm a fan of both.

 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

it just seems so unworthy of LDS members to value [upholding the 2nd Amendment] more than human life.

Actually, it is because I value human life - in particular, my own life and the lives of my family and loved ones - that I support the right of self-defense.

 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

It's weird too republicans are against abortion yet they freely uphold gun laws to kill human life after people are born. It's messed up thinking

I'm not a Republican, but my understanding is that the GOP platform does not "uphold gun laws to kill human life" indiscriminately. They are firmly against murder, both pre- and postnatally.

If you want to discuss Republican hypocrisy with respect to the sanctity of life, you would do better to juxtapose their positions on abortion and capital punishment. 

 

[Duncan]

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Lots of possible reasons: criminal mischief, simple theft, gang initiations, attempted homicide, etc.

what is being done to prevent it? why do these people have guns? 

 

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

We spend a fair amount of money on crime prevention, but if there are better or more effective programs out there that are successful in other countries that we have overlooked, I would love to hear about them. What sort of crime prevention measures do you have in mind?

Canada is banning guns of all kinds, sounds to us. Some complaints but we'd rather have complaints to hear than to attend another child's funeral. You can't have a massacre if you have nothing to massacre people with. Why is that so hard to understand? 

 

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And I would prefer to live in none of them.

 

and I yours

 

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Actually, it is because I value human life - in particular, my own life and the lives of my family and loved ones - that I support the right of self-defense.

you really value human life? even a child's? 

 

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you want to discuss Republican hypocrisy with respect to the sanctity of life, you would do better to juxtapose their positions on abortion and capital punishment. 

what would be better than saying we value an unborn baby but we literally don't care after it's born, how is that position defensible? 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Duncan

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Lawless cultists who wish to kill all liberals and minorities? I suppose such people do exist, but not in the millions.

 

Still possible..

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-quarter-of-republicans-believe-central-views-of-qanon-conspiracy-movement?context=amp

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

what is being done to prevent it?

You mean, what is being done to prevent hypothetical people from breaking into people's homes?

A number of things I suppose. But the reasons for why someone might break into a home and threaten the residents are varied and complex. It's not like there is a silver bullet to crime prevention.

 

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

why do these people have guns? 

In the original hypo, posited by @longview, he asked what would you do if your assailants were 'armed with knives or guns.'

As to why these criminals have weapons, my guess would be: because it makes it easier to victimize other people who are, themselves, unarmed.

 

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

You can't have a massacre if you have nothing to massacre people with.

And guns are the only way to massacre people?

Poisoning, arson, vehicular homicide, bombings, etc. Have all of the components which could be used in these methods been outlawed as well?

I haven't looked at the numbers but I strongly suspect that more children die in vehicles each year than gunfire. Is your government planning on banning automobiles? I mean, there would surely be some complaints, but better to listen to a few complaints than to attend one more child's funeral, right?

 

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

and I yours

Fair enough.

 

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

you really value human life? even a child's? 

Is this a sincere question?

If so, the answer is yes, and yes.

 

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

what would be better than saying we value an unborn baby but we literally don't care after it's born, how is that position defensible? 

Again, I'm not a Republican, but I'm pretty sure they very much do care if somebody murders a child after he or she is born.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Amulek

[Tacenda]

Watched former president speaking at the NRA convention and not one word about gun safety laws, instead, his and Cruz's idea is to have only one entry door going into school buildings, metal detectors, etc. I work in school buildings and find it crazy thinking to imagine the schools getting all those students in and out of the one door to recess and other activities throughout the day, along with each student putting their backpack through metal detectors each day. And schools already have a two door system in front by the office and a camera to show ID. And all the other doors are locked as well. I wear a badge to get myself in and out of each door.  People are so clueless. These politicians don't live in the real world.

 

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Totalitarian governments took people's guns.

Your government is taking your guns.

Therefore, your government is a totalitarian government.

Oops, that's a logical fallacy! Check out "undistributed middle."

You are kind of jumping the gun (pun intended).  Most Americans still can own guns and even continue buying them.  Be careful about not putting the cart in front of the horse.  However, in liberal enclaves such as Chicago and New York it is very difficult to get licenses and conceal permits.  Which is a clear violation of the Second Amendment that was written to prohibit governments from infringing on the basic rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

There are numerous indications of various governmental agencies behaving in a despotic manner.  Such as BATF against the poor saps in Waco (I posted on this, you may have missed it), FBI acting with extreme prejudice against the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, outrageous lockdowns on small businesses during Covid hysteria (a very unscientific implementation but at the same time favoring big-box stores), and on and on.

Edited June 2, 2022 by longview

[Duncan]

39 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And guns are the only way to massacre people?

Poisoning, arson, vehicular homicide, bombings, etc. Have all of the components which could be used in these methods been outlawed as well?

I haven't looked at the numbers but I strongly suspect that more children die in vehicles each year than gunfire. Is your government planning on banning automobiles? I mean, there would surely be some complaints, but better to listen to a few complaints than to attend one more child's funeral, right?

nope

yes as they should be. Except arson as anyone can start a fire but less than a thousand children die each by arson, rather than accidental fires

then you should check your numbers because more children die each year by guns than they do by automobiles

i'm not trying to argue but why are Americans seemingly incapable of doing anything about these incidents?

Edited June 2, 2022 by Duncan

[Amulek]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

then you should check your numbers because more children die each year by guns than they do by automobiles

In Canada?

 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Watched former president speaking at the NRA convention and not one word about gun safety laws, instead, his and Cruz's idea is to have only one entry door going into school buildings, metal detectors, etc. I work in school buildings and find it crazy thinking to imagine the schools getting all those students in and out of the one door to recess and other activities throughout the day, along with each student putting their backpack through metal detectors each day. And schools already have a two door system in front by the office and a camera to show ID. And all the other doors are locked as well. I wear a badge to get myself in and out of each door.  People are so clueless. These politicians don't live in the real world.

 

 

Not all schools have the bold. Not even all of the schools in Davis County. 

[Duncan]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In Canada?

 

vehicular homicide hardly happens, gun violence even less than that

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'm not trying to argue but why are Americans seemingly incapable of doing anything about these incidents?

Because the "right to keep and bear arms" is enshrined in our Constitution. So, even if the solution to these incidents was to simply ban guns, that isn't really an option without a Constitutional amendment.

In order to amend the Constitution a bill needs to be approved by 2/3 majority in both legislative houses. It then must be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

I believe the probability of that happening within my lifetime is functionally zero.

 

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

vehicular homicide hardly happens, gun violence even less than that

I wasn't talking about vehicular homicide. I was talking about automobile accidents in general.

If your reasoning is that it is better to listen to complaints from people who have to give up their guns than it is to attend even one more child's funeral (caused by guns), then it ought to likewise be true that it is better to listen to complaints from people who have to surrender their automobiles than it is to attend even one more child's funeral caused by cars. Right?

 

[Duncan]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I wasn't talking about vehicular homicide. I was talking about automobile accidents in general.

If your reasoning is that it is better to listen to complaints from people who have to give up their guns than it is to attend even one more child's funeral (caused by guns), then it ought to likewise be true that it is better to listen to complaints from people who have to surrender their automobiles than it is to attend even one more child's funeral caused by cars. Right?

 

do people complain though about accidents more than they do about someone deliberately killing a child using their car? Even after accidents their are investigations as to the cause and car companies can get sued-things happen afterwards to try to prevent this from happening again.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Duncan

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Not all schools have the bold. Not even all of the schools in Davis County. 

I'd love to know which schools in Davis County District doesn't.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'd love to know which schools in Davis County District doesn't.

I don't know either.  The only reason that I know some don't is because the superintendent's letter (the one he sent out the day after the shooting in Uvalde) mentioned that eventually all schools in Davis county will have the kind of main entrances that you described.  

So some must not have it yet.  I'm glad they have plans to fix that.  My two youngests' elementary school has only had them for a couple of years, if that.  Our Jr. High had it about a year before their elementary school. 

I'm sure the process with the funding and everything takes time.

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do people complain though about accidents more than they do about someone deliberately killing a child using their car? 

So the problem isn't about the actual loss of life - it's whether or not people complain about it. That's really what you want to go with here?

Look, I understand why Canadians don't want to ban automobiles. Because, even though more children (not to mention adults) in Canada die in cars each year than in shootings, people in Canada value the freedom and benefits that come with car ownership enough that they are willing to accept that cars should remain legal even though they result in a certain number of deaths each year.

It's the same sort of cost-benefit analysis that goes into the decision to ban guns. Canadians don't believe the freedom and benefits associated with gun ownership are sufficient to outweigh the number of deaths caused by guns each year. Americans, as a whole, look at the same question and have come to a different conclusion.

You are welcome to disagree. And to try and persuade others to change their minds as well. Pro tip on that front though: insinuating that those who disagree with you don't value human life and are ambivalent to the murder of innocent children children is probably not the best way to go about changing hearts and minds.

 

[Amulek]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'd love to know which schools in Davis County District doesn't.

And why would you need to know which schools have the least amount of security? What are you planning Tacenda?

 

[Duncan]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So the problem isn't about the actual loss of life - it's whether or not people complain about it. That's really what you want to go with here?

Look, I understand why Canadians don't want to ban automobiles. Because, even though more children (not to mention adults) in Canada die in cars each year than in shootings, people in Canada value the freedom and benefits that come with car ownership enough that they are willing to accept that cars should remain legal even though they result in a certain number of deaths each year.

It's the same sort of cost-benefit analysis that goes into the decision to ban guns. Canadians don't believe the freedom and benefits associated with gun ownership are sufficient to outweigh the number of deaths caused by guns each year. Americans, as a whole, look at the same question and have come to a different conclusion.

You are welcome to disagree. And to try and persuade others to change their minds as well. Pro tip on that front though: insinuating that those who disagree with you don't value human life and are ambivalent to the murder of innocent children children is probably not the best way to go about changing hearts and minds.

 

the problem is people upholding the ridiculous constitution more than they value human life. We don't believe that owning guns is worth more than a life, that's the different conclusion Canadians have come to. Hearts and minds change through policy and action not this "thoughts and prayers" nonsense. it'll keep it happening and I hope Americans are prepared to live and be slaughtered with it. 

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And why would you need to know which schools have the least amount of security? What are you planning Tacenda?

 

Ha! 😁

[provoman]

48 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the problem is people upholding the ridiculous constitution more than they value human life. We don't believe that owning guns is worth more than a life, that's the different conclusion Canadians have come to. Hearts and minds change through policy and action not this "thoughts and prayers" nonsense. it'll keep it happening and I hope Americans are prepared to live and be slaughtered with it. 

This isn’t a discussion for histrionics.

The object did not harm anyone. The human caused the harm. 

But where does it stop, what else should be banned because of the minute statistical chance a human misuses a “thing” and harms another human?

the image is the 2020 data on things used to kill other humans

https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend   Homicide offense characteristics 

Edited June 2, 2022 by provoman

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I guess you have never seen the movie Red dawn? The one reason Russia , China  or anybody will never invade us is because we have 400 million guns in America. 

Guns don’t win wars or fight aggressors. People do. If the police response in Uvalde can be taken as a general indicator of the will of the American people to resist a threat we would surrender to attackers so quickly it would make the French look at us in disgust. Having a lot of guns isn’t what provides safety. It is the will to resist. We have a lot of people eager to brag about how they will resist enemy threats but I suspect most of it is empty posturing.

In Afghanistan we had a well-armed nation in terms of equipment and it folded in a few days. In Ukraine you had a less armed nation and they fought hard and got the weapons they needed. There would have been no point in sending weapons if the people there had no will to use them.

The idea that America is somehow uniquely suited to repel invaders is probably a national myth. The continental United States has not been attacked by a foreign military for over two centuries and we have enjoyed safety as the two nations bordering us don’t harbor any imperial ambitions against us. The Chinese army is not going to invade the US. Neither is Russia. The posturing over how well we could fight them off is just posturing. A vast array of overweight old guys with tacticool weapons and equipment is not preserving the United States. They might destroy it though.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

This isn’t a discussion for histrionics.

The object did not harm anyone. The human caused the harm. 

But where does it stop, what else should be banned because of the minute statistical chance a human misuses a “thing” and harms another human?

 

that's the fear though that perpetuates this slaughter, people are afraid that other things will be banned and so it'll keep going. The problem though is this fear seems to only be the US. the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with stopping gun violence. Why are these crazy people getting guns? Why does the civilian population need a hand gun for? 

if guns don't harm people then why have them then? They are useless objects and useless objects need to chucked

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that's the fear though that perpetuates this slaughter, people are afraid that other things will be banned and so it'll keep going. The problem though is this fear seems to only be the US. the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with stopping gun violence. Why are these crazy people getting guns? Why does the civilian population need a hand gun for? 

if guns don't harm people then why have them then? They are useless objects and useless objects need to chucked

There is so much we do not need, but we accept that people want things, and despite the minute number of irresponsible people, society accepts that the responsible majority can have access : for example, motorcycles, alcohol, vehicles,