2 of 25
2
Gun control - again
Posted: 16 April 2013 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
Lois - 10 April 2013 08:12 PM
mid atlantic - 09 April 2013 09:00 PM

It was an X-acto knife, though. It’s not a good killing weapon. If he had used most any other knife, there would have been at least a few deaths.

Ok, and how many deaths if he’d had a fully loaded automatic weapon?

I feel its wholly distracting to compare killing efficiency of guns to knives. 
China has had much more “successful” axe attacks in the last two years, and three thousand people lost their life with a box cutter to be blunt, not to mention how some of the most dangerous spots have the highest gun ctonrol.

More importantly what would happen had someone driven their car over a crowd of people, or even children?
Would the same argument still apply?
How many tens of thousands of areas in the country are vulnerable to such vehicular attacks?
Its much easier to borrow a car then purchase a gun for most people.
Argue the founding fathers did not envision any 16 year old could access and operate a high speed two tonne tank known as the family car.

The sad truth is no amount of gun control will stop mentally disturbed individuals from slaughtering groups of people with cars, pipe bombs, arson, (or even guns).

Pat yourselves on the back about how dumbs the republicans teabaggers is, but you’re all ignoring the common denominator behind each of these mass killings:
how mental health issues go unrecognised and even shunned in today’s society.
Thats the top priority, the rest is shameless politics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 09:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

I think the real problem here is that people often portray this as an “either/ or”  issue as though there is any one solution that is going to make the problem go away. Statements to the effect that “gun control won’t stop killings” may be true but they overlook the fact that the same statement can be applied to any proposed solution. Better mental health care isn;t going to make the problem go away. Arming every citizen isn’t going to make the problem go away. The plain fact is that nothing is going to stop killings like these but there are many things we can do to diminish them. Arguing against a particular recommendation simply because its not the complete solution misses the point and is not productive.

Yes we need to do better with mental health care but that alone will not solve the problem. It is extremely naive to assume that health care professionals can identify all the individuals who may commit a heinous crime and do so without inadvertently labeling many harmless people as dangerous. And what will become of the innocent people with mental problems who now have to deal with a society that has labeled them potentially dangerous? Will that make their mental illness worse? Will mentally ill patients forgo treatment to avoid the stigma of possibly being labelled as dangerous? This isn’t a problem with a simple solution. We are not even close to having a method by which we can tell who will commit a violent crime and who won’t if they don;t already have a history of doing so.

If we want to do a better job of reducing mass killings like this we need to use as many tools as possible. That includes better mental health care but it also includes putting road blocks up so its not easy for people to obtain weapons of mass destruction like guns with 30 round clips. There may be other novel and innovative ways to attack this problem as well but none of them alone will ever solve the problem. We need to use all the tools we have instead of pretending there might be one single answer.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2013-01-23

I am a gun rights advocate, who is also sane enough to know all rights come with various regulations and that the government must specify limits to all rights if they are to be maintained in the face of competing rights. There is no absolute right of anything. Founders, knew it and we should too. 2nders should know this, most support capital punishment- the most obvious example of the proscription of an “inalienable right.”

That being said, I think gun advocates generally get the 2nd wrong. The foundational bedrock of individual gun ownership really isn’t the 2nd amendment. It clearly spoke about firearms in relationship to the militia, which can be federalized and commanded at anytime by those that are supposedly held in check buy it. The 2nd is not a “rebel for free card” to be wielded by individuals. It is a balanced approach to share the power of the sword between state and federal sovereignty.

I still believe in an individual right to gun ownership, but the real legal justification for individual ownership is to be found in the common law, and thus is part of criminal code, not Constitutional law. Locke and others in the canon of English common law have long argued that common weapons and firearms are legitimate extensions of the right to self defense in the face of lethal threat. English common law is often very practical. In the case of self defense, it is necessary to be protected in both the right to self defense as well as the practical capacity or ability to protect yourself. Otherwise, self defense is merely a war of might makes right and individuals are at the mercy of whoever is physically dominating over them- or in other words- a tyranny of the brutes. If young, old, weak, women, etc are to have a functioning right to self defense and not just a theoretical one- they may need to have common weapons at their disposal to balance their relationship to the “brutes.” Of course what is a common weapon requires government regulation and scrutiny- or it too can become a tyranny of the “most heavily armed.”

This interpretation of gun rights held sway in American courts all the way until the Heller decision, when by a bare majority of 5-4 changed 200 hundred years of interpretation. Heller (Scalia’s opinion) held that the 2nd did cover individual right to guns outside of militia service. The dissents railed against this new construction. I think the dissent is correct. 2nd protects and regulates collective need and militia service, common law protects and regulates private use.

Either way, at least Scalia held that like other rights, it can be regulated even under the 2nd. In my opinion Heller has really empowered something I think will be seen as blatant politicizing of the SCOTUS in future generations. The discussion of individual gun rights properly belongs to common law, not constitutional law, and that decision muddled the legal framework for political agendas- pure and simple.

When I hear the right complain about judicial activism and revisionism I think about Heller and “In God We Trust” and rewriting the Pledge of Allegiance and the Tea Party movement and all I can think is Shakespeare: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The folks who favor literal interpretation love to rewrite things to their advantage- Bibles, Constitutions, history, science- you name it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
rbairos - 16 April 2013 09:09 AM

not to mention how some of the most dangerous spots have the highest gun ctonrol.

You need to be careful about making arguments like this one since you are assuming a given cause and effect with no logical reason or data to support that conclusion. It can easily be turned around and interpreted very differently. For example: Is it any surprise that we have enacted the strictest gun controls in areas that are the most dangerous? Its like implying Ice cream Parlors cause hot weather because it always gets warm after they open for the season.

You are assuming a given cause and effect relationship ie that gun control should have lead to lower crime rates and didnt when in fact it may simply and more likely be that higher crime rates lead to the enactment of stricter gun control.

Whether gun control lead to higher, lower, or unchanged crime rates in the area would at the very least require a before and after analysis but even that would be subject to flaws since we don’t know what the natural trend would have been had no intervention been attempted. At any rate, despite the implied conclusion, nothing can be determined from the original statement one way or the other.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
macgyver - 16 April 2013 09:48 AM

I think the real problem here is that people often portray this as an “either/ or”  issue as though there is any one solution that is going to make the problem go away. Statements to the effect that “gun control won’t stop killings” may be true but they overlook the fact that the same statement can be applied to any proposed solution. Better mental health care isn;t going to make the problem go away. Arming every citizen isn’t going to make the problem go away. The plain fact is that nothing is going to stop killings like these but there are many things we can do to diminish them. Arguing against a particular recommendation simply because its not the complete solution misses the point and is not productive.

Yes we need to do better with mental health care but that alone will not solve the problem. It is extremely naive to assume that health care professionals can identify all the individuals who may commit a heinous crime and do so without inadvertently labeling many harmless people as dangerous. And what will become of the innocent people with mental problems who now have to deal with a society that has labeled them potentially dangerous? Will that make their mental illness worse? Will mentally ill patients forgo treatment to avoid the stigma of possibly being labelled as dangerous? This isn’t a problem with a simple solution. We are not even close to having a method by which we can tell who will commit a violent crime and who won’t if they don;t already have a history of doing so.

If we want to do a better job of reducing mass killings like this we need to use as many tools as possible. That includes better mental health care but it also includes putting road blocks up so its not easy for people to obtain weapons of mass destruction like guns with 30 round clips. There may be other novel and innovative ways to attack this problem as well but none of them alone will ever solve the problem. We need to use all the tools we have instead of pretending there might be one single answer.


You’ve missed my point. Claiming that restricting gun access would reduce the occurrence of gun killings is akin to claiming that restricting car access would reduce the occurrence of car killings, or reducing pipe access would reduce pipe bomb killings. All are ‘tools’ addressing the problem by attacking its symptoms. 
It assumes someone who is willing to steal a rifle to inflict damage would not use a car for the same goal.
It also makes several statistical conclusions that are not supported by the literature.
This is not a tool, its a political distraction.

Secondly, Im not claiming that identifying individuals at risk of violence is a task for health care professionals. Im stating that its a general failing in our society, that our attitudes in mental health keep people with issues isolated, until the problem is much more serious.  Like you said, someone ‘labelled’ with mental health issues is stigmatized.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2886
Joined  2011-08-15

If we want to do a better job of reducing mass killings like this we need to use as many tools as possible. That includes better mental health care but it also includes putting road blocks up so its not easy for people to obtain weapons of mass destruction like guns with 30 round clips. There may be other novel and innovative ways to attack this problem as well but none of them alone will ever solve the problem. We need to use all the tools we have instead of pretending there might be one single answer.

Exactly Mac, background checks, eliminating multiple round clips, registering firearms, mandatory gun safety classes for new owners, better safety measures for storing weapons, e.g. Gun locks, improved health care for mental patients, neighborhood watch organizations with parameters (watching and reporting, not gun toting), prevention of felons from ever legally owning a firearm, and better control over addictive drugs (an epidemic here as most gun crimes are due to illegal drug sales), will greatly reduce the incidence of gun crimes IMO. As you mentioned, use every measure of prevention, not just one or two. Taken together it will keep guns where they belong, at the range or in the field. I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it’s never been done in this country and probably won’t be at least in my lifetime. As a frightening anecdote, a mother whose child attends the first grade with my granddaughter posted on Facebook that she bought her seven year old son an assault rifle for his birthday so that he can take it with him on his four wheeler. Gun owners here are buying them up as fast as dealers are putting them on the shelves and hundreds of rounds of ammunition as well, fearing that the “government” will pass laws preventing sales.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
macgyver - 16 April 2013 10:01 AM
rbairos - 16 April 2013 09:09 AM

not to mention how some of the most dangerous spots have the highest gun ctonrol.

You need to be careful about making arguments like this one since you are assuming a given cause and effect with no logical reason or data to support that conclusion. It can easily be turned around and interpreted very differently. For example: Is it any surprise that we have enacted the strictest gun controls in areas that are the most dangerous? Its like implying Ice cream Parlors cause hot weather because it always gets warm after they open for the season.

You are assuming a given cause and effect relationship ie that gun control should have lead to lower crime rates and didnt when in fact it may simply and more likely be that higher crime rates lead to the enactment of stricter gun control.

Whether gun control lead to higher, lower, or unchanged crime rates in the area would at the very least require a before and after analysis but even that would be subject to flaws since we don’t know what the natural trend would have been had no intervention been attempted. At any rate, despite the implied conclusion, nothing can be determined from the original statement one way or the other.

Im not claiming any cause and effect here. 
Im stating that the literature on gun control reducing violent crime is highly contentious with both sides claiming anomalies as evidence.
The assumption on this thread, (and your previous post) is that gun control is (one of several) tools against mass killings.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2886
Joined  2011-08-15

You’ve missed my point. Claiming that restricting gun access would reduce the occurrence of gun killings is akin to claiming that restricting car access would reduce the occurrence of car killings, or reducing pipe access would reduce pipe bomb killings. All are ‘tools’ addressing the problem by attacking its symptoms. 
It assumes someone who is willing to steal a rifle to inflict damage would not use a car for the same goal.
It also makes several statistical conclusions that are not supported by the literature.
This is not a tool, its a political distraction.

Please show the statistics that confirm your contention about mass killings by automobile. How many cars in the US have slammed into schools killing 26 people? How many cars have driven into movie theaters killing and wounding 78? Your analogy is a non sequitur. I can kill a human with a flatiron or a rock for that matter. So what? Aside from the occasional deaths by whatever one calls a weapon, it still doesn’t add up to killing by rapid fire rifles. there are now over 300 million weapons in this country and many more being made and sold as we speak. The incidence of accidental killing and suicide by gun is up and climbing (see Factcheck.org). Not many people blow themselves up with pipe bombs kill themselves with automobiles.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03
Thevillageatheist - 16 April 2013 10:16 AM

If we want to do a better job of reducing mass killings like this we need to use as many tools as possible. That includes better mental health care but it also includes putting road blocks up so its not easy for people to obtain weapons of mass destruction like guns with 30 round clips. There may be other novel and innovative ways to attack this problem as well but none of them alone will ever solve the problem. We need to use all the tools we have instead of pretending there might be one single answer.

Exactly Mac, background checks, eliminating multiple round clips, registering firearms, mandatory gun safety classes for new owners, better safety measures for storing weapons, e.g. Gun locks, improved health care for mental patients, neighborhood watch organizations with parameters (watching and reporting, not gun toting), prevention of felons from ever legally owning a firearm, and better control over addictive drugs (an epidemic here as most gun crimes are due to illegal drug sales), will greatly reduce the incidence of gun crimes IMO. As you mentioned, use every measure of prevention, not just one or two. Taken together it will keep guns where they belong, at the range or in the field. I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it’s never been done in this country and probably won’t be at least in my lifetime. As a frightening anecdote, a mother whose child attends the first grade with my granddaughter posted on Facebook that she bought her seven year old son an assault rifle for his birthday so that he can take it with him on his four wheeler. Gun owners here are buying them up as fast as dealers are putting them on the shelves and hundreds of rounds of ammunition as well, fearing that the “government” will pass laws preventing sales.


Cap’t Jack

Given that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and three quarters of the remaining homicides involve illegally obtained handguns involving a tiny fraction of the population, then most of your ‘preventions’ will have absolutely no effect.

It should also be mentioned that promoting even further restriction on drugs would *reduce* gun violence is ludicrous, when politicians and citizens everywhere are finally admitting to the failed ‘war on drugs’.  Nobody would burgle your home to feed their $1 a day crack addiction for example.  Stopping the war on drugs would probably have the *LARGEST* single reduction in gun crime of all suggestions proposed so far.

You can’t promote a wholesale reduction of peoples liberties when you yourself admit “I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it’s never been done in this country “.  That’s just scary.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2011-02-03

Please show the statistics that confirm your contention about mass killings by automobile. How many cars in the US have slammed into schools killing 26 people? How many cars have driven into movie theaters killing and wounding 78? Your analogy is a non sequitur. I can kill a human with a flatiron or a rock for that matter. So what? Aside from the occasional deaths by whatever one calls a weapon, it still doesn’t add up to killing by rapid fire rifles. there are now over 300 million weapons in this country and many more being made and sold as we speak. The incidence of accidental killing and suicide by gun is up and climbing (see Factcheck.org). Not many people blow themselves up with pipe bombs kill themselves with automobiles.

The fact that most current mass killings (itself a infinitesimal fraction of all homicides) is done by automatic assault rifle in no way shape or form means that sick individuals couldn’t engage in vehicular rampages, or am I missing something?  School shootings were also non-existent before the first incident, then a few later, and it became a sad meme.
Are you actually suggesting that if and when vehicular rampages become prevalent, sweeping restrictions on car access should be implemented?
You’re just playing whack-a-mole with underlying societal problems in that case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
rbairos - 16 April 2013 09:09 AM
Lois - 10 April 2013 08:12 PM
mid atlantic - 09 April 2013 09:00 PM

It was an X-acto knife, though. It’s not a good killing weapon. If he had used most any other knife, there would have been at least a few deaths.

Ok, and how many deaths if he’d had a fully loaded automatic weapon?

I feel its wholly distracting to compare killing efficiency of guns to knives. 
China has had much more “successful” axe attacks in the last two years, and three thousand people lost their life with a box cutter to be blunt, not to mention how some of the most dangerous spots have the highest gun ctonrol.

More importantly what would happen had someone driven their car over a crowd of people, or even children?
Would the same argument still apply?
How many tens of thousands of areas in the country are vulnerable to such vehicular attacks?
Its much easier to borrow a car then purchase a gun for most people.
Argue the founding fathers did not envision any 16 year old could access and operate a high speed two tonne tank known as the family car.

The sad truth is no amount of gun control will stop mentally disturbed individuals from slaughtering groups of people with cars, pipe bombs, arson, (or even guns). [/

]


Right, so why do we have car registration, driver’s licenses and traffic laws?  Why not just throw up our hands and say “No amount restrictions on automobile ownership and driving rules will stop mentally disturbed individuals from slaughtering people with their cars? So let’s just have a free for all. Anybody can own a car and anybody can drive it as recklessly as he pleases.

Should we have the same attitude toward bombs, too? why not? No amoint of bomb control is going to stop mentally disturbed individuals from obtaining bombs or making them and slaughtering people with them.[/

]


Rbarros: Pat yourselves on the back about how dumbs the republicans teabaggers is, but you’re all ignoring the common denominator behind each of these mass killings:
how mental health issues go unrecognised and even shunned in today’s society.
Thats the top priority, the rest is shameless politics.


Lois: Yes, mental health issues often go unrecognized and more should be done for people with. Mental health problems. But allowing them ease iof access to guns is not going to help them and will endanger many people.  You’re right about it being shameless politics, but you’re wrong about the source of that shamelessness,  it’s on the side of the anti-gun control lobby.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2886
Joined  2011-08-15

Given that 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and three quarters of the remaining homicides involve illegally obtained handguns involving a tiny fraction of the population, then most of your ‘preventions’ will have absolutely no effect.

It should also be mentioned that promoting even further restriction on drugs would *reduce* gun violence is ludicrous, when politicians and citizens everywhere are finally admitting to the failed ‘war on drugs’.  Nobody would burgle your home to feed their $1 a day crack addiction for example.  Stopping the war on drugs would probably have the *LARGEST* single reduction in gun crime of all suggestions proposed so far.

You can’t promote a wholesale reduction of peoples liberties when you yourself admit “I would like to quote the stats on this proposition but there are none yet because it’s never been done in this country “.  That’s just scary.


I’ve already stated that there are no statistics as yet that confirm the efficacy of ALL of the measures taken together and your stat only confirms lethality of available weapons in the US. I’m assuming that your figure was obtained from wiki, and what do you mean by “a tiny fraction”? Of guns obtained illegally? And as the reference to a one dollar daily crack addiction, you seem to have no idea as to the street cost of these drugs (meth, Oxycodone, cocaine, heroin) and their link to gun trafficking leading to violent deaths. I’m not talking about the “war” on drugs linvolving recreational drugs like marajuana but to highly addictive drugs traded for weapons in states with lax laws for later resale, making their way to felons and gangs. And this idea of wholesale reduction of people’s liberties is as you mention, ludicrous. No one here, least of all a gun owner is proposing a law to ban your weapons, just limit the number bullets in your clips. And as to gun violence by felons who obtain them illegally see here:


http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2886
Joined  2011-08-15

The fact that most current mass killings (itself a infinitesimal fraction of all homicides) is done by automatic assault rifle in no way shape or form means that sick individuals couldn’t engage in vehicular rampages, or am I missing something?  School shootings were also non-existent before the first incident, then a few later, and it became a sad meme.
Are you actually suggesting that if and when vehicular rampages become prevalent, sweeping restrictions on car access should be implemented?
You’re just playing whack-a-mole with underlying societal problems in that case.

You seem to be missing it all! Once again a non sequitur. Yes, sick individuals COULD use a vehicle to committ mass killings but how many of these have actually occurred? Stats please. And how long ago was that first incident to which you refer? It happened in Manitoba in 1902, hardly a recent meme don’t you think? So you’re predicting that in the future mental patients MIGHT mow down innocent citizens with a car? It sounds like you’re playing strawman. And if I’m playing whack-a-mole I plan to cover every hole.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2013 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
rbairos - 16 April 2013 10:15 AM

It assumes someone who is willing to steal a rifle to inflict damage would not use a car for the same goal.

We don’t need to make that assumption to come to the conclusion that gun control would be a useful tool. All we need to assume is that some people who would commit mayhem with a gun might choose not to if forced to use another method or additionally that some people who would use an automatic weapon to kill lots of people may be somewhat less efficient if forced to choose a different weapon. Any improvement at all means that gun control has some utility and therefor may have a useful role in controlling violence. I think those are reasonable assumptions and since there is little to lose by trying it does not seem logical to oppose reasonable limitations without good reason.

There is probably less evidence that we can reduce these killings with better mental health care and yet you and I are both willing to admit its worth a try.

rbairos - 16 April 2013 10:15 AM

Secondly, Im not claiming that identifying individuals at risk of violence is a task for health care professionals. Im stating that its a general failing in our society, that our attitudes in mental health keep people with issues isolated, until the problem is much more serious.  Like you said, someone ‘labelled’ with mental health issues is stigmatized.

We agree on that point

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2013 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2013-04-29

Its not the gun or knife kills, its the person who intent to kill people. Why they want to kill people? Its because they want to take revenge? or They just out of there mind? One thing they must bear in mind that killing people is a sin. Killing people is a big murder. Killing innocent people is a big NO! NO! We must now have weapon control to avoid such thing like that.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 25
2
 
‹‹ Korea      Rand Paul at Howard U. ››