Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No. None of those issues feature equivalent irrationality and dangerous nonsense from "both sides" with public platforms and political representation. Climate change, say, has a nutcase pack of Republican freaks and Koch paid denial mongers actually dominant in the US Congress, and nothing of the kind even visible on TV for the "other side". The repeated canard of "both sides" is normally paid, organized, and promoted rightwing corporate authoritarian PR - look who it comes from: David Gregory types overseeing a TV landscape packed with rightwing spinmeisters, hired guns and paid shills and talk radio rightyranters, people who voted for W twice and thought Palin was unfairly picked on, birthers and Iraq War apologists and people who nodded their heads at Romney's 47% remark. The usual situation is sanity vs crazytalk, honest consideration vs lies and bs, wild paranoia and fantasy vs sober marshalling of facts, and so forth. Not two opposed packs of shitflingers with public venue access - just one, and opposed to it the various factions of the reality based community.

    With gun control, there are two.

    That was one place you could go to find the wording of the 2nd Amendment in its common usage, a place you could learn what the term "well regulated" meant to the author who used it. If you don't like it, there were others mentioned. Pick one or two.

    The citizens were expected to have armed themselves, of course, and they had been at the time mostly defending their frontier cabins and colonial towns for the past seventy or eighty years, rather than what was not yet a country.

    Due process refers to due process of law as required of the State - recall that no man's liberty or property can be taken by the State without due process of law?

    In all of the debates, essays, and preliminary discussions leading up to the writing of the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights, which was written for that reason explicitly. The roots of the political theory go way back - to the Magna Carta, to the old Greek citystates, - and also to the personal experience of the Founders with the European monarchies, colonial governors, Vatican influence, Scotch-Irish political history, and such exemplars of alternative as the Iroquois Confederacy and Cherokee Nation right on their borders.

    Well regulated means among other things well equipped (among other necessary attributes, such as properly organized and coordinated). And militias generally disband in peacetime - they might or might not volunteer for some training or something between actions, but they aren't usually getting paid to stand around after the job is done. They're civilians - when the battle's over they pack their stuff (including their weapons) and go home. Sometimes before then, if they don't like the situation - George Washington did not trust them.

    Nonsense. Quite a few people want to take legal guns away from their current possessors, confiscate (say) all the handguns in Minneapolis (that was the explicit agenda of a major Party candidate for governor of Minnesota, a few years ago). Read back on this thread for examples, or listen to the TV, or read the newspaper.

    So does almost every other gun owner, and almost everyone else. We all know that, right?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Did they take your gun?

    If that were true I would agree that should be corrected.
    But that argues against the notion that the government is taking all the guns away, no? Can you you cite an instance where this actually happened?

    If that is true i am in total agreement. I am disgusted with the way our vets are treated. They put their lives on the line and should have earned due respect for their service. But if you are a vet, you know what extended combat can do to a person. It is not the soldiers fault if he loses perspective, it is WARFARE! There is no civility in war, it destroys everything and everyone that comes in contact. Except the gun manufacturers and sellers, they just get rich.

    Maybe of interest,
    And the Nobel foundation was his attempt to be remembered as a man of peace and science.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Bad law, especially law that cannot be enforced without violating people's rights and civil liberties, is often capriciously and unevenly enforced. It is used to target disfavored groups, persecute people the sheriff's department doesn't like, punish the political enemies of the powerful or the inconvenient irritations of the wealthy, and so forth.

    In Minnesota, for example, the laws regarding issuance of carry permits for handguns were not good - they basically required that the permit seeker demonstrate their need for a gun to the satisfaction of their county sheriff, nothing else. What that meant in practice was that any white man living in Otter Tail County could get a permit for the asking, and no black woman living in Hennepin County could get a permit for any reason. A white man often carrying lots of money to the bank in the afternoon could get a permit without question, but a colored women often waiting at bus stops in bad neighborhoods after their hotel maid or hospital orderly shifts at night could not. I know a guy who got a carry permit under the old law by telling the sheriff of his western rural county that when he did contracting in Minneapolis he sometimes saw niggers walking past his truck while it was parked on the street - an obviously hazardous situation. Then the law was changed, by a full court press from the NRA allied wingnut fringe - it was rewritten, incompetently, as a shall issue law. Under the new law, permit applicants must pass a background check and complete a safety and handling course, they are not allowed to carry into schools or arenas or courthouses or any privately owned building properly posted against carry, and otherwise the sheriff must issue the permit. It's a better law, in other words - gains in safety, reduction in arbitrary and uneven treatment under the law, etc. If it had been written by liberal Dems, as should have been, it would have been competently written; it would not have, say, forced every church in the Twin Cities to post an ugly black and white sign with letters of such and so dimensions at eye level on their sanctuary doors. It would have established a quick and dedicated link to State background records in every county seat in Minnesota, easily coopted for child support tracking and school hiring checks and domestic violence checks etc. But try and talk the "liberal" Dems into that.

    My own startle came from seeing Blackwater mercenaries confiscate guns from the black people, but not the white people, who survived Katrina in New Orleans. That was right around the time the looting got started, which they did not stop.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    this depends upon how the person is established as being mentally unstable. If a psychiatrist, psychologist and a court decide the issue and they are shown to be delusional etc? No, they should not be allowed... but if an administrative person with no psychology/psychiatry in their education bases it upon the fact that the person is a combat vet, like the VA was doing? This is NOT establishing history of mental illness, but a biased decision based upon fear and prejudice
    no, I actually never watch fox or even TV... but it was the FIRST link I found that had a copy of what I was looking for, which was the DOJ publication. I can get the same thing from another source if you would like... it will say the same thing.
    1- The VA system, NY anmd NJ were disarming people without due process. It has been in the news enough for even ME to hear about it (and I don't get TV where I live). 2- I completely agree with background checks. never said I didn't.
    SHOW ME ONE TIME I SAID THIS OR ADVOCATED THIS, PLEASE
    I believe in the background checks. It has caught many a felon. Now go look up HOW MANY OF THOSE FELONS APPLYING FOR FIREARMS HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED UNDER THE LAW... let me know what number you find. I think you will be surprised... [QUTOE] yes, that is why at time of sale the gun should be registered, It'll prevent a lot of criminals from walking into a store or gun show and buy a gun.[/QUOTE]stores have background checks... gun shows do not. Your "registration" issue is with gun shows, NOT stores.
    And it would be better, cheaper and faster to simply have a single round ballistic check assigned to a product during testing at the factory and produce some kind of micro-stamp for brass than register each firearm to a single individual.
    I like the way you are trying to establish a serious negative connotation to the gun. It is also a tool designed for PROTECTION and putting MEAT on a table. Why instantly jump to killing at a distance? The Crossbow, Longbow and Re-curcve are ALSO designed for killing something at a long distance... why are THEY not registered?
    But back to your point... Gun advocates HAVE given common sense laws the chance... it is the anti-gun advocate that should be talking to the gov't about why the laws are NOT being enforced and then, while you are at it... get back to the MAIN ISSUE AT HAND, which is NOT the gun itself, but the issue of the CRIMINAL and the MENTALLY UNSTABLE.
    IF THOSE TWO population groups were not in the mix, we would NOT be having this conversation. THAT is the CORE PROBLEM... not the gun, the availability of the gun or the dangerousness of the gun (which is less dangerous than cars, hammers, screwdrivers and knives)
    the right to protect their family while outside of their home, the right to self protection... just because there is a sub-group of people that fear personal responsibility and want some other institution to take it for them, does NOT mean that it is right or correct to allow them reign.
    see last answer. the 2nd amendment is the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, not have pretty pieces of metal to be stored in safes away from everyone while allowing criminals the right to rob, kill, maim and free reign over the law abiding populace. A gun that is NOT accessible and loaded is as effective as a rock or a dream.

    Like I said... the laws and regulations to date have been ok, and are proof that the Gun advocate is willing to work with everyone... BUT, and A VERY BIG BUT.... the LAWS SHOULD BE ENFORCED.
    you have said that, and it is proven by watching the news that this is NOT the case. Again... the news in my state has Vet's (some of the more heavily trained firearms experts) being disarmed just fro being a vet. NO JUSTIFICATION, no legal proceedings. no court. no psychiatrist... a VA admin geek that reads a DOJ memo and decided that the vet is a domestic terrorist because he/she is TRAINED and experienced in firearms use.

    and again, I reiterate... WHEN THOSE LAWS ARE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN, perhaps the anti-gun lobby will be in a better position to support their claims.
    again... how many FELONS (just stick to felons) APPLIED for firearms and were denied because of background checks? now... HOW MANY OF THOSE FELONS WERE PROSECUTED FOR COMMITTING ANOTHER FELONY, which is what that is: knowingly falsifying the paperwork AND attempting to purchase a firearm with a felony...

    check it out.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  8. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    I managed to save it by giving it to my grandson so that they couldn't take it without legal reason. Then I pursued it in court. still no answer.
    if it DOES happen once, it WILL happen again. pull up the news, especially when Obama was reinstated for term two. There have been numerous confiscations over the past few years. I will get links to references when I have more time
    so the alternative is to assume that ANY vet with combat experience is a threat?
    How about a vet that has only been in combat as a Medic? ir how about a vet that has only been in ONE altercation? One battle?

    where do you draw the line?

    You are correct... the vets are treated terribly. The VA/Military has protocols for establishing the mental abilities of an individual. It should be determined that the Vet is a THREAT or a criminal before determining that they ARE a criminal or treated as such. Its called Due process... Innocent before proven guilty. (the law used to say: it is better for ten guilty men to be set free than one innocent convicted wrongly... what happened? it seems that today, it is designed to make sure everyone is guilty before being proven innocent!)
    very much of interest.
    again... the tool is not the threat, it is the USE of the tool that people are concerned about... THIS is the meat of the problem. the PERSON... not the tool itself. this is what should be addressed FIRST AND FOREMOST, IMHO
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    And, therein lies the true problem with silly regulations.
    Idiots!!!
    Only an idiot would think that a black powder .50 could possibly bring down an aircraft.

    So once you get a poorly worded regulation that can easily be misunderstood by tyrannical idiots, tyranny ensues.
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No. Ice was very clear that he was criticizing the anti-gun ideology.

    The Constitution has been amended many times. The Founders made it quite clear in their correspondence with each other that the Constitution was intended to be a living document that would adapt to the times, just as they adapted the principles of the European thinkers to American life.

    We no longer have the right to own slaves or to treat women as second-class non-voting citizens. We lost the right to manufacture, sell and buy alcoholic beverages, then regained it. There's no reason that the right to own a lethal weapon without any requirement for training, licensing or insurance can't also be amended.

    The average American values his life, in round numbers, at $10M--based on court judgments, life insurance statistics and other sources. If George May-He-Rot-In-Hell Zimmerman had been required to carry a $10M liability policy before being allowed to own a gun, the national discourse about the stalking and murder of Trayvon Martin would be quite different.

    I won't respond to that at the moment because the post to which you are responding was carefully crafted not to fall into that category. Obviously you are as irrational as the pacifists you despise. Everything in that post is easily-verified fact.

    No, only to the 10% minority of Americans who think guns make us safer despite the irrefutable statistics proving just the opposite.

    Sure, there's also the libertarian argument that one day the government will become so overbearing that the citizens will have to rise up in revolution--meaning that we should all have a private arsenal. The flaw in that argument is that these paranoids don't seem to understand just what kind of shit the government has. For the goddess's sake, they have nuclear weapons! How are your little pea-shooters going to deal with those? More to the point (and more likely to be used in event of an actual libertarian uprising), they have armed drones that can identify your heat signature through your roof and shoot you in your sleep.

    Explosion-powered projectile weapons are Fourteenth Century technology. They are only effective in a 21st-Century revolution if a near-majority of the population oppose the government, so they can't shoot back without killing their supporters in the crossfire. It's not 1776 anymore. The majority of Americans are not angry enough to take up arms against their government--especially since so many of them are government employees and their families!

    Wait a couple of years and I suspect that climate change will fall into the same category. Perhaps even immigration, as the same right-wingnuts don't seem to understand that the birth rate of native-born Americans has dropped below replacement level (as in virtually all developed nations) so the only way we can keep propping up the Ponzi scheme of so-called Social "Security" is to increase the population with immigrants and their much higher birth rate. This will also ensure that we can keep getting our chickens plucked, our drywall hung and our corn picked--jobs which Americans simply won't do.

    Just as corporations have disproportionate power in U.S. politics, it seems that the NRA has somehow achieved that same status. Only here in Maryland, the Bluest state in the Union, and a few others, can a politician speak out against the gun lobby without being in danger of losing the next election to a shill for the NRA.

    Yet we never hear from those people. The NRA general membership may be as reasonable as you say (and I have no reason to doubt you), but somehow the leadership of the organization has eschewed rationality and compromise.

    As I said above, there seems to be something fishy going on in the NRA. It reminds me of the pre-war labor unions, often run by known mobsters for their own benefit in recruiting the union membership to vote for Mafia-subverted candidates in municipal and state elections.

    We've all read the 2nd Amendment. Well the minority of us who can read passages longer than 140 characters and devoid of emoticons, anyway. But we also know that the Constitution can be amended.

    Women's suffrage? Prohibition? Repeal of Prohibition? Remember all that important stuff? We can rewrite the Second Amendment the same way.

    I'll be happy to merely regulate guns more effectively. If we can reduce the death toll from 30,000 (equivalent to highway deaths) by two orders of magnitude (300: roughly equivalent to lightning, bees and falling furniture combined), I'll lose interest in the topic and so will most others.

    I simply cannot accept the one-precent probability that the cause of my death will be a gun. I accept that same probability for road accidents because cars provide obvious value to civilization. In the 21st century, guns do not.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    And on the left we have prominent liberals who want anyone who denies climate change arrested. We have the heads of environmental groups sending emails telling deniers "It is my intention to destroy your career."

    Both sides have their extremists - on most topics.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    We should treat this exactly like an involuntary psych hold. A doctor thinks you are a danger to yourself or others? You are held for 48 hours and you lose your guns for 48 hours after that. Then a court decides if it should become permanent.

    It was designed for protection and for putting meat on the table - and it does that by killing at a distance. A gun with a range of four inches isn't a gun, it's a knife.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You can find such people, or people you can rig to look like that, one at a time, if you look hard in the fringes, steal emails and take them out of context, and so forth.

    You can't find them with their extremist agenda out front all over your television talk shows every week pontificating in response to friendly questioning. You don't even see one of them a year, let alone a dozen or more every weekend, featured in the mass media.

    Their extremism does not have its own TV stations, army of frequently televised pundits, hundred seat representation in Congress, dominant presence on editorial pages and talk radio shows, and so forth.

    There is no equivalence of "both sides", in the crazy of climate change.

    Nothing equivalent to the Tea Party fundies (a hundred seats in Congress committed to criminalizing all abortion and most birth control) exists on the "other side" of the abortion issue. Nothing equivalent to the Republican Party and Fox News and Rush Limbaugh exists on the "other side" of the climate change issue. Those other issues are publicly divided, in the public platform and media outlets, along lines of sanity/crazy, science/dogma, honest/corrupt, reality/fantasy, valid stat analysis/bizarre deceptions and lies, sober/irresponsible, etc. There is extremism and crazytalk with power and access and significant political representation on only one of the "sides".

    With guns, there really are two more or less equivalently crazed "sides" polarizing the issue.

    This, for example, is mainstreamed:
    and it is nuts, denialist level abuse of stats (for starters he's presenting his own suicide as out of his control, and blaming other people's guns for causing it) - and stuff just like it is all over the media.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    I was mocking his, in my opinion, delusional and ahistorical take on the second amendment. he is proof how successful the NRA fraudulent right to gun has seeped into our collective thought. and thanks to right wing justices is the law of the land. but he like all pro gun people ignores the history know that they succeding in pushing their ideology.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Indeed, one's own suicide is not out of one's control. And you're getting a little irrational yourself if you saw in my post an argument that everyone else's guns are responsible for it.

    But I do blame the attitude of the violence enthusiasts (and the real innumerate Americans who continue to insist that my rather straightforward statistics are somehow wrong) for making guns so easily available to exactly the people who should not be allowed within ten feet of one. Suicidal people, hell: how about Adam Lanza? What rational society allows the mother of such a child to provide him with his very own arsenal and the training to use it? When the police examined their home, they found a check she wrote to him as a Christmas present... to buy yet another fucking goddamned gun.

    So yes, I'm willing to inconvenience the so-called "responsible" gun enthusiasts in order to reduce America's astounding rate of gun deaths: the highest of all the developed nations. Especially since these are people I don't trust (or even like very much) because of their choice of a disgusting hobby (do they collect guillotines too?), and because of their antisocial nonchalance about that astounding rate of gun deaths.

    But back on topic... Nonetheless, if you're in an inconsolable mood about life and choose to end it, but in order to do so you have to figure out how to:
    • Overdose on one of the medications in your bathroom. (A lady I knew swallowed a whole bottle of Valium. She woke up 36 hours later, groggy, hungry, and really angry that the entire family let her sleep and enjoyed the rare respite of peace and quiet.)
    • Slit your wrists while lying in a tub full of warm water. Blow this and you might become a vegetable that your family will have to take care of for years.
    • Find a tall building with roof access and jump. Like most people you'll instinctively try to land feet-first, driving your leg bones into your torso and leaving a very ugly mess for your family to identify in the morgue.
    • Fill the garage with carbon monoxide. If it's not as airtight as you thought (and few are), once again, your family may come home and discover a vegetable. If it is, your children's beloved dog might sneak into the garage and die too, denying them a major source of comfort.
    • Hang yourself. Too short a rope and you'll get just enough oxygen to become that same vegetable. Too much rope and your family will come home to the grisly sight of your head separated from your body.
    . . . . in all of these cases, you have quite a bit of time to cool down and decide that life isn't that bad.

    But if you have a gun in your desk drawer, there's no time for second thoughts. You're dead half a minute later. As a rational, caring society, we should not make suicide SO FUCKING EASY!
     
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    First: please tell me where you are getting this information from. This is not what I have read up on the issue. From the Final Report on Sandy Hook, found here: http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf
    and also, from the wikipedia page
    so the MOTHER owned guns and took precautions. until I see a link proving your point, I remain skeptical of your information.

    Secondly, I read that he used his MOTHERS weapons to commit the crime. http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf

    Thirdly: The crime was dastardly, but should be expected in ANY "GUN FREE" zone. ANY "gun free" zone is simply a zone where there are available targets and a known (limited) free-reign time for assault/shooting by a criminal due to the time needed for emergency response.

    fourth: The issue of even the Sandy Hook massacre was NOT the availability of firearms, as the individual in question took someone else's firearms and used them inthe attack... it was the individual in question and their instability.
    Well, UNFORTUNATELY for you... there are ALREADY some great gun laws and restrictions... perhaps what you SHOULD be doing is trying to insure that those laws get ENFORCED rather than IGNORED.
    also... Are you also willing to inconvenience YOURSELF and make sure that screwdrivers and hammers get banned? They are responsible for more deaths than guns (see NIH gov't site for stats and the tie in with the census )... or how about cars? we definitely should ban cars because they are also responsible for far more deaths than guns...
    in fact, why not go for the banning of Dihydrogen Monoxide! This is indicated as being used and consumed by EVERY KNOWN killer, sociopath, criminal, drug dealer, pedophile and dictator in history!!!! It is also indicated in most drownings and many natural disasters! We should DEFINITELY ban Dihidrogen Monoxide TOO!
    Really?
    if you are going to set up a straw man, you can at least get more creative about it, or be more logical and methodical.
    Sorry for being snide, but... your quote above is like saying: pedophiles stalk the internet a lot, so anyone who uses the internet has leanings towards pedophilia and therefore ANY INTERNET USER, by virtue of a sociopathic gut feeling from a narcissistic and delusional poster, should be licensed, background checked, monitored and is considered untrustworthy because of THEIR choice of a disgusting habit.
    This is pure personal conjecture.
    Soldiers and cops that have had to kill in the line of duty don't even necessarily have an antisocial nonchalance about the rate of deaths... perhaps it is just that you are taking each death too personal? Why are you overly sensitized to it and NOT to deaths from hammers and screwdrivers, especially given the prevalence of those items in society, the fact that ANYONE, and I really mean ANYONE with a few dollars, can get them from just about anywhere... any CHILD can get them and even take them to school! *perhaps we should make schools hammer and screwdriver free zones too?)
    where there is a will, there is a way, and NO PERSON TRULY INTENT UPON SUICIDE is going to FAIL.
    what YOU are addressing is the ATTEMPTED SUICIDES FOR THE SAKE OF ATTENTION
    to which I would point out: NO PERSON WANTING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT FOR ATTENTION is going to use a GUN and take a chance of a fatal shot (attention seekers are not going to shoot themselves in the head to suicide, they will choose safer shots, IF they choose a gun)

    **** not related to fraggle post, but relevant due to other posts****
    And the arguments about NRA wanting a gun in every class is retarded. the DO want safety and armed people at SCHOOLS though! to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.
    Let me tell you about a few schools around where I live: There is an ARMED COP there WHENEVER CHILDREN ARE PRESENT- during school hours, after school during sponsored games and during school events no matter the time or location.
    There have been ZERO attempts to even bring a weapon to school. ANYONE around here with even a basic knowledge of the area knows that going to the school with the intent to harm the kids means facing ARMED OPPOSITION. The school didn't want to WASTE a valuable resource, so the COP ALSO TEACHES CLASSES. Including school sponsored SAFETY classes.
    LOGIC and COMMON SENSE RULE in the rural area where I live.
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    For those who would strip gun owners of their right to own firearms;
    Is there any right that you would not be willing to give up to the will of a radical few?

    How about your right to privacy?
    free speech?
    religion(or lack thereof)?
    property and possessions?
    fair trial?
    equal protection under the law?
    voting?

    Before you go off demanding the abrogation of other's rights, consider which ones you would not like to have taken away from yourself.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    I accept the one percent probability that the cause of my death will be skydiving or general aviation, because I enjoy those things and they are worth the risk to me. If I didn't, I would not skydive or fly and the risks of dying as a result of those activities would go way down. It is not zero; tens of thousands of non-pilots have been killed due to general aviation accidents. But it's a lot lower.

    Likewise, if you do not like the risks of you being injured or killed with a gun, then don't own a gun - and your risks from guns go WAY down. (Most gun deaths are due to suicide using one's own gun.) If you don't want to be killed during a crime, don't commit crimes - most people killed with a gun during crimes have a criminal record. That way you won't be in that "1%" category you mention. (I think the number is way lower than that but I'll go with yours for now.)
     
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    can't strip away a right that isn't a right. eventual will have a sane supreme court and the made up right to a gun will go away and hopefuly all violent fucks with guns won't go on a murder spree.
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It was in the Washington Post, one of two publications universally regarded as America's "newspapers of record." (The other is the New York Times, but the Post covers government better because of its physical location.)

    I'll look for it.

    Big fucking deal. Families share. Duh?

    Are you actually telling us that we need to get used to this crap??? That unless there's an armed guard at every doorway in America, the ones without guards are open season for wackos like Lanza? Is this the kind of country where you will be happy living? I'd rather live in Moldova and be poor.

    Oh bullshit. You're just playing word games. Lanza's mother not only tolerated, but encouraged his interest in guns, and even made sure he had some training... which unfortunately made it easier for him to shoot more people more accurately. And as I said above, most of the things inside a house belong, for all intents and purposes, to the entire family.

    Excuse me, but Adam Lanza's mother was a fucking idiot. Anybody who raises a kid with obvious personality problems and gives him guns to play with should be culled from the herd.

    You mean like the explosion of concealed-carry permits? So the guy next to me in the supermarket might have one in his grocery bag, ready to engage in a big macho shootout if somebody tries to rob a cashier? Wow, that really makes me feel safe.

    You apparently flunked Econ 101A because you don't seem to understand the concept of cost-benefit analysis. Screwdrivers and hammers have a very useful purpose, so we're willing to tolerate the risk that they carry. So do cars.

    Guns have no useful purpose in a civilized country in the 21st century. They just make little men feel bigger--in stature, intellect, charm, whatever. George Zimmerman came along at just the right time to be the poster boy for losers who compensate for their lack of personality by carrying a gun.

    As I said, you're embarrassing yourself by entering this discussion with total ignorance of the key concept of cost-benefit analysis. Finish college and come back when you can hold your own in a discussion among educated adults.

    Yes, some of us care more about our fellow humans than others.

    Repeat after me: cost-benefit analysis, cost-benefit analysis cost-benefit analysis. The benefits of hammers and screwdrivers (not to mention water) are immense. The benefits of guns are difficult to even measure, except for the rather small segment of the population who hunt their own food. And these people are, paradoxically, generally better connected to civilization than the average gun nut. They don't seem to show up in the stories about school or mall shootings, and they definitely are very unlikely to shoot another human being by accident or in confusion or anger.

    And that's my point: Not everyone who commits suicide with a gun is truly intent on it. We all have moments of depression or hopelessness, but they usually pass--especially if we have a dog to remind us that on the balance life is pretty good. This is why if you have to use a method that is slower and requires more preparation, the odds are much higher that you'll change your mind along the way.

    No. I'm talking about the 15,000 successful suicides by gun that take place in the USA every year. How many of those people would still be alive if instead they had to figure out how to kill themselves by bleeding out in a bathtub, finding a tall building with roof access, determining a lethal dose of a medication that's not so strong that it will immediately induce vomiting, discovering that filling a garage with carbon monoxide isn't as easy as it is in the movies, or learning how to tie a noose and guessing at the proper length so they don't spend 20 minutes gasping for air or end up in two pieces for their family to discover? By the time they get all the information and supplies, the mood will have passed for the vast majority of them. They'll be shaking with the realization that they almost died for some dumb-shit reason that they can hardly even remember any more.

    This is off-topic. I never referred to these people.

    Jesus Christ, this sounds like Nazi Germany or North Korea. What a shitty, scary, depressing place to live!

    Yeah right. The logic of the Stone Age. I'm happy that I was born 12,000 years later. So sorry that you have to live in a place where everybody's worried about being attacked by their neighbors.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Unlikely since it is listed specifically in the Constitution.
    The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, thus a sane court will always uphold the right to bear arms.

    The right way to change things is to amend the Constitution to remove that right. The process is in place.
     
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    but that just its not.

    The right way to change things is to amend the Constitution to remove that right. The process is in place.[/QUOTE] so all the courts before this one were insane than? the fact is the personal right to a gun was made up by the NRA after the revolt of cincanatti and was pushed for in the past 40 years or so. but as written and through much of US history the second amendment was acurately interperted as not providing for the individual right to a gun. just because your younger and have never lived in an era were the lie wasn't pushed doesn't make the lie the truth.


    go look at the court cases from before 1960
     
  23. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    poignant and well said... and pretty much how I view it.

    thanks for sharing that
     

Share This Page