Mass Casualty Attack on Orlando Gay Bar

[iceaura]

Essentially, as the Baby Generation dies out, so does the abnormally high rate of violence in society. It appears, there was something severely wrong with that generation of individuals.

Among other things, they were lead poisoned as children at unusually high levels, due to aging lead paint and leaded gasoline.

I'm wondering now at the direction of cause and effect between hatred of one's own homosexual - or sexual in general - leanings and gravitation toward something like radical Islam. Is it plausible that religious indoctrination alone could create that kind of root level reaction from scratch? There's at least one woman, who had to run a checkpoint guarded by Mateen in his employment days, who described him as a threatening, predator-like, stalker personality - apparently it got to where her husband came along with her and confronted Mateen about the treatment of his wife, and got him to back off a little.

Meanwhile, the direction in which psychos vent their rage when they snap is not random, but predictable in a given society.

 

[James R]

That's because we don't have a gun problem.

34,000 guns deaths per year in the United States is not a problem, eh?

Out of interest: how many more gun deaths would you be willing to tolerate before you decided it might be a problem after all?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Part of the context of this American tragedy is a ridiculous farce in the aftermath by which a bunch of people who never liked homosexuals suddenly want to be our friends in hope that we'll help them go start a war with a bunch of other people they don't like.

Not liking a fellow American does not mean you want them gunned down in a nightclub. Especially by a maniac proclaiming his loyalty to a terrorist organization. An appropriate quote:

انا على أخوي وأنا وأخوي على ابن عمي وأنا وابن عمي على الغريب
Me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my cousins, me and my brother and my cousins against the world....

Additionally, many Americans are trying to write out another aspect of the atrocity, which is the ease of obtaining such weapons as to empower destruction of that scale.

That's just absurd. Gun control (or the lack of it) had absolutely nothing to do with this. The Orlando Jihadist had passed no fewer than four background checks, two by the FBI and two by the security firm he worked for which was contracted with (among other things) Homeland security. None of the gun control laws proposed would have made any difference in this case.

The question isn't really one thing or the other. The question, rather, is either a combination of factors or one exclusive factor. To wit, we have on the surface American homophobia, ease of access to instruments of mass homicide, and creeping radicalism in Islamic-derived expression. Or, to consider the counterpoint, we have Muslims.

"We have Muslims..." This was not just a Muslim. This was a nutjob, extremist Muslim who specifically stated his allegiance to a terrorist organization the night of the attack:

Transcript of Orlando Police Department 911 Calls, June 12, 2016

2:35 am: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside the Pulse nightclub. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds.

OD (Orlando Police Dispatcher): Emergency 911, this is being recorded.

OM (Omar Mateen): In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic].

OD: What?

OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings.

OD: What's your name?

OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

OD: Ok what's your name.

OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.

OD: Alright, where are you at?

OM: In Orlando.

OD: Where in Orlando?

[End of call.]

But, you say, there are a few extremist Christians who also don't like gays and even approve of their murder. Surely these Christian nutjobs were also an influence on the Muslim extremist who murdered in the name of Islam! It's the oppressive, homophobic environment that exists in the U.S. that is really to blame!

I'd suggest that if that theory has any validity at all, it has it exactly backwards.

Consider the fact that less than 8 years ago even Obama was opposed to gay marriage. 15 or 20 years ago the idea of gay marriage would have been laughable. Yet now gay marriage is the law in all 50 states.

Back in the eighties, I had a gay relative of Cuban heritage that was his father's pride and joy. He was very successful yet he was disowned by his father when he came out as gay. Now, my gay cousin (different guy) brings his boyfriend to family Christmas parties and the entire family is proud to visit the restaurant he owns. No one even blinks an eye.

If the general attitude in the U.S. regarding homosexuals had anything to do with the attack, I'd suspect it was the rapid shift in attitudes in favor of homosexuality that might have outraged a man who believes that homosexuality should be punishable by death.

​

 

[James R]

There is no gun control law short of the complete confiscation of all guns that might have made any difference in this case.

In Australia, we banned assault rifles like the one the gunman used. Since then, the gun homicide rate has dropped by half.

 

[Michael]

34,000 guns deaths per year in the United States is not a problem, eh?

Firstly, do you have a source for that number? Also, how many suicides are included in that number?

According to GVA**, in the year 2015, total number of American deaths equaled 13,433. And as for White Americans - those killed by a gun shot, are statistically the ones doing the shooting.

As a comparison, about 38,000 Americans died in traffic accidents. How many more people need to die before we start banning automobiles?!? I mean, how high does that number have to go???

Secondly, to put this into perspective: it's estimated that 480,000 Americans die each year due to Medical Error - and another 3 to 5 million live with major life altering injuries.


No. We don't have a gun problem. We do have a problem with our hyper-regulated medical services - it's killing city-sized numbers of Americans each year. Incidentally, while you'd never know the true number (because they're hard to come by as well as a conscious effort to 're-categorize' medical error into other non-medial error categories, like 'natural') that percent number pp may be double in Australia, but is estimated to be at least 85,000 a year.


So, again, we don't have a gun problem. Gun violence is dropping off precipitately along with the Baby Generation. We do have problems though. Primarily Rx and other drug dependency which is killing off middle class America. We also have a problem with parents 'disciplining' their children through violence (who express this learned behavior later in life at the ballot box [see Never Ending War and MIC]) and Rx dependency. Of course, we have so much Government free-shit to pay for, mother's can no longer afford to remain home with their children (see: Depression, Anxiety and a profitable Rx pain pill industry). Black on Black crime in our Government-run generational welfare ghettos is a Problem as is our Drug-War fuel PIC is a huge problem. White gun-related suicide is a problem.


And, if the numbers don't convince you, like it or not, we have a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun. Including big scary ones.


**
Mission Statement
Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online, primarily if not exclusively on this website and summary ledgers at www.facebook.com/gunviolencearchive. It is hoped that this information will inform and assist those engaged in discussions and activities concerning gun violence, including analysis of proposed regulations or legislation relating to gun safety usage.

GVA is not, by design an advocacy group. The mission of GVA is to document incidents of gun violence and gun crime to provide raw, verified data to those who need to use it in their research, advocacy or writing.

 

[James R]

Firstly, do you have a source for that number? Also, how many suicides are included in that number?

I have another thread which quotes an article that quotes the source, but the exact figure isn't too important.

The 34,500 figure includes about 11,000 homicides and more than 20,000 suicides.

According to GVA**, in the year 2015, total number of American deaths equaled 13,433. And as for White Americans - those killed by a gun shot, are statistically the ones doing the shooting.

I assume your 13,400 figure is homicides, which approximately matches my figures.

As a comparison, about 38,000 Americans died in traffic accidents. How many more people need to die before we start banning automobiles?!? I mean, how high does that number have to go???

Cars have many benefits. Allowing people to have guns to shoot other people ... well, not so much.

It would be good to reduce the road toll, too, of course.

Secondly, to put this into perspective: it's estimated that 480,000 Americans die each year due to Medical Error - and another 3 to 5 million live with major life altering injuries.

It would be good to reduce the incidence of medical error and malpractice, of course. But this thread isn't about that.

People dying from medical malpractice or motor vehicle accident doesn't excuse gun deaths. I'm not sure why you think it does.

No. We don't have a gun problem.

What would the gun death rate need to get to your before you decided that there is a gun problem after all?

We do have a problem with our hyper-regulated medical services - it's killing city-sized numbers of Americans each year.

And the cause of those deaths is regulation, of course, according to you. But that's a topic for a different thread.

So, again, we don't have a gun problem. Gun violence is dropping off precipitately along with the Baby Generation.

What's the Baby Generation? I've never heard that term. And why do you think gun violence was rife with that generation?

We do have problems though. Primarily Rx and other drug dependency which is killing off middle class America.

Again, topics for another thread. Why are you so keen to try to distract from the topic of guns? And what is Rx? Is that another term I'm supposed to just know?

We also have a problem with parents 'disciplining' their children through violence (who express this learned behavior later in life at the ballot box [see Never Ending War and MIC]) and Rx dependency.

What about parents telling their children they should all buy guns, or buying guns for them? That's not a problem, I suppose.

Of course, we have so much Government free-shit to pay for, mother's can no longer afford to remain home with their children (see: Depression, Anxiety and a profitable Rx pain pill industry). Black on Black crime in our Government-run generational welfare ghettos is a Problem as is our Drug-War fuel PIC is a huge problem. White gun-related suicide is a problem.

So, in summary, every problem, according to you, is due to too much regulation and the existence of welfare. Have I correctly summarised your views?

Can we discuss guns now?

And, if the numbers don't convince you, like it or not, we have a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun. Including big scary ones.

You really should change that. It's been a terrible idea.

 

[Tiassa]

On Guns and People, or Something Like That

Click to find God.​

You really should change that. It's been a terrible idea.

It's actually kind of like pornography, strip clubs, and prostitution.

Okay, so, the basic process is pretty simple: A feminist complains about some aspect of the sex industry being misogynistic, corrosive, and dangerous; we will inevitably hear the standard retort, which is to politely call bullshit by taking about healthy attitudes and everything. No, really, I swear, I've heard this discussion at the very least from the first time I walked into a topless bar. And the basic idea is that critics are being unfair. It's like the intricate rules of swingers' clubs; look, I get that this can be exploitation-free, but look at their damn rules, because apparently they needed to make the rule. I remember one where the rule on singles was that it was okay to bring outsider single women into the circle, but not men. All men had to be escorted by a woman. I get why they have the rule, but they don't get to both have that rule and tell me there's nothing exploitative going on; the point is to get as many women as possible for a clique of men to use in order to share sexual experiences between themselves. In other words, I'll believe prostitution isn't exploitative when I see it. Or that pornography isn't misogynistic, and, really, it's amazing that we can even make gay male pornography specifically hateful of women.

But there's always someone to tell us how this or that is a good thing. And in the sex discussion they usually take a mildly scolding tone because how could anyone presume anything could go wrong? And the thing is, having had this discussion many times with people who are actually in the industry, I will believe it when I see it. More directly: I can believe these potentials exist; I do not believe, based on what I can observe, that they are in effect to any significant degree.

Nor is it a subtle analogy: I can believe all the potentials described by firearms lobbyists and creedists actually exist; I'm just still waiting for evidence that they are in effect.

We can talk about access, the Constitution, mental health, and so on all we want, but there another question quietly insists, knowing it will, one way or another, have its day.

And, you know, if society would just give me my way ... I mean, sure, we all know the sentiment. But if I got my way about human rights, rape would still happen in the world. And if I got my way about firearms, it's true, nature will provide, and people will still suffer unnecessary gunshot incidents.

But somewhere in there is also the idea that a firearm is somehow the appropriate tool for this or that task, that violence is some manner of a solution. I mean, sure, there are plenty of avenues for discussing violence in general, but where we macho men used to go get in fistfights at bike rack or pub people are now picking up firearms. And most days, you know, the fistfights were a bad idea; if we purport logic in the escalation, it would be that if a fistfight is an excessive remedy to this challenge, then the obvious way to remedy that excess is to augment it by orders of magnitude with a gun.

Beating his skull in because you thought he was looking at "your" woman was always a bad idea. Shooting him is even worse. And, you know, really, how does shooting her for not wanting to go an a date with you help anyone? I mean, this isn't even, "How is this a good idea?" Rather, it's, "How is this not a terrible idea?"

The Constitution presents certain roadblocks to dealing with the guns directly, but even still, as we saw with Monday's votes much of the problem is one of attitudes. Beside that, at this time amending the Constitution would be dangerous, as we're more likely to reinforce irresponsible gun ownership; it's a market dynamic thing.

So while the attitudes suck in Congress and at the ballot box, there are worse and more dangerous ideas afoot in the American firearms discussion.

"Responsible gun ownership" is kind of like "non-exploitative prostitution". That is, yeah, I get that the ideas exist, and have genuine potentials, but I will only believe those potentials are in effect when I see them.

And part of responsible gun ownership is having some functionally useful clue regarding when such force is and isn't appropriate.

And like so many issues attending the Orlando atrocity, this is another reason to focus on Muslims.

This shooter was an American. Focusing on Muslims helps obscure the American dimensions of what happened. Normalization of violence as an appropriate response to aesthetic dissatisfaction is a particularly relevant question in these United States, and it scares the hell out of the firearms lobby. To wit, as long as I have attended the firearms issue, there has always been at least one "responsible gun owner" in my proximity who, amid the bluster and braggadocio about guns that seems to form so prominent a bloc of their socialization, eventually reveals that there are some really, really stupid reasons why he would shoot another person. The question of this escalation, to settle this with guns, strikes after the heart of "responsible gun ownership".

We're not changing the Constitution anytime soon, and, besides, if we did, we would probably make things worse. (Political cynicism is among the main reasons we never actually get around to amending this or that; virtually nobody expects the amendment process to hold the special interests at bay, even and especially the special interests themselves.)

But there is also a terrible idea, or range of ideas, in our culture about when, why, and how it is appropriate to use firearms. And even in the case of someone cracking and doing something stupid―because, you know, the first thing we need to do in a situation like this is acquit the guns because they have exactly nothing to do with someone putting them to their intended use―we still come back to the bike rack. Honestly, it was a bad idea when we used our fists. It's even worse when we're using guns.

But this is one of the reasons we're supposed to focus on Muslims; if we don't, we might have to discuss other aspects, like normalization of bigotry, normalization of violence, admiration of antisocial behavior and principle, responsible gun ownership, laws under the Constitution, and oh, by the way, if we have time society should probably get around to the bit about how government doesn't work and the significance of a private-sector international security firm repeatedly missing this, that, or the other. There's a lot to talk about, which is why we're supposed to focus on only one aspect of what happened.

 

[billvon]

That's just absurd. Gun control (or the lack of it) had absolutely nothing to do with this.

He was on a terrorist watch list. Are you saying that if, as a result, he had his guns taken away, and he decided to use a knife instead - the death toll would have been the same?

None of the gun control laws proposed would have made any difference in this case.

"You can't own guns if you are on a terrorist watch list" would have indeed made a difference.

"We have Muslims..." This was not just a Muslim. This was a nutjob, extremist Muslim who specifically stated his allegiance to a terrorist organization the night of the attack . . . But, you say, there are a few extremist Christians who also don't like gays and even approve of their murder. Surely these Christian nutjobs were also an influence on the Muslim extremist . . .

Perhaps. And perhaps keeping guns out of the hands of extremist nutjobs on terrorist watch list might reduce the odds that extremist nutjobs go on shooting sprees.

 

[Tiassa]

(I don't have a title, instead foolishly believing I was getting out of this at two paragraphs)

I didn't have a photo in mind, either; click for a depressing read.​

He was on a terrorist watch list. Are you saying that if, as a result, he had his guns taken away, and he decided to use a knife instead - the death toll would have been the same?

It's worth noting that the shooter was not on a watch list when he bought the guns.

I don't think this entirely erases the question as you present it, but it does push the point down the list a little. To wit, I think most of the public discourse probably treats the idea of watch lists too simply; even without this shooting there is a question of what it means to have been on one.

In the case of Mateen, investigators surveilled him, looked into his background, and performed a “dangle,” the former prosecutor says. That’s when a confidential informant meets with a suspect. “They feel the guy out to try to figure out if he’s real or if he’s just all talk,” he says. They may do this by asking if he’s interested in purchasing weapons or materials to make a bomb. “They may try the dangle operation two or three times, and if he shows no genuine interest in activity, if he doesn’t take the bait, then they say after a period of time, we’ve got no reason to believe this person is something other than an angry young man … and they close the investigation.”

(Apuzzo and Lichtblau↱)​

Americans are, naturally, sensitive about the stigma; this is, after all, a country where it seems you can get on a no-fly list by writing articles critical of government policy.

But here's the thing: Okay, so the record check didn't turn up anything on Mateen; he didn't take the bait. So he's just an angry young man with guns, a job with an international security firm, and a penchant for terroristic braggadocio: Move along; nothing to see, here.

Which comes back to other questions that the American discourse is apparently not capable of dealing with at this time. Domestic violence? Mental health? These are suggestive markers about the state of the discourse, but in more immediately applicable terms, among the bills that just failed in the Senate on virtual party-line votes were efforts to keep guns out of the hands of active terror suspects. It seems it will be a while still before the discourse gets around to the question of how to deal with the implications of generally antisocial behavior in any context relevant to domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, and the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm uncertain how to resolve the question of someone who was previously on a watch list. To the other, sketching the basic outline―thrice investigated for terror braggadocio, has a job with an international security firm, nothing to see here―would seem, in light of this outcome, to suggest something went wrong somewhere in some manner that can be addressed. Comprehending the relationship 'twixt insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, to the one, and the guaranteed liberties of people's constitutional rights, to the other, is a complicated, messy, enduring affair. We do ourselves no favors as a society by continuing to forestall the discussion. At some point the phrase, "depraved indifference to human life", comes to mind.

It really is the most curious dualism. If I say we need to figure this out, the societal question isn't between two hardline policy packages like Democrats think we need to do this and Republicans think we need to do that; rather, it is a basic juxtaposition, with one saying we need to figure this out and the other insisting no we don't.
____________________

Notes:

Apuzzo, Matt and Eric Lichtblau. "After F.B.I.’s Inquiry Into Omar Mateen, a Focus on What Else Could Be Done". The New York Times. 14 June 2016. NYTimes.com. 22 June 2016. http://nyti.ms/28Qpmwr

 

[madanthonywayne]

It's worth noting that the shooter was not on a watch list when he bought the guns.

I don't think this entirely erases the question as you present it, but it does push the point down the list a little. To wit, I think most of the public discourse probably treats the idea of watch lists too simply; even without this shooting there is a question of what it means to have been on one.

In the case of Mateen, investigators surveilled him, looked into his background, and performed a “dangle,” the former prosecutor says. That’s when a confidential informant meets with a suspect. “They feel the guy out to try to figure out if he’s real or if he’s just all talk,” he says. They may do this by asking if he’s interested in purchasing weapons or materials to make a bomb. “They may try the dangle operation two or three times, and if he shows no genuine interest in activity, if he doesn’t take the bait, then they say after a period of time, we’ve got no reason to believe this person is something other than an angry young man … and they close the investigation.”

(Apuzzo and Lichtblau↱)​

Americans are, naturally, sensitive about the stigma; this is, after all, a country where it seems you can get on a no-fly list by writing articles critical of government policy.

But here's the thing: Okay, so the record check didn't turn up anything on Mateen; he didn't take the bait. So he's just an angry young man with guns, a job with an international security firm, and a penchant for terroristic braggadocio: Move along; nothing to see, here..........

......I'm uncertain how to resolve the question of someone who was previously on a watch list. To the other, sketching the basic outline―thrice investigated for terror braggadocio, has a job with an international security firm, nothing to see here―would seem, in light of this outcome, to suggest something went wrong somewhere in some manner that can be addressed. Comprehending the relationship 'twixt insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, to the one, and the guaranteed liberties of people's constitutional rights, to the other, is a complicated, messy, enduring affair. We do ourselves no favors as a society by continuing to forestall the discussion. At some point the phrase, "depraved indifference to human life", comes to mind.

It's rare that I'm able to say this in my interactions with you, but I completely agree with the above.

It really is the most curious dualism. If I say we need to figure this out, the societal question isn't between two hardline policy packages like Democrats think we need to do this and Republicans think we need to do that; rather, it is a basic juxtaposition, with one saying we need to figure this out and the other insisting no we don't.

Well, that period of agreement was short lived. The Democrats are advocating banning anyone on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. Sounds reasonable at first, but how does one get on this watchlist? Is there any way to appeal the decision? Is there anything resembling the due process called for in the constitution? Do we really want to give the government the right to take away constitutional rights on a whim with no way to appeal? Would you want president Trump to have that power?

The Republicans, specifically Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), support a bill allowing the government to delay a gun sale and allowing for a judicial process to determine if the ban should be permanent.

I'd support a ban like that even if it applied to anyone who was previously on a terrorist watch list. The sale gets flagged, and is delayed until the facts are reviewed by a judge. Baring such a change in the law, perhaps the FBI could be at least be notified when someone on the terrorist watchlist (or someone previously on the watchlist) buys or attempts to buy a gun.

 

[Michael]

The 34,500 figure includes about 11,000 homicides and more than 20,000 suicides.

That's a very small number. Well within the statistical error for the number of Americans (and Australians) who die of various medical errors.

Cars have many benefits. Allowing people to have guns to shoot other people ... well, not so much.

Guns do provide a benefit. Protection being one of those benefits. Police that are minutes away, don't count for much when seconds count

Not to mention gun related deaths have been on the decline (along with all manner of violent crimes) along with the age and decline of Generation Baby (otherwise known as the Baby Generation). As they die off, violence in our society appears to be dropping back to the 1950s levels.

So, again, there's no problem with guns in the USA. It's minuscule.

What would the gun death rate need to get to your before you decided that there is a gun problem after all?

Well, this is the thing: Never. It's a Constitutionally protected right in the USA to own a gun.

I think what you're missing here is the concept of a 'Civil Right'. We Americans have civil rights - we're sovereign citizens within the USA. That's a little different than, say in Australia or Germany. There you are given your Civil Rights by your government. Ours on the other hand are natural rights. They are NOT given to us by our Government. It's a little different. Our Constitution doesn't define our civil rights, it protects those that we already have.
Inherently.
Owning a gun being one of those natural rights.
Therefor: Never.
We'd have to end what means to be the USA.
Now, that I'm fine with As a matter of fact, I'm sort of looking forward to it to be honest. What? Another 150 years or so? If that
Owning a gun was explicitly protected by amending the US Constitution to ensure some idiot (later in our history's future) wouldn't make the intellectual mistake of thinking that owning a gun was not a natural right.
When it is.
Of course, the US Constitution is little more than toilet paper how. But, that's our history.

I personally no longer own any guns. Although we used to have around 12 in the house. From over-under shotguns to 357 magnums.

Anyway, that aside, and also why I said: Never. Is because to me the concept of giving some people the right to carry a gun (the police for example) while other's lack that right (the people the police work for) is nonsensical. Further, the problems we face (and there are many) must be dealt with in the exact opposite manner as you seem to be suggesting. We need to work with one another - not continuously rely on the Government's special ability to use violence against morally innocent humans, in order to solve every and any little problem. Essentially, hitting people and threatening them - I'm not cool with that.

So, I may have a very different view of how to deal with social problems comparably.


Personally, I suggest this: Raise children peacefully, teach them to think logically, teach them not to steal, hit or lie. Then, perhaps they'll continue to apply these same principles when they become adults. To ensure they do so, we must severely limit the ability of those who work within the government to steal, hit and lie to the people they supposedly work for. Hopefully that clears things up a bit on my personal stance. Not that this matters. In is my belief, such people probably wouldn't have much need for carrying around a gun. But, if they should so decide to do so - so long as the property owners within which they do so are cool with it, then that's perfectly fine with me.

 

[Michael]

Thom Hartman, quintessential Progressive Socialist.

The principle two reasons for the second amendment was a series of letters between Madison and Thomas Jefferson around Christmas 1786. Jefferson's view on the US Constitution was that we need a Bill of Rights, wherein which there should be a ban on Commercial Monopolies (never made it in) and a ban on standing armies. The ban on standing armies became our second amendment.

 

[James R]

Michael:

Guns do provide a benefit. Protection being one of those benefits.

From the statistics, it seems that guns are not very good at protecting from suicide or homocide.

What would the gun death rate need to get to your before you decided that there is a gun problem after all?

Well, this is the thing: Never. It's a Constitutionally protected right in the USA to own a gun.

I'm not sure you read the question properly, but if I have it right, you're apparently willing to accept any number of gun deaths, as long as you have your "civil right" to own a gun. That's quite an irrational position you have there, Michael, if that's what you actually believe, but I suppose not an uncommon one among your countrymen. It illuminates the problem nicely.

I think what you're missing here is the concept of a 'Civil Right'. We Americans have civil rights - we're sovereign citizens within the USA. That's a little different than, say in Australia or Germany. There you are given your Civil Rights by your government. Ours on the other hand are natural rights. They are NOT given to us by our Government. It's a little different. Our Constitution doesn't define our civil rights, it protects those that we already have.

Australia is a democracy. Our Constitution is, in large part, modelled on the US Constitution, although we have a Parliamentary system of government that has more in common with the British system than the US one - the biggest difference being that our executive and legislative branches of government are not separated.

Australia does not have a codified Bill of Rights. And given all the problems that the US has with its Bill of Rights - not least the second amendment - it looks like Australia may well be better off without one.

Your idea that you have "natural" rights is largely a useful fiction. It is interesting that at the same time as you profess an adorable faith in these "natural rights" you say you have, that you are also filled with paranoia and a desperate need to clutch at your guns in case your evil government decides to try depriving you of your "inalienable" rights.

 

[Michael]

From the statistics, it seems that guns are not very good at protecting from suicide or homocide.

Based on the statistics, medical error is vastly more likely to kill you. We're talking 480,000 deaths per year and 3 to 5 MILLION serious injuries with life long consequences. An estimated minimum of 85,000 deaths at year in AU (and the number is probably much higher than that due to the way medical error is purposely under-reported and 're' categorized out of medical error).

To put things into perspective, that's 34 people a day out of 320 million people that die each day due to gun related homicide (mostly in Government-run Welfare Ghettos mind you) vs the 1300 who die due to medical error. In AU, we're looking at 240 people each day - roughly 10 people per hour. Killed off due to a poorly government-managed, government-regulated (regulatory captured/rent-seekers market) poorly run bloated medical system. One could ask, how many more Australians need to die before you de-regulate medicine and allow for free-market efficiency to raise the level of quality to where people can, again, expect to go into hospital and not die?

How many!?!

LOL

Sorry, but we don't have a problem with gun violence in the USA. But that's not even the point. We have a Civil Right to own a gun. A natural right - unlike in Australia, we are sovereign citizens. Our rights are not given to us by the government. They're nature rights we have simply by being born. What you're asking is for the USA to stop being the USA. Well, that may happen one day. Particularly given the natural cancerous expansion of Government into our lives and how the US Constitution is little more than toilet paper.

Until that day, until the USA is no longer the USA - then the answer you're looking for is never.

I'm not sure you read the question properly, but if I have it right, you're apparently willing to accept any number of gun deaths, as long as you have your "civil right" to own a gun.

Yes, you read me correctly. One more time: Never.

See, this is what you don't get. No one wants people to get shot (other than sociopaths). In a free society, where there's a lot of gun violence, it is up to free people to work with one another to lower and hopefully eliminate gun violence. You seem to think Government is the answer. Well, you're wrong. Government, a group of people, that only delineates itself from other groups of people (private people) in that it can legally initiate violence against morally innocent people. Please re-read that last sentence so that you are clear on my position. Because what you're asking me to agree to is this: Let the one group of humans with the legal right to shoot morally innocent people - eliminate those very same people's right to own a gun.

I find that rather irrational.

I'm sure gun related homicide is even lower in North Korea than in AU. Geee.... I bet they're so happy they have their form of government, just as you are happy you have yours, just as we Americans are happy we have ours. All of us willing to take up a bit of risk, to live in our various Nation States. I'm sure that even YOU are willing to live with a tiny bit of risk, of being shot or stabbed, to live in AU the way you've normalized to? You're not willing to give up more rights, to live safer (such as in North Korea). Well, then maybe my position is becoming clearer.

Australia does not have a codified Bill of Rights. And given all the problems that the US has with its Bill of Rights - not least the second amendment - it looks like Australia may well be better off without one.

If you want to argue for less civil liberty then that's fine. But that's not how the USA is organized politically.

Also, we're not a democracy, we're a republic. Neither is AU.

Your idea that you have "natural" rights is largely a useful fiction. It is interesting that at the same time as you profess an adorable faith in these "natural rights" you say you have, that you are also filled with paranoia and a desperate need to clutch at your guns in case your evil government decides to try depriving you of your "inalienable" rights.

Firstly, it's not 'my idea' and it's no more a 'fiction' than any other idea, 'Australia' for example.

Natural inalienable rights have been discussed at great length and particularly so during the Age of Enlightenment. John Locke was one of my favored. Oh, and one more time, I no longer own a gun. So, I wouldn't worry too much about my paranoia and, while you desperately clutch at your Medicare Card, just remember - statistically, medical error will probably be the death of you, assuming you don't smoke.

LOL

Oh, and one more time, we don't have a gun problem.
Never did.
Still don't.

 

[Michael]

The Australian: AUSTRALIANS are shooting each other less and stabbing each other more

OMG! Ban the knife! How many more people need to be needlessly stabbed before Aussies' get serious about this knife epidemic.

Doesn't sound a bit hysterical? This is how gun-control advocates sound to me. And, again, I'm not even a gun owner. I haven't had a gun in like 15 - 20 years. We have some serious problems in the USA. Owning a gun is by far and away NOT one of them. Believe me, in 200 years when people look back on "modern" day society, it'll be the way Westerner's (Americans, Australians, English, etc...) mistreated their children that will cause them to cringe in disgust. Gun ownership won't even be worth of making a mention. What many think of as 'normal', will be seen as out-right child abuse. Particularly the long-term day 'care' that the government subsidizes beginning at 3 weeks. How sickening. I know of an Australian public servant in Canberra (single female) who used IVF, organized for a 4-week early birth via cesarean to fit around her work schedule, and then promptly put this child into 6AM - 7PM long-term daycare at 3 weeks old. That's insane.

Sickeningly insane.

And that's just one of a plethora of problems we face in the West. With gun control not even making the top 100 list.

 

[James R]

Michael:

I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat yourself. Mere repetition doesn't make your arguments any stronger.

Based on the statistics, medical error is vastly more likely to kill you.

Yes. The reason is simply that most people have health-care needs at some point in their lives, and so are susceptible to medical error or malpractice. On the other hand, a lot of people avoid having anything to do with guns.

I'm not sure why you think two wrongs make a right, though. If medical errors are a problem, surely we can address them and the gun problem as a separate issue. It isn't a case of "Well, we can't do anything about guns until we have all medical issues sorted out." That seems to be your argument, and it's a weak attempt at distraction. I understand that you'd prefer to avoid discussion of the gun problem, and just see this as an opportunity to inject your usual Libertarian free-market politics into a thread where it is out of place. I do often wonder why you post in threads like this one. I suppose it's to be noticed or something.

One could ask, how many more Australians need to die before you de-regulate medicine and allow for free-market efficiency to raise the level of quality to where people can, again, expect to go into hospital and not die?

I'm not about to address the faulty assumptions in this statement in a thread that's not about medicine and the free market or government regulation of medicine. Take it to a different thread if you want to start a debate on that.

Sorry, but we don't have a problem with gun violence in the USA. But that's not even the point. [snip]

You already said all that. Why repeat yourself?

See, this is what you don't get. No one wants people to get shot (other than sociopaths).

But if it comes to a choice, you'd prefer that people get shot than to make sensible compromises with any of your "inalienable" civil rights.

In a free society, where there's a lot of gun violence, it is up to free people to work with one another to lower and hopefully eliminate gun violence.

But Constitution must remain unaltered at any cost.

You seem to think Government is the answer.

There's no perfect solution. But straightforward, common-sense regulation of guns would be a great start.

Well, you're wrong. Government, a group of people, that only delineates itself from other groups of people (private people) in that it can legally initiate violence against morally innocent people. Please re-read that last sentence so that you are clear on my position. Because what you're asking me to agree to is this: Let the one group of humans with the legal right to shoot morally innocent people - eliminate those very same people's right to own a gun.

You're erecting a straw man. Nobody is advocating a legal right to shoot "morally innocent people". And governments don't have that right.

You are right that in a society, people voluntarily hand over some of their discretion to use force against others in return for the protection provided by their society. What is the alternative? Anarchy? Is that what you advocate? I find that rather irrational.

I'm sure gun related homicide is even lower in North Korea than in AU. Geee.... I bet they're so happy they have their form of government, just as you are happy you have yours, just as we Americans are happy we have ours. All of us willing to take up a bit of risk, to live in our various Nation States. I'm sure that even YOU are willing to live with a tiny bit of risk, of being shot or stabbed, to live in AU the way you've normalized to? You're not willing to give up more rights, to live safer (such as in North Korea).

I don't know what gave you the impression that the North Korean people are safe. Are you unaware of the abuses of their government/dictatorship?

If you want to argue for less civil liberty then that's fine.

To stop needless death, it seems like the only sensible thing to do.

But that's not how the USA is organized politically.

Correct.

Also, we're not a democracy, we're a republic. Neither is AU.

Splitting hairs. Score one point for you. Congratulations. Well done.

Firstly, it's not 'my idea' and it's no more a 'fiction' than any other idea, 'Australia' for example.

Correct again.

Natural inalienable rights have been discussed at great length and particularly so during the Age of Enlightenment. John Locke was one of my favored.

No surprises there. The father of liberalism. Little did he know where it would lead.

Oh, and one more time, I no longer own a gun.

Why not? Because you don't live in the US any more? If you were there, you'd want a gun to protect yourself against the possibility that the government will oppress you, surely? That's what many of your countrymen say when asked why they need a gun. Not that they ever actually use them for that.

So, I wouldn't worry too much about my paranoia and, while you desperately clutch at your Medicare Card, just remember - statistically, medical error will probably be the death of you, assuming you don't smoke.

I have had nothing but benefit from the Australian health care system. The deregulated US health care system that you advocate operates ... well, not so well. Though Obamacare has been a step in the right direction. But, that's a topic for a different thread again.

LOL

Yeah, you be sure and laugh it up while some more people die due to gun violence. LOL!

 

[James R]

The Australian: AUSTRALIANS are shooting each other less and stabbing each other more

OMG! Ban the knife! How many more people need to be needlessly stabbed before Aussies' get serious about this knife epidemic.

Knives tend, on average, to be less fatal than guns and harder to use without putting yourself in harm's way.

Oh, and they are regulated, by the way.

And that's just one of a plethora of problems we face in the West. With gun control not even making the top 100 list.

Your argument that the issue of gun control should be left actionless until your 100 other problems are solved is a very weak one.

 

[Michael]

Knives tend, on average, to be less fatal than guns and harder to use without putting yourself in harm's way.

Oh, and they are regulated, by the way.

So are guns.

Your argument that the issue of gun control should be left actionless until your 100 other problems are solved is a very weak one.

We already have gun control laws and we no more require any additional laws than do knives require additional regulations.

 

[Michael]

Yes. The reason is simply that most people have health-care needs at some point in their lives, and so are susceptible to medical error or malpractice.

No, that is not the reason and the actual rate of medical error is rising faster with each passing year. Far outpacing either the aging of society, the health changes in society or population growth. Yes, I agree, most people will have health-care needs at some point in their lives. This in no way explains the rise in the rate of medical error related deaths.

 

[Michael]

But if it comes to a choice, you'd prefer that people get shot than to make sensible compromises with any of your "inalienable" civil rights.

Well, but if it comes to a choice, you'd prefer that people get stabbed than to make "sensible" compromises with any of your government-defined rights, such as live under a safe dictatorship like in ultra safe North Korea.

It should be noted, Australians are shot every year. How many have to be shot to death before you give up your right to representative government? To a North Korean, giving up such rights, to acquire additional safety, probably seems 'sensible'.

Not to me. Particularly given gun-related homicides are, relatively speaking in comparison to death by medical error, actually very rare. As you said yourself, if you're white, the one who shot you in the head, was more than likely yourself - and on purpose.