Two simple measures to cut child shootings.

Rich2018 · Oct 20, 2018

Into the Night said:
The constitution is not the source of the right to own a gun or to defend oneself....

Yes it is

...it only acknowledges the right that is inherent in the rights of man...

Governments around the world disagree with you.

While you're at it, what's your link to the "rights of man" .... I'll check for the right to bear arms as I'm pretty sure that's only mentioned in the US Constitution.

Rich2018 · Oct 20, 2018

Into the Night said:
To stop people wanting to kill thousands of people a year. To stop the mass shooter.

You can't stop people from wanting to do things

You can only prevent them from doing it

If a benefit of having guns is to stop mass shootings....it's not very apparent as there's a mass shooing almost every day.

Just how do you have a mass shooting without a gun or guns anyway ?

Rich2018 · Oct 20, 2018

Into the Night said:
The penalty is applied...by themselves....

You deliberately evade the point

They don't care about the penalty - there is no deterrent value.

...mass shootings happen in 'gun free zones'....

Well yes.

The UK is largely gun free...yet there has been ONE mass shooting since the last gun control legislation in 1996.

The USA had 345 mass shootings in 2017 alone.

So technically you are right.

...there is little for the mass murderer to fear while he is carrying out his demented plan. You don't see mass murders in shooting ranges. It's the 'gun free zone' that enables the mass murderer with guns. You want to replicate this all over the nation by force???

The active shooter (as distinct from a mass murderer) does not fear death as they expect to die and the end of their shooting spree (usually by their own hand)

Yes you do see people who later commit a mass shooting at a gun range...practicing

Yes active shooters target the most vulnerable targets like schools and churches. Disarm America and those who would be mass shooters won't have anything to shoot with, nor any ammunition to shoot.

In the UK there has been just one mass shooting in 22 years. In the USA there were 345 just last year alone.

Why do you think that is ?

Rich2018 · Oct 20, 2018

Into the Night said:
He's quite right....

Just your boasting....and the boasting of the "from my cold dead fingers" mob

...do you want to find out?

YES !!!!!!

...no such mob....

Nope

They'd meekly hand in their guns if the law demanded it

...Congress does not have that authority....

They can initiate the repeal of the 2nd amendment

They can campaign in their elected areas to repeal the 2nd amendment

They can ratify the repeal the 2nd amendment

That should do it.

ttwtt78640 · Oct 20, 2018

Rich2018 said:
You deliberately evade the point

They don't care about the penalty - there is no deterrent value.

Well yes.

The UK is largely gun free...yet there has been ONE mass shooting since the last gun control legislation in 1996.

The USA had 345 mass shootings in 2017 alone.

So technically you are right.

The active shooter (as distinct from a mass murderer) does not fear death as they expect to die and the end of their shooting spree (usually by their own hand)

Yes you do see people who later commit a mass shooting at a gun range...practicing

Yes active shooters target the most vulnerable targets like schools and churches. Disarm America and those who would be mass shooters won't have anything to shoot with, nor any ammunition to shoot.

In the UK there has been just one mass shooting in 22 years. In the USA there were 345 just last year alone.

Why do you think that is ?

Hmm... it all seems to boil down to: treat everyone as if they were a (potential?) criminal (mass shooter?) and crime will drop. Once you accept the premise that (too much?) freedom is the root cause of crime and that government alone can fight crime (by reducing freedom) then you are screwed.

Rich2018 · Oct 20, 2018

Maccabee said:
With that type of reasoning, let's nuke Russia to prevent nuclear fallout. Or better yet, lets remove all environmental regulations to reduce global warming....

Exploding nuclear weapons creates fall out. Are you saying that getting everyone with guns to shoot at other people reduces gun deaths ?

I'd say your reasoning is faulty.

Removing guns reduces gun usage
Much of gun usage kills people
QED: Removing guns = less deaths
QED: Removing guns ends gun deaths

...Lets just assume that I am only parroting NRA nonsense, I'm not the only one who holds to it....

Trump's election proves that...sadly

...speculation on your part....

Nope, based on previous experience

The (illegal) seizure of guns in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina
The experience of the UK and Australia following gun bans

The unfounded speculation is from you that there would be any kind of active resistance should guns be banned in the USA

...they don't represent the entire military or police force....

Pure speculation on your part.

...most cops are for law abiding citizens being armed....

Pure speculation on your part

The guns used at the Sandy Hook mass shooting were owned by a "law abiding" citizen. As were those at Columbine.

...in fact law abiding armed citizens have saved officers' lives....

As you would expect them to if they could

Just how does a cop or cops determine who is a "law abiding" citizen ?

Many mass shooters were ... until they decided not to be. Stephen Paddock for example

"...Paddock's only recorded interaction with law enforcement was a minor traffic citation years before the shooting, which he settled in court..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock

...a complete ban isn't going to accomplish that....

Not completely but good enough.

...evidence....

The number of police officers shot on duty isn't evidence enough?

Police procedures have to take into account the possibility of being shot at almost any public encounter.
Theoretically, if there were NO guns in the USA, wouldn't you say that the job of policing would be easier ?

...and where's your evidence?

Gun violence in the UK following the gun bans there.

Where's YOUR evidence that these measure wouldn't work ????
(You personal speculation doesn't count)

Rich2018 · Oct 20, 2018

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... it all seems to boil down to: treat everyone as if they were a (potential?) criminal (mass shooter?) and crime will drop. Once you accept the premise that (too much?) freedom is the root cause of crime and that government alone can fight crime (by reducing freedom) then you are screwed.

Sadly it comes down to that.

The few spoil it for the many.

Treat everyone as a potential mass shooter. The truth is that many people who go on to commit a mass shooting have no prior criminal conviction.

Of course if you could guarantee with absolute certainty that a given person will not use their firearm (or allow to be used) illegally, then you'd have a point to make them exempt.

ttwtt78640 · Oct 20, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Sadly it comes down to that.

The few spoil it for the many.

Treat everyone as a potential mass shooter. The truth is that many people who go on to commit a mass shooting have no prior criminal conviction.

Of course if you could guarantee with absolute certainty that a given person will not use their firearm (or allow to be used) illegally, then you'd have a point to make them exempt.

Using that (bolded above) criteria then not even police could be armed. One also has to consider that if the US had agreed to the UK's desired gun control then we would still be a collection of colonies.

Into the Night · Oct 20, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Yes it is

No, it isn't. The right to bear arms and defend yourself is only acknowledged by the constitution.

Rich2018 said:
Governments around the world disagree with you.

Too bad for them. Violent revolution will be the inevitable result.

Rich2018 said:
While you're at it, what's your link to the "rights of man"

Don't be ridiculous. Holy Links are not any kind of definition or proof.

Man is a living thing. He has the right to protect that life as a living thing.

Rich2018 said:
.... I'll check for the right to bear arms as I'm pretty sure that's only mentioned in the US Constitution.

Of course it is. It specifically directs the government from interfering with the right to defend yourself. (It never had that power to begin with anyway, even without the 2nd amendment).
It also specifically directs the federal government from interfering with the right of a State to protect itself.

Into the Night · Oct 20, 2018

Rich2018 said:
You can't stop people from wanting to do things

You can only prevent them from doing it

Good enough.

Rich2018 said:
If a benefit of having guns is to stop mass shootings....it's not very apparent as there's a mass shooing almost every day.

There is not a mass murder by firearm every day. You will note, however, that when these do occur, they happen in gun free zones.

Rich2018 said:
Just how do you have a mass shooting without a gun or guns anyway ?

Gun free zones don't work.

Into the Night · Oct 20, 2018

Rich2018 said:
You deliberately evade the point

No. I address any new points you bring up.

Rich2018 said:
They don't care about the penalty - there is no deterrent value.

This is not true. Some figure they can actually get away with it. They are cut down by good guys with guns.

Rich2018 said:
re: shootings happen in gun free zones
Well yes.

Thank you for admitting that.

Rich2018 said:
The UK is largely gun free...yet there has been ONE mass shooting since the last gun control legislation in 1996.

We are talking about the United States, not the UK. Folks in the UK tend to favor the blade.

Rich2018 said:
The USA had 345 mass shootings in 2017 alone.

No, it had TWO. So far, there are two in 2018.

Rich2018 said:
The active shooter (as distinct from a mass murderer) does not fear death as they expect to die and the end of their shooting spree (usually by their own hand)

Not in all cases. You are making a compositional error involving people as the class...bigotry.

Rich2018 said:
Yes you do see people who later commit a mass shooting at a gun range...practicing

They are not killing anybody at the shooting range (at least for long!).

Rich2018 said:
Yes active shooters target the most vulnerable targets like schools and churches.

In other words, gun free zones.

Rich2018 said:
Disarm America and those who would be mass shooters won't have anything to shoot with, nor any ammunition to shoot.

Yes they will. Criminals don't care about the law. Someone that does not care about their own life will certainly not care about the law.

Rich2018 said:
In the UK there has been just one mass shooting in 22 years.
In the USA there were 345 just last year alone.
Why do you think that is ?

It isn't. Argument from randU.

Into the Night · Oct 20, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Just your boasting....and the boasting of the "from my cold dead fingers" mob

YES !!!!!!

Nope

They'd meekly hand in their guns if the law demanded it

They can initiate the repeal of the 2nd amendment

They can campaign in their elected areas to repeal the 2nd amendment

They can ratify the repeal the 2nd amendment

That should do it.

Not gonna happen.

Into the Night · Oct 20, 2018

Rich2018 said:
...deleted irrelevant material.... Are you saying that getting everyone with guns to shoot at other people reduces gun deaths ?

It reduces crime and deaths.

Rich2018 said:
I'd say your reasoning is faulty.

Removing guns reduces gun usage
Much of gun usage kills people
QED: Removing guns = less deaths
QED: Removing guns ends gun deaths

You don't seem to understand that criminals don't care about the law, and that people can be robbed and killed without the use of a gun.

Rich2018 said:
The (illegal) seizure of guns in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina

Looting and murder followed. The people were not able to defend themselves against armed criminals (including the government agents confiscating guns).

Rich2018 said:
The experience of the UK and Australia following gun bans

We are talking about the United States. No other culture matters in this discussion.

Rich2018 said:
The unfounded speculation is from you that there would be any kind of active resistance should guns be banned in the USA

There was. The people who lost their guns to the government after Katrina, for example, lost them at GUNPOINT. I think you are forgetting what happened in Connecticut when they tried to seize guns. That damn near resulted in a civil war.

Rich2018 said:
The guns used at the Sandy Hook mass shooting were owned by a "law abiding" citizen. As were those at Columbine.

Meanwhile, 270 million guns owned by law abiding citizens were NOT used in shooting people.

Rich2018 said:
As you would expect them to if they could

Just how does a cop or cops determine who is a "law abiding" citizen ?
By not suspecting anyone walking down the street.

Rich2018 said:

any mass shooters were ... until they decided not to be. Stephen Paddock for example

Click to expand...

Paddock was an anomaly. Unlike other mass murderers using firearms, he had no record of any mental condition and was not receiving any medications for it.

Rich2018 said:

Where's YOUR evidence that these measure wouldn't work ????

Click to expand...

* After Katrina, the number of people buying guns and obtaining concealed weapons permits DOUBLED. They will NOT let what happened to them happen again.
* Mass murders occur in gun free zones, not shooting ranges.
* The most restrictive gun laws are in Washington DC and sections of Chicago. In each case, crime increased. So did murder. Washington DC has the highest murder rate in the nation now.

Maccabee · Oct 23, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Exploding nuclear weapons creates fall out. Are you saying that getting everyone with guns to shoot at other people reduces gun deaths ?

No. I'm using your own logic. I stated that attempting to disarm the US citizenry will start a civil war. In your response, you said that is all the more reason to disarm the US citizenry. You're basically wanting to cure the disease by spreading it.

I'd say your reasoning is faulty.

Removing guns reduces gun usage
Much of gun usage kills people
QED: Removing guns = less deaths
QED: Removing guns ends gun deaths

Evidence?

Trump's election proves that...sadly

Whether you think that's a good thing or not, it still illustrates my point that in order to implement your idea of gun laws, you'd have to convince a whole lot of people.

Nope, based on previous experience

The (illegal) seizure of guns in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina
The experience of the UK and Australia following gun bans

The unfounded speculation is from you that there would be any kind of active resistance should guns be banned in the USA

Except Bundy Ranch. Whether you agree with what they stood for or not, tick off the wrong people, and you're going to have a fight on your hands. Not to mention the failed attempts of New York and New Jersey trying to get everyone to register their AR 15s.

Pure speculation on your part.

Pure speculation on your part

Nope.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...erwhelmingly-support-second-amendment-rights/

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Not only that, but I work closely with law enforcement. The consensus is pretty much the same. Cops value law abiding armed citizens.

The guns used at the Sandy Hook mass shooting were owned by a "law abiding" citizen. As were those at Columbine.

They represent the small minority. For every one incident like that, there are hundred of law abiding citizens successfully defending themselves with firearms.

As you would expect them to if they could

Just how does a cop or cops determine who is a "law abiding" citizen ?

The same way they determine you're not a criminal.

Many mass shooters were ... until they decided not to be. Stephen Paddock for example

"...Paddock's only recorded interaction with law enforcement was a minor traffic citation years before the shooting, which he settled in court..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock

Not completely but good enough.

The number of police officers shot on duty isn't evidence enough?

They get shot mostly by people who already aren't allowed to even possess a firearm.

Police procedures have to take into account the possibility of being shot at almost any public encounter.
Theoretically, if there were NO guns in the USA, wouldn't you say that the job of policing would be easier ?

If you can guarantee that, yes it would. However the US isn't the only western country that trains its officers to take into account the possibility of getting shot.

Gun violence in the UK following the gun bans there.

We're not the UK and even they didn't reduced their gun deaths.

Where's YOUR evidence that these measure wouldn't work ????
(You personal speculation doesn't count)

The fact you can't point to a single country that reduce their gun deaths after implementing gun control.

Two simple measures to cut child shootings.

Rich2018

Rich2018

Rich2018

Rich2018

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Rich2018

Rich2018

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Into the Night

Into the Night

Into the Night

Into the Night

Into the Night

Maccabee