What is the solution to mass shootings in the United States?

[OldFatGuy]

I would say that is right.

I can't imagine Ben Franklin approving of the use of semi-automatic weapons on school children, Jefferson, maybe, but the rest of those guys new the value of slaves so probably did not intend for "arms" to be used against fellow Americans.

Modern interpretations have polluted the intended purpose.

I believe there is little doubt in any, of anyone approving the use of any firearms against school children. However, if you search, you can find at least three Americans who attempted to carve their own empires out of lands in the Ohio Valley, parts of Kentucky and Tennessee, and lands in territories further west. All three were put down by American regular forces and militia. And this was with the approval of our earliest administrators and legislature. I hold very little doubt Andy Jackson would have armed his military and militia with semi and automatic weapons when the went up against the Shawnee and other tribes

A bit later:

6 Violent Uprisings in the United States - History Lists

Again the American military came into play with force of arms, aided by militia. I do consider our National Guard units as militia.

However, despite its popularity as a political talking point, more gun control laws are nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to the issue of school shootings.

Yesterday I read of a woman armed with a pickax who threatened to use against a schoolyard of children. Fortunately, she was too blasted out of her mind on whatever substances she was abusing, to climb that schoolyard fence.

Today I read briefly of a schoolteacher who shot off a gun while alone in a classroom. Whatever his reasons, no explanation was given in the media. But his action did kind of put the kabash on any ideas of arming school teachers.

Ranting about and even legislating more gun laws are a distraction from finding real solutions, not just to the school shooting but violent behavior altogether, if there are any.

 

[OldFatGuy]

TurtleDude:

In a society governed by the rule of law, no. In a society governed by the principle that might is right, probably yes.

But you did not answer my questions which were asked in good faith. How high a threshold in public support is needed before you will peacefully discuss comprehensive gun regulation and/or involuntary disarmament of certain types of firearms and accessories from the American public? Would you ever bend to the will of the people?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Tell that to the criminals who ignore the laws.

 

[Evilroddy]

Tell that to the criminals who ignore the laws.

OldFatGuy:

That was the point some posters here were trying to make. Several other posters here have said that, in the event of American authorities making gun regulation with which they did not agree, they would unilaterally ignore such legislation and if it was enforced by proper authorities, then they would use violence to resist such enforcement. Thus these posters, who claim that society has nothing to fear from law-abiding gun enthusiasts, have almost in the same breath, demonstrated that if the state, spurred on by popular political will, were to limit their declared absolute right to have and bear firearms, then they would unlawfully enter into armed rebellion and criminally use force of arms against duly appointed agents of the state tasked with enforcing the law. Not to put too fine a point on it, these posters have declared their intention to become criminals if the state challenges their deeply held and fundamental devotion to guns and their declared absolute right to have and bear arms. Thus this thread has been in part an exercise in telling it to one subset of the would-be criminals who would wilfully ignore the law by force of arms!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[OldFatGuy]

OldFatGuy:

That was the point some posters here were trying to make. Several other posters here have said that, in the event of American authorities making gun regulation with which they did not agree, they would unilaterally ignore such legislation and if it was enforced by proper authorities, then they would use violence to resist such enforcement. Thus these posters, who claim that society has nothing to fear from law-abiding gun enthusiasts, have almost in the same breath, demonstrated that if the state, spurred on by popular political will, were to limit their declared absolute right to have and bear firearms, then they would unlawfully enter into armed rebellion and criminally use force of arms against duly appointed agents of the state tasked with enforcing the law. Not to put too fine a point on it, these posters have declared their intention to become criminals if the state challenges their deeply held and fundamental devotion to guns and their declared absolute right to have and bear arms. Thus this thread has been in part an exercise in telling it to one subset of the would-be criminals who would wilfully ignore the law by force of arms!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Why are your pants sagging in the back?

 

[Evilroddy]

Why are your pants sagging in the back?

OldFatGuy:

Ah, so you don't wish to debate, you just wish to insult and spread scorn and derision. Your positions have been noted and your future protestations will be ignored unless they have some factual or authoritative content to them. Have a very good day, sir.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The only solutions are those that Republican legislators will never consider - at least, not as long as they suck on the hind teat of the NRA and the gun manufacturers, and as long as they are controlled by right-wing pundits.

Ha ha,

you then overlook that the killer passed a background check to buy the firearm, while the FBI, Sheriffs and the school system didn't deal with his mental problems. The killer should not have been allowed to buy a gun after all that.

The Daily Wire

Every Single Government Authority Failed In Parkland. And They Expect Americans To Forfeit Our Self-Defense Rights To Them?


February 23, 2018

Ben Shapiro

Excerpt:

On Thursday night, the American public learned two bombshell pieces of information regarding the Parkland, Florida mass shooting. First, we learned that the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was told in November that the Parkland shooter “could be a school shooter in the making” but deputies didn’t bother to write up a report; that report “came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons.” Then, in even more shocking news, we learned that an armed school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School sat outside and waited for four minutes during the six minute attack that ended in the deaths of 17 human beings.


LINK

Stop the irrational attacks on the NRA and gun makers!

 

[Sunsettommy]

America is NOT in the top 100 nation on Per Capita murder rate, despite having the HIGHEST per Capita gun ownership.

Meanwhile school shootings have been in a DECLINE since the 1990's.

New NorthEastern

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

February 26, 2018

By Allie Nicodemo and Lia Petronio

EXCERPT:

The deadly school shooting this month in Parkland, Florida, has ignited national outrage and calls for action on gun reform. But while certain policies may help decrease gun violence in general, it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings, according to James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern.
\
LINK

The latest Killer should NOT have been allowed to pass the background check as he was obviously a danger to people, but the legal authorities screwed it up big time.

 

[OldFatGuy]

OldFatGuy:

Ah, so you don't wish to debate, you just wish to insult and spread scorn and derision. Your positions have been noted and your future protestations will be ignored unless they have some factual or authoritative content to them. Have a very good day, sir.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Your spinning words games are not debate. They are insulting. Give and get in return.

 

[Evilroddy]

Your spinning words games are not debate. They are insulting. Give and get in return.

OldFatGuy:

Do you seek a solution to mass shootings or do you want to just bicker and lash out verbally at folks with whom you disagree? This thread is about possible solutions to mass shootings in the USA. If lives can be saved by suggestions which may insult some, so be it. Your ego or my ego are not as important as the lives of others which are being lost due to this senseless violence, supercharged by readily available semi-automatic rifles and hand guns. Toughen up, man and grow a thicker skin.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[OldFatGuy]

OldFatGuy:

Do you seek a solution to mass shootings or do you want to just bicker and lash out verbally at folks with whom you disagree? This thread is about possible solutions to mass shootings in the USA. If lives can be saved by suggestions which may insult some, so be it. Your ego or my ego are not as important as the lives of others which are being lost due to this senseless violence, supercharged by readily available semi-automatic rifles and hand guns. Toughen up, man and grow a thicker skin.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

What is the solution to mass shootings in the United States? is the thread title, not semiauto rifles, or hand guns. Nor is it about your twisting the words of another to suit your political agenda. Nor is it about placing trust in the hands of psychiatrists and psychologists who have already failed to address all problems of American violence by loading kids with prescription drugs like ritalin, and turning those children into adults addicted to prescription drugs. "One pill makes you smaller, one pill makes you larger." And that, in your repeated arsenal of tactics is insulting. Face the truth about yourself. Don't tell me what I need to do. I've spent way too much time cleaning up the messes people make of each other, after the fact. See to yourself.

I've extensively shown statistics which state how relative few murders occur from mass shootings when compared to other sources of homicide in this nation. I've repeatedly pointed out that an annual missing 200k children is not seen as in an issue in the this country by same people who get emotionally sensationalized by 17 deaths in the headlines of trash journalism.

This is a nation that spends more on pet care than it does spend on childcare. Where is your outrage as you play your pseudo intellectual word games?

This morning, AP put out notice, "the remains of 16 children, most more than a decade old, all under 12 years of age, were found buried in a garden in NJ a month ago, at a housing site being reclaimed after a fire which destroyed the house. The FBI is attempting to connect these remains with known missing children." Not one local or national media outlet picked up the story. No guns, no school shooting, nothing sensational. Where is your outrage? Is your stomach churning?

 

[Evilroddy]

What is the solution to mass shootings in the United States? is the thread title, not semiauto rifles, or hand guns. Nor is it about your twisting the words of another to suit your political agenda. Nor is it about placing trust in the hands of psychiatrists and psychologists who have already failed to address all problems of American violence by loading kids with prescription drugs like ritalin, and turning those children into adults addicted to prescription drugs. "One pill makes you smaller, one pill makes you larger." And that, in your repeated arsenal of tactics is insulting. Face the truth about yourself. Don't tell me what I need to do. I've spent way too much time cleaning up the messes people make of each other, after the fact. See to yourself.

I've extensively shown statistics which state how relative few murders occur from mass shootings when compared to other sources of homicide in this nation. I've repeatedly pointed out that an annual missing 200k children is not seen as in an issue in the this country by same people who get emotionally sensationalized by 17 deaths in the headlines of trash journalism.

This is a nation that spends more on pet care than it does spend on childcare. Where is your outrage as you play your pseudo intellectual word games?

This morning, AP put out notice, "the remains of 16 children, most more than a decade old, all under 12 years of age, were found buried in a garden in NJ a month ago, at a housing site being reclaimed after a fire which destroyed the house. The FBI is attempting to connect these remains with known missing children." Not one local or national media outlet picked up the story. No guns, no school shooting, nothing sensational. Where is your outrage? Is your stomach churning?

OldFatGuy:

Your opening sentence says it all. The mass shootings are shootings - with guns. The gun in the Parkland Florida school shooting was a legally purchased and legally owned AR-!5 in the hands of a very disturbed young man. It was in that young man's hands because although reported to local and federal authorities, grave concerns about his fitness to bear arms were ignored or not addressed. Guns and specifically semi-automatic guns are part of the problem in this and many other mass shootings since the 1990's. Thus the guns and their possession/ownership is germane to the topic being discussed here. That many young people are abducted or disappeared is a separate issue of equal if not greater importance but this thread is about mass shootings and not missing children and minors.

If you are passionate in your desire to put missing children and minors on the public's radar, then by all means start a thread or two here and elsewhere in order to bring it to peoples' attentions. I will certainly participate and help publicise this under-reported tragedy which you say is ignored by the mainstream American media. I will say that disappearances of both children and First Nations women are no longer ignored in Canada but they were until public attention was brought to bear on the issues by activists, in spite of the MSM indifference to reporting and investigating the issue for many years.

While we're at it why not discuss the 100,000 plus Americans who die per year from legal drugs while under doctor supervision due to medicine interaction and medical complications from legal medication. There are many tragedies unfolding around us each day and we would all be better off and more empowered to demand and fashion change if we knew as much as possible about them all.

So here we discuss mass shootings and within that discussion is the roles which guns and pro-gun lobbyists play in blocking legitimate attempts to curb the gun-violence by society at large. Let us focus on the issue at hand here and also discuss tangential and unrelated but equally important and tragic societal problems in separate threads. Conflating them all together just induces societal paralysis and then nothing gets solved.

For a list of solutions to mass shooting (with a focus on school shootings) please see posts numbers 15 and 16 on this DP Forum thread.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/310954-mass-shootings-solution-s-2.html

Thank you for responding with substance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[SirGareth]

Wouldnt installing metal detectors at all school entrances be a good start??

Shutting down the government school complex would be far more effective.

 

[SirGareth]

OldFatGuy:

Your opening sentence says it all. The mass shootings are shootings - with guns. The gun in the Parkland Florida school shooting was a legally purchased and legally owned AR-!5 in the hands of a very disturbed young man. It was in that young man's hands because although reported to local and federal authorities, grave concerns about his fitness to bear arms were ignored or not addressed. Guns and specifically semi-automatic guns are part of the problem in this and many other mass shootings since the 1990's. Thus the guns and their possession/ownership is germane to the topic being discussed here. That many young people are abducted or disappeared is a separate issue of equal if not greater importance but this thread is about mass shootings and not missing children and minors.

If you are passionate in your desire to put missing children and minors on the public's radar, then by all means start a thread or two here and elsewhere in order to bring it to peoples' attentions. I will certainly participate and help publicise this ignored tragedy which you say is ignored by the mainstream American media. I will say that disappearances of both children and First Nations women are no longer ignored in Canada but they were until public attention was brought to bear on the issues by activists in spite of the MSM indifference to reporting and investigating the issue.

While we're at it why not discuss the 100,000 plus Americans who die per year from legal drugs while under doctor supervision due to medicine interaction and medical complications from legal medication. There are many tragedies unfolding around us each day and we would all be better off and more empowered to demand change if we knew as much as possible about them all.

So here we discuss mass shootings and within that discussion is the roles which guns and pro-gun lobbyists play in blocking legitimate attempts to curb the violence. Let us focus on the issue at hand here and also discuss tangential and unrelated but equally important and tragic societal problems in separate threads. Conflating them all together just induces societal paralysis and then nothing gets solved.

For a list of solutions to mass shooting (with a focus on school shootings) please see posts numbers 15 and 16 on this DP Forum thread.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/310954-mass-shootings-solution-s-2.html

Thank you for responding with substance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

The common thread in mass killings is government schools, not guns. Why not discuss the banning of our unwholesome government schools for a better scheme of truly educating our children.

I agree that we can attempt to restrict the ownership of guns to dangerous people but why would these same people be walking our streets and going to the schools of our children?

Dangerous is dangerous.

It strikes me as odd that cream puff, Dinesh D'Souza, is now forever forbidden from possessing a gun in the USA because he gave a few dollars more to a fellow expat who was running for office than our unconstitutional law allowed. He stood to gain nothing in the transaction.

This is the tyranny of of the gun grabbers.

If a person is judged by a jury of his peers to be dangerous then he (or she) belongs in custody, not merely unarmed.

No person stripped of his second amendment rights should be enjoying any other of our rights, including the right to vote or to walk freely about.

 

[Evilroddy]

The common thread in mass killings is government schools, not guns. Why not discuss the banning of our unwholesome government schools for a better scheme of truly educating our children.

I agree that we can attempt to restrict the ownership of guns to dangerous people but why would these same people be walking our streets and going to the schools of our children?

Dangerous is dangerous.

It strikes me as odd that cream puff, Dinesh D'Souza, is now forever forbidden from possessing a gun in the USA because he gave a few dollars more to a fellow expat who was running for office than our unconstitutional law allowed. He stood to gain nothing in the transaction.

This is the tyranny of of the gun grabbers.

If a person is judged by a jury of his peers to be dangerous then he (or she) belongs in custody, not merely unarmed.

No person stripped of his second amendment rights should be enjoying any other of our rights, including the right to vote or to walk freely about.

SirGareth:

The Florida Nightclub shooting, the Las Vegas shooting, the church and community centre shootings did not have schools as their common thread. They had only guns as their common thread and IIRC all were tragedies in which either semi-automatic rifles or semi-automatic handguns with many clips of ammunition were used to kill large numbers of people.

The problem is identifying dangerous folk before they do something dangerous is difficult and at best uncertain. To deprive a person who might be dangerous to himself or others from having legal access to firearms and possibly other potential weapons (motor vehicles for example) is a reasonable precaution given that they are real or potential weapons. This should only be permitted to happen if both medical professionals and a court of law agree to such preventative interdiction. However, unless a very good case can be made for pre-emptively depriving persons of their rights to life, liberty, speech and association, it is a tricky remedy to justify as it does not involve the means to do violence and it may end up being abused by the state to silence legitimate dissent by rational people rather than protecting society from irrational people bent on destruction. Remember the US Constitution specifically bans the use of acts of attainder from being used against Americans and preventative detentions are precariously close to such acts.

There is not, nor has there ever been, a tyranny of the gun-grabbers in the USA. The number and destructive capacity of firearms in the USA has consistently increased over the 240 plus years of your republic and has mushroomed in recent decades. So, that's malarkey of the highest order. There have been calls for gun regulation and registry but almost no one, even today, is calling for complete gun confiscation in America. The Second Ammendment does not preclude states and the federal government from regulating arms ownership, it just assures that competent Americans can own some arms, in order to function as a well regulated militia. But no American is allowed to own fully functional and armed attack helicopters, anti-personnel mine dispensing artillery shells and delivery systems, flame-throwers, MANPAD SAMs, ATGM's, fully functional strategic bombers or ICBMs with thermonuclear multiple warheads or poison gas weapons. These are all arms and are arguably covered by the Second Ammendment. "Congress shall not infringe on the right to bear arms" does not mean the right to bear all arms without consideration for how destructive the arms can be to the population at large and a congressional power to regulate said arms. Legitimate regulation of weapons which are reasonably proved to be too dangerous for wide circulation in the public's hands is almost as old as the US Bill of Rights itself and may be older as I am not sure if any regulations were passed between 1775 and 1791.

If a person is judged by a jury of his peers to be dangerous then he (or she) belongs in custody, not merely unarmed.

If this is done after a criminal conviction, then yes I agree. However if you mean before a crime has been committed, then most definitely no. Only medical and legal professionals should be empowered to make preventative detentions, perhaps subject to ratification by a jury of peers but definetly not initiated by such a jury of untrained peers. Allowing one group of citizens to condemn and pre-emptively jail or institutionalise other citizens is a recipe for Salem-like abuses.

continued next post.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

SirGareth:

No person stripped of his second amendment rights should be enjoying any other of our rights, including the right to vote or to walk freely about

In that statement lies the seed of a tyranny as bad as anything a fundamentalist gun advocate can imagine by the "gun-grabbing state". What you are saying is that anyone whom the state deems unfit to own and bear arms has no other basic human rights and can be killed, imprisoned, have their property seized, be legally silenced and denied the peaceful practice of their religion. Do you really want to live in such a condition? We in Canada have gun regulation and routinely deprive persons of gun rights but ours is not a gulag where no rights, freedoms and privileges exist. Millions of Canadians peacefully own, bear and enjoy firearms, but they can't own AK-47's and AR-15's. They are mostly happy and do not live in a rights-vacuum under state tyranny. I'm not saying that the Canadian way is the right way for the USA to proceed along. That's for you folks to decide. I only offer Canada as an example to illustrate that reasonable gun regulation does not mean state tyranny will necessarily follow such firearms regulation.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[OldFatGuy]

OldFatGuy:

Your opening sentence says it all. The mass shootings are shootings - with guns. The gun in the Parkland Florida school shooting was a legally purchased and legally owned AR-!5 in the hands of a very disturbed young man. It was in that young man's hands because although reported to local and federal authorities, grave concerns about his fitness to bear arms were ignored or not addressed. Guns and specifically semi-automatic guns are part of the problem in this and many other mass shootings since the 1990's. Thus the guns and their possession/ownership is germane to the topic being discussed here. That many young people are abducted or disappeared is a separate issue of equal if not greater importance but this thread is about mass shootings and not missing children and minors.

If you are passionate in your desire to put missing children and minors on the public's radar, then by all means start a thread or two here and elsewhere in order to bring it to peoples' attentions. I will certainly participate and help publicise this under-reported tragedy which you say is ignored by the mainstream American media. I will say that disappearances of both children and First Nations women are no longer ignored in Canada but they were until public attention was brought to bear on the issues by activists, in spite of the MSM indifference to reporting and investigating the issue for many years.

While we're at it why not discuss the 100,000 plus Americans who die per year from legal drugs while under doctor supervision due to medicine interaction and medical complications from legal medication. There are many tragedies unfolding around us each day and we would all be better off and more empowered to demand and fashion change if we knew as much as possible about them all.

So here we discuss mass shootings and within that discussion is the roles which guns and pro-gun lobbyists play in blocking legitimate attempts to curb the gun-violence by society at large. Let us focus on the issue at hand here and also discuss tangential and unrelated but equally important and tragic societal problems in separate threads. Conflating them all together just induces societal paralysis and then nothing gets solved.

For a list of solutions to mass shooting (with a focus on school shootings) please see posts numbers 15 and 16 on this DP Forum thread.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/310954-mass-shootings-solution-s-2.html

Thank you for responding with substance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Once again, insulting word game. My opening sentence is merely to repeat the OP's title in response to your claims of what this thread is about. That does not make those words mine. Nor do you get to extrapolate per your agenda from that title. No one is speaking of drugs, no one is speaking of the fake First Nations (repetitively rejected by Native Americans as another white man's insult) and you are again obfuscating the OP's thread title. Neither of the posts you refer to offer any viable solutions. Read before you post.

Do not ever again tell me what to do.

 

[Evilroddy]

Once again, insulting word game. My opening sentence is merely to repeat the OP's title in response to your claims of what this thread is about. That does not make those words mine. Nor do you get to extrapolate per your agenda from that title. No one is speaking of drugs, no one is speaking of the fake First Nations (repetitively rejected by Native Americans as another white man's insult) and you are again obfuscating the OP's thread title. Neither of the posts you refer to offer any viable solutions. Read before you post.

Do not ever again tell me what to do.

OldFatGuy:

I have not told you what to do. However, you have repeatedly and quite rudely told me what not to do in several posts now. I have no intention of honouring your demands and I will post what I think is appropriate despite your prohibition to not do so. Please don't construe this as telling you what to do, but have a good day and peace be upon you.

Evilroddy.

 

[TurtleDude]

OldFatGuy:

Your opening sentence says it all. The mass shootings are shootings - with guns. The gun in the Parkland Florida school shooting was a legally purchased and legally owned AR-!5 in the hands of a very disturbed young man. It was in that young man's hands because although reported to local and federal authorities, grave concerns about his fitness to bear arms were ignored or not addressed. Guns and specifically semi-automatic guns are part of the problem in this and many other mass shootings since the 1990's. Thus the guns and their possession/ownership is germane to the topic being discussed here. That many young people are abducted or disappeared is a separate issue of equal if not greater importance but this thread is about mass shootings and not missing children and minors.

If you are passionate in your desire to put missing children and minors on the public's radar, then by all means start a thread or two here and elsewhere in order to bring it to peoples' attentions. I will certainly participate and help publicise this under-reported tragedy which you say is ignored by the mainstream American media. I will say that disappearances of both children and First Nations women are no longer ignored in Canada but they were until public attention was brought to bear on the issues by activists, in spite of the MSM indifference to reporting and investigating the issue for many years.

While we're at it why not discuss the 100,000 plus Americans who die per year from legal drugs while under doctor supervision due to medicine interaction and medical complications from legal medication. There are many tragedies unfolding around us each day and we would all be better off and more empowered to demand and fashion change if we knew as much as possible about them all.

So here we discuss mass shootings and within that discussion is the roles which guns and pro-gun lobbyists play in blocking legitimate attempts to curb the gun-violence by society at large. Let us focus on the issue at hand here and also discuss tangential and unrelated but equally important and tragic societal problems in separate threads. Conflating them all together just induces societal paralysis and then nothing gets solved.

For a list of solutions to mass shooting (with a focus on school shootings) please see posts numbers 15 and 16 on this DP Forum thread.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/310954-mass-shootings-solution-s-2.html

Thank you for responding with substance.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

why should the pro gun rights lobby and us gun owners agree to laws that restrict our rights when those restrictions are faith based claims of stopping crime? did it occur to you that many of those who clamor for gun restrictions only pretend to care about public safety and their real goal is harassing lawful gun owners?

why should any lawful person have their rights restricted because of what a criminal does?

 

[OldFatGuy]

OldFatGuy:

I have not told you what to do. However, you have repeatedly and quite rudely told me what not to do in several posts now. I have no intention of honouring your demands and I will post what I think is appropriate despite your prohibition to not do so. Please don't construe this as telling you what to do, but have a good day and peace be upon you.

Evilroddy.

"Toughen up, man and grow a thicker skin."

"If you are passionate in your desire to put missing children and minors on the public's radar, then by all means start a thread or two here and elsewhere in order to bring it to peoples' attentions."

How conveniently you forget your own words.

 

[Evilroddy]

why should the pro gun rights lobby and us gun owners agree to laws that restrict our rights when those restrictions are faith based claims of stopping crime? did it occur to you that many of those who clamor for gun restrictions only pretend to care about public safety and their real goal is harassing lawful gun owners?

why should any lawful person have their rights restricted because of what a criminal does?

TurtleDude:

Faith-based claims?!? In which mass shooting in the last three decades were guns not involved in the killing and wounding of victims? Guns are the tools with which mass shooters kill folks and more powerful guns allow mass shooters to kill more people at a faster pace. Therefore guns and especially rapid fire guns with large capacity magazines/clips are a big part of the problem.

Americans willingly surrender their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when they get on a plane or to go to a baseball game. They do this for the sake of public safety. This is necessary because of what criminals have done. So why can't those same Americans who happen to also own guns chip in and help to protect public safety by agreeing to reasonable gun regulation which will reduce the number of deaths caused by criminal and insane people bent on murder who also have access to high power and rapidly firing firearms? What is wrong with people working towards a public good?

That some people agitating for gun regulation may be hell bent on disarming America may be true, but it is such an extreme position that it would not likely ever garner the political support to become law. However, limiting the types of guns, clips ammunition and accessories which can enable a criminal to do great damage in a very short period of time to people who can demonstrate they are responsible gun owners who others will formally vouch for does not seem to be an onerous imposition to achieve a higher level of public safety.

Forcing gun manufacturers to put unhackable tracking technology into certain weapons (automatic weapons, semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns would be my suggestions) in order to identify who is carrying a gun in a public space and to match the carrier to the registered owner seems sensible, given that such technology is in your cars, trucks and electronic devices already. Should such firearms be stolen then those possessing them could be quickly identified as possessing illegal firearms and arrested, while the legitimate gun owner would eventually get their stolen property back. While older guns would have to be retrofitted with such tracking technology and some illegal guns would likely avoid being tagged all together, the pool of untrackable guns would get smaller overtime and the tracking system would become more efficient at identifying illegal possession of firearms. Everybody wins.

So why should a lawful person allow their rights to be restricted because of what criminals and mad people do? For the public good. However I don't think that gun regulation necessarily restricts gun owners rights. The Second Ammendment protects the right to bear arms but does not stop the state from defining which arms are appropriate in order to serve in a well regulated militia. Thus there is and has been room for both gun owners rights and state and federal legislation to co-exist in American society.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude:

Faith-based claims?!? In which mass shooting in the last three decades were guns not involved in the killing and wounding of victims? Guns are the tools with which mass shooters kill folks and more powerful guns allow mass shooters to kill more people at a faster pace. Therefore guns and especially rapid fire guns with large capacity magazines/clips are a big part of the problem.

Americans willingly surrender their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when they get on a plane or to go to a baseball game. They do this for the sake of public safety. This is necessary because of what criminals have done. So why can't those same Americans who happen to also own guns chip in and help to protect public safety by agreeing to reasonable gun regulation which will reduce the number of deaths caused by criminal and insane people bent on murder who also have access to high power and rapidly firing firearms? What is wrong with people working towards a public good?

That some people agitating for gun regulation may be hell bent on disarming America may be true, but it is such an extreme position that it would not likely ever garner the political support to become law. However, limiting the types of guns, clips ammunition and accessories which can enable a criminal to do great damage in a very short period of time to people who can demonstrate they are responsible gun owners who others will formally vouch for does not seem to be an onerous imposition to achieve a higher level of public safety.

Forcing gun manufacturers to put unhackable tracking technology into certain weapons (automatic weapons, semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns would be my suggestions) in order to identify who is carrying a gun in a public space and to match the carrier to the registered owner seems sensible, given that such technology is in your cars, trucks and electronic devices already. Should such firearms be stolen then those possessing them could be quickly identified as possessing illegal firearms and arrested, while the legitimate gun owner would eventually get their stolen property back. While older guns would have to be retrofitted with such tracking technology and some illegal guns would likely avoid being tagged all together, the pool of untrackable guns would get smaller overtime and the tracking system would become more efficient at identifying illegal possession of firearms. Everybody wins.

So why should a lawful person allow their rights to be restricted because of what criminals and mad people do? For the public good. However I don't think that gun regulation necessarily restricts gun owners rights. The Second Ammendment protects the right to bear arms but does not stop the state from defining which arms are appropriate in order to serve in a well regulated militia. Thus there is and has been room for both gun owners rights and state and federal legislation to co-exist in American society.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I forget more about this issue every day than you have demonstrated you know about it and me giving up any of my rights won't do a damn thing to reduce crime. But reduction of crime is not the real goal of the anti gun advocates. Its getting rid of our rights, and while the government can say what arms are used in the federal militia, it has no proper power to tell us private citizens what we can own and the government certainly doesn't need to know what we own.

 

[Evilroddy]

"Toughen up, man and grow a thicker skin."

"If you are passionate in your desire to put missing children and minors on the public's radar, then by all means start a thread or two here and elsewhere in order to bring it to peoples' attentions."

How conveniently you forget your own words.

OldFatGuy:

The first cited statement of mine was a common turn of phrase (a common place) and not intended as a command. But, as it is a declarative sentence, I will admit to it seeming to be me telling you what to do and I retract my later statement that I did not tell you to do anything. Mea culpa. But really dude, most people would get the meaning and understand it was a statement of exasperation and not a command.

The second statement began with the word "if", was a conditional statement and was a suggestion and not a command.

As to the video of Ella, well my skin is tough enough to take your weakly cast barbs and darts. So, please, feel free to knock yourself out with more sarcastic and rude postings if you are so inclined. It doesn't bother me one bit. Another common place around here (Canada) is, "Water off a duck's back."

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

I forget more about this issue every day than you have demonstrated you know about it and me giving up any of my rights won't do a damn thing to reduce crime. But reduction of crime is not the real goal of the anti gun advocates. Its getting rid of our rights, and while the government can say what arms are used in the federal militia, it has no proper power to tell us private citizens what we can own and the government certainly doesn't need to know what we own.

TurtleDude:

If political activists and the government wanted to get rid of your right then you would not have them. You have already lost many rights and no one had to make excuses or construct Trojan Horses to remove those rights from you. They just did it, period. So you have lost privacy rights, you have lost both private and common property rights, you have lost protection from search and seizure rights, you have lost states rights, you have lost common law court rights, the list goes on. All those rights were taken without subterfuge. They were straight up denied to you, period.

Gun regulation is not code for gun confiscation. If the state wanted to confiscate your guns, then they would. They wouldn't have to make excuses. They would simply compel you to and if you violently resisted they would use overwhelming force to disarm you and use your standoff as propaganda to justify their seizure to a less than sympathetic majority of American. But that's not going to happen because there is no political will in America to do it.

So in your interpretation a private citizen should be able to own submachine guns, SAWs, heavy machine guns, grenades, flame-throwers, land mines (both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines), grenade launchers (single shot, under-barrel and automatic), MANPADS SAMs, mortars, WP mortar bombs, LAWs, MAWs, ATGMs and any other weapon system which a nation's military could possess? Wow. Just wow. That is so screwed up in my opinion.

Have a good night and dream of sugar-plum claymores and airplanes with candy-cane coloured cluster-bomb dispensers.
Evilroddy.

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude:

If political activists and the government wanted to get rid of your right then you would not have them. You have already lost many rights and no one had to make excuses or construct Trojan Horses to remove those rights from you. They just did it, period. So you have lost privacy rights, you have lost both private and common property rights, you have lost protection from search and seizure rights, you have lost states rights, you have lost common law court rights, the list goes on. All those rights were taken without subterfuge. They were straight up denied to you, period.

Gun regulation is not code for gun confiscation. If the state wanted to confiscate your guns, then they would. They wouldn't have to make excuses. They would simply compel you to and if you violently resisted they would use overwhelming force to disarm you and use your standoff as propaganda to justify their seizure to a less than sympathetic majority of American. But that's not going to happen because there is no political will in America to do it.

So in your interpretation a private citizen should be able to own submachine guns, SAWs, heavy machine guns, grenades, flame-throwers, land mines (both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines), grenade launchers (single shot, under-barrel and automatic), MANPADS SAMs, mortars, WP mortar bombs, LAWs, MAWs, ATGMs and any other weapon system which a nation's military could possess? Wow. Just wow. That is so screwed up in my opinion.

Have a good night and dream of sugar-plum claymores and airplanes with candy-cane coloured cluster-bomb dispensers.
Evilroddy.

you apparently are oblivious to what I have posted. The incremental confiscation scheme is what is going on in this country. And my bright line test is this-if the civilian police have a firearm type, other civilians should have it-along with the standard issue individual weapon of the national guard. That doesn't mean RPGs, flamethrowers, bazookas etc

 

[OldFatGuy]

OldFatGuy:

The first cited statement of mine was a common turn of phrase (a common place) and not intended as a command. But, as it is a declarative sentence, I will admit to it seeming to be me telling you what to do and I retract my later statement that I did not tell you to do anything. Mea culpa. But really dude, most people would get the meaning and understand it was a statement of exasperation and not a command.

The second statement began with the word "if", was a conditional statement and was a suggestion and not a command.

As to the video of Ella, well my skin is tough enough to take your weakly cast barbs and darts. So, please, feel free to knock yourself out with more sarcastic and rude postings if you are so inclined. It doesn't bother me one bit. Another common place around here (Canada) is, "Water off a duck's back."

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I am not your "dude" or anyone else's. That's another insult.

Don't blame a reader for your inadequacies communicating your intent.

I an not surprised the meaning of the song went sailing over your head. Ella, as always, sings of misguided love. Being Canadian is not an excuse.

First known written use of the phrase "water off a duck's back:"

"Encouraging his troops to storm Keep Vroda, Ducette Margaritte encouraged his fife with the statement "their {burning} oils will spill upon you like water off a duck's back." 1356 from Wilheilm's Illuminated Wars of the Flemish Warlords, translated 1633 Edeline Monastery author unknown. Margaritte's Belgian forces were defeated at the keep, the Flemish cauterized the advance sufficiently for greater forces to remove the Belgians from the Nederlands. (not to be confused with the Netherlands that were still underwater, nederlands being unclaimed borders subsequent to unresolved warring, a turn of the phrase so to speak)