World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Why are US mass shootings getting more deadly?
Anybody else want to try and define mass shootings before I continue on?
My suggestion, for discussion, if nothing else: A mass shooting is where bullets are fired into a number of people who pose no threat to the shooter, and who in most cases are unaware of the shooter until he shoots.
OK,In the U.S., a mass shooting is nothing more than three victims not including the shooter. That is a mass shooting. Most people think of the theater or mall shooter or a school shooting. So a person that decides to kill their entire family is a mass shooting. Gang related shootings are mass shootings. Bad guys shooting at cops is a mass shooting. Two guys shooting at each other and hitting innocent bystanders is a mass shooting.
It has to be with a firearm and within a short period of time. So bows and arrows are not part of it, nor stabbings and the like.
First let me make clear, any shooting is a tragedy. I personally never want to see one happen. I do not think it is funny considering I was caught in cross fire between two drug dealers.
Yet, when the news pushes the idea of mass shootings are more frequent. It is disingenuous. The news that pushes this is making an effort to make the violence worse than it actually is in reality. When you remove anything that is something other than a gunman running around shooting innocent people, mass shootings are incredibly rare events. That is why when you have a true event, it is so shocking.
Even the idea of gun deaths in the U.S. is fraught with bad statistics. Once again, dying at the end of a gun is tragic, but not all gun deaths are what they seem. When you think of gun deaths, what comes to mind? Homicide, yet most guns deaths are anything other than homicide. 60% of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicide. It is certainly tragic, but not what one expects.
Most firearm fatalities are suicides. About 2% are accidental discharges and other stupidity. And the remainder are half murder and half self defense.They don't care. To them, a gun is an evil murder machine with magical abilities to kill, maim, and destroy. They freak out about the furniture and obsolete features, like bayonet lugs. But if you try to explain matters of actual function, like open vs. closed bolt designs, they refuse to comprehend what you're telling them.
They don't care that most homicides are committed by gang bangers with Glocks. They're terrified of creepy white guys with those evil assault weapons.
And the press just feeds them a steady diet of confirmation bias items stripped of anything that contradicts their narrative. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse.
We all know what the Second Amendment says about the right to bear arms:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, does one have to be in a militia to bear arms? The Supreme Court decided this in 2008. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion: "In 2008, the Court in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held that a D.C. law that restricted unlicensed functional handguns within homes violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Heller majority opinion: 'The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,' Scalia said." https://constitutioncenter.org/intera...
And there you have it, what the Second Amendment currently means in the US, decided by the Supreme Court. We have a right to use firearms to defend ourselves. It doesn't specify what kinds of firearms.
If the right is "unconnected with service in a militia", why is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..." there in the amendment? Why did they not come out and say "Everyone has the right to bear arms". That is clear and unambiguous.
If you weren't regular army, and you took up arms then you were militia. Not a high standard by which to disarm people. In fact, several of the major incidents which started the Revolution we're caused by loyal servants of the crown trying to disarm citizens.
And why would "Loyal servants of the crown" try to disarm someone who owned a gun solely for hunting animals for food?
Ian wrote: "And why would "Loyal servants of the crown" try to disarm someone who owned a gun solely for hunting animals for food?"That is what the British Crown always did.
Ian wrote: "Then how did they hunt?"They didn't for awhile. Unless they hid the guns, in which case the question became whether the redcoat commander was a big enough arse to tear people's home apart. (Many were.)
Ian wrote: "If the right is "unconnected with service in a militia", why is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..." there in the amendment? Why did they not come out and say "Everyone has the right to ..."Part of what is always ignored is the larger context of what the Bill of Rights actually represents. Yes it is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. However it was a compromise to protect individual liberties of the Citizens.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The strict law people say that the Second Amendment is a group right. Using the idea of a well regulated militia, they claim does not bestow individual liberties. They claim "the people" are the larger group and not the individual. They say that because It does not say person. It is a compelling argument.
Yet, the bigger context disproves this outright.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If you look at these four Amendments, they talk about "the people" too. Yet they have never been construed to mean anything other than individuals when talking about "the people". that is the fallacy of their argument. To agree with their logic, you have to ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights. You also have to ignore the history and why it was written and the times it was written within. To say four of five that use the same language is the same, but the fifth is different is a critical failure of understanding. The other five not mentioned here talk about individuals or written is such a way to understand it is about individuals such as bail or cruel and unusual punishment.
One of the arguments was there could be a loss of liberty, so the Bill of Rights was created to hand cuff the central government.
The Ninth and Ten Amendments went of their way to say just because it is not mentioned here, it does not mean it does not exist. Privacy is a big one, it is not mentioned and yet we all believe in it as individuals. As a matter of fact when Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court it was his mistake to say it is not in the Constitution and he was run out on a rail.
It is a general principle of law in most places that, if not explicitly prohibited, it is permitted. Further, the effect applies to the specific law, and parts do not carry over to other laws. By that I mean each law has to explicitly state what it applies to, which is more or less what I think Amendment IX is saying.Accordingly, I would argue that the other amendments are not applicable to amendment 2 in terms of "the people", because amendment 2 specifically mentions Arms and the "well-regulated militia." There is a specific link between Arms and the milita, andpeople are only mentioned because a militia comprises people. However, while all members of a militia are people, all people are not members of a militia. That means from IX, the fact that all people have rights in other amendments, that does not convey automatically to II.
The use of "the people" would generally be taken to mean all persons, and it is individuals to which most rights apply. The same with II, except was the right intended to apply to people only in a well-regulated militia? I guess the situation now is most Americans say no, but that does not mean the writers of the amendment, back in those times, did not mean it to be.
To the Framers, the militia was all able bodied men in a community. These men could be mustered to defend their community.https://law.stanford.edu/2020/10/12/s...
You will note the comma in the amendment. This signifies that the "well regulated militia" is only a clause. On several occasions SCOTUS has held that the militia clause does not limit the amendment.
Yes, the well regulated militia is a clause, but take out "being necessary to the security of a free State" which is merely explanatory, and you will see it is a dangling clause, which automatically introduces ambiguity. Quite simply it is poorly written as a law.One could also argue the writers not only mentioned militia, but also "well regulated" is specifically mentioned. That also suggests the writers did not intend arms to be a right for all and sundry, but rather available to the well regulated militia. If they did not mean that, why did they put that in there? Why not say everyone had the right to bear arms? Unambiguous, clear, but arguably a different meaning from what was written.
Ian wrote: "Why not say everyone had the right to bear arms? l..."They did say exactly that.
Not exactly. When they wrote "A well regulated Militia" they defined a subset of all the people. Unless that dangling entity (it is not a clause because there is no verb, it is not a phrase, so the usual interpretation would be that it is the subject of the amendment) is absolutely meaningless, it is logical to consider the amendment applies to the subset because the subset defines the subject. Otherwise why define a subset if it is irrelevant? Basic mathematical logic here :-)It is not very well written, though, which means it can be interpreted in various ways depending on what arms salesmen want.
I trust an iron monger further than a politician.
Ian wrote: "Not exactly. When they wrote "A well regulated Militia" they defined a subset of all the people. Unless that dangling entity (it is not a clause because there is no verb, it is not a phrase, so the..."Nice explanation and you made my case for me. You ignore the definitions of the people used through out and applied your definition to one and only one as if the other instances did not exist. You also ignore the larger sentence for a piece of it. You ignore the last piece of the sentence with the verb "Shall not be infringed".
It is subordinate clause and for it to make sense you have to read the rest of the sentence.
Part of what many do not understand is the concept of the American Citizen-Soldier. We have long history of this idea. The original militia was the Minuteman which literally meant you went from citizen to soldier in a minute. At the time the United States did not have a professional army. Most of the security was provided by an armed populace that rose when needed to protect the nation. It was run by the State at the time. Well regulated at the time did not mean what you think it means, but meant ready to meet their fighting duty. This evolved into our National Guard. The emblem for the National Guard is the Minuteman. It is a proud tradition. To this day, they answer to the Governor of the state. However, the President has the authority to nationalize them when the need arises.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images...
This is a pretty good explanation of how this reads and gives the explanation why it means what it means and is pretty balanced.
Papa, no I didn't. Using your link, a couple of quotes."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," That means the second amendment was definitely oriented towards a militia, a subset of the people.
Again from your link: "most historians think that it would be remarkable news to the framers of the Second Amendment that they were actually constitutionalizing a personal right to self-defense as opposed to trying to say something significant about the militia,"
Those two quotes represent the essence of most of my argument.
Ian wrote: "Papa, no I didn't. Using your link, a couple of quotes."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," That means the second amendmen..."
And the militia was created by private citizens owning their weapons. That is historical fact. It is also the fact that government intruding upon individual rights lent itself to the recent court rulings. NYC and Washington D.C. took "reasonable regulation" so far away they were beaten badly in court. Did you also notice how these Constitutional scholars are surpassed by the reticence of lower courts to follow their rulings? Even they are surprised. Once again, part of the discussion is about how the framers were thinking at the time and what was happening. I do not expect you to know al the ins and outs of American history, but in this context (as in all) it is very important and germane.
It was discussed in great detail much like privacy because that was assumed to be part of what made us. It is so fundamental that it did not have to be codified. The right to self defense is a personal right.
Your argument is a fine argument, but for it to win it must ignore the larger picture and you cannot.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," That means the second amendment was definitely oriented towards a militia, a subset of the people.
Ready to meet the duty to defend. Not regulated like the word has come to mean today. You left that part of the discussion out.
No I didn't, Papa. I quoted "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," I think it could reasonably be inferred that a well disciplined militia would be ready to meet the duty to defend. What else would you have a disciplined militia for?We obviously have come to different conclusions, and as your link shows, so do a number of Constitutional lawyers so we are not going to resolve this. Which means, in my opinion, it was not well-written because if Constitutional lawyers cannot come to a clear conclusion, the amendment needs a clarifying amendment :-)
You'd be surprised how something as simple as "eye for an eye" developed into a tort law.Generally, Anglo-American system (common law), as opposed to continental (France, Germany, etc) is based on more general laws with broad interpretation powers of the judges, while continental - on very detailed codes and narrower/implementary functions of the judicial.
The way those responsible for nomination care to appoint specifically-leaned justices, shows they fully expect their leaning to come into play in every/some occasions...
Actually, Nik when I think about it I would not be surprised about the relationship of "an eye for an eye" and tort law. One of the aspects of Roman law was if someone did damage to someone else and they did not have a lawyer to get them off, they had to work off the damage, possibly of slave status. That is fairly obviously "eye for an eye", and Roman law probably worked its way into later law.
I guess it's hard to surprise you these days :)
'Good Samaritan' shoots and kills gunman who opened fire at Indiana mall, killing 3https://www.today.com/news/news/good-...
Ian wrote: "No I didn't, Papa. I quoted "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," I think it could reasonably be inferred that a well disciplined militia would be ready to meet the duty to defend. What else would you have a disciplined militia for?..."Yes and they were filled with average guys with their own weapons. Those that are against personal right to weapons use this argument all the time and do not understand what it says. Part of what you miss is that the scholars are surprised about the personal right to weapons instead of the militia, not that there is a militia, but there was even a discussion on if a person can have them.
You are of course correct when it comes to legal minds arguing over text. I am not saying it is a great piece of writing, but it must be looked at what it meant when it was written and then the writing is not so obtuse. The times it was written within is important because we were just through a war for independence and little trust for a strong central authority.
A brief history lesson, As soon as the Constitution was written, the politicians started to argue what it meant. They turned to Madison who kept all the notes and asked him. The story goes he closed his notebook and told the Continental Congress to figure it out. We have been arguing ever since what it all means.
Those that are not American, I do not expect you to understand our love affair with guns. You do not have the history we have with weapons. To me, it is like trying to explain blue to a blind man. It is deeply ingrained in us. It is part of who we are as a society, for good or bad.
The difficulty with interpreting a text that is poorly written is that one tends to be biased by what you want it to mean.Papa, your last para says it all. The fact is, NOW the conditions are quite different from when that amendment was written, but if you all still want the guns, then you will have guns and live with the consequences. It helps to lean on one interpretation of that amendment to justify the consequences.
Actually the differences are not all that far apart. Many still do not trust government and many that would limit gun rights are the very ones that want to rule. Personally I am not so sure that those that want to limit guns are doing it for nefarious purposes. They want things to be safer, that I have zero doubt. Yet, it will not do so and it is blaming the action of the individual on the tool chosen. To me it is like blaming the car for the drunk driver.
I also think that there are so many guns out there that putting a restriction on sales would be fairly futile.
Ian wrote: "I also think that there are so many guns out there that putting a restriction on sales would be fairly futile."Funny thing, every time there is a sense of taking away guns, they sell more than ever. That should tell you everything you need to know. Americans are not going to give up their guns.
I believe that school shooting filth should be damned to a quick drop and a sudden stop on their way to anonymity.Conversely, those who defend the lives of the innocent should be extolled as heroes.
https://youtu.be/NQXOHsHkJV4
Papaphilly wrote: "Frank wrote: "Frank wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Frank wrote: "It's the culture. When good behavior is normalized and deviant destructive behavior is ostracized, shamed, and marginalized, you get mor..."Papa,I've been busy lately trying to open my mind. I don't think my efforts worked however; it's like Fort Knox (except there's no gold there). Nevertheless I look at all sides before stating a position. I learned this many years ago as a teacher in an urban school when I had to break up fights (often) and found that the truth was always somewhere in the middle ("he did it, no he did it"). I also found my extremely liberal ideas were wrong when I finally saw how the well-intentioned educators and politicians were ruining the educational system. Therefore my opinions are predicated on rational thought that weighs both sides of an argument. Based upon this philosophy I found that deviants run rampant throughout our society; they just need to be called out.
Just this week, there was a shooting at an Indiana mall. A young man went Into the rest room and apparently prepared for 1 hr to commit a mass shooting. He went into the mall and started firing, killing 3 people before a legally armed young man who was carrying, killed the shooter. Pretty clear that if it hadn't been for the armed man, the situation would have been a lot more deadly.So - maybe shootings are getting a lot more deadly because there's nobody to shoot back.
If there were nobody shooting there would be no need to shoot back. In most places in the world malls are fairly safe places.As for constitutional issues, note the 18th amendment and the 21st amendment. Something in the Constitution is not set in stone, although I agree the chances of getting the second amendment modified are fairly close to zero with the current attitude to guns
Ian wrote: "If there were nobody shooting there would be no need to shoot back...."And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....
What the 18th and 21st Amendments prove is that there is a process to amend the Constitution and it is not and easy method nor should it be either.
The 18th Amendment is a lesson in the horrific cost of letting Perfectablists take the wheel.The 21rst Amendment is a study in "the Lesser of Two Evils". The precedent of an amendment to strip an amendment is a lesser evil than an amendment which limits the rights of the people.
From my perspective your citations are proof that 2A should be left alone.
As I think I have said more than once, I can't see 2 being removed anytime soon
Ian wrote: "As I think I have said more than once, I can't see 2 being removed anytime soon"It is not really about Amendment 2 as much as the entire Bill of Rights. They are sacrosanct.
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "As I think I have said more than once, I can't see 2 being removed anytime soon"It is not really about Amendment 2 as much as the entire Bill of Rights. They are sacrosanct."
For me, the great George Carlin said it best about rights:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1242...
Just about sums it up I think :)
Aah, the Postmodernist mantra, "Nothing is sacred, because it's all made up!"Of course it's made up. That has nothing to do with why it's sacred. Take human life for an example. There is no material reason why human life is sacred. In fact, the evidence is to the opposite. We teem across the planet in our billions, doing incalculable damage in the process. But what happens when we stop viewing human life as sacred? And more relevantly to the thread, what do we do when someone else stops viewing human life as sacred?
J. wrote: "Aah, the Postmodernist mantra, "Nothing is sacred, because it's all made up!"Of course it's made up. That has nothing to do with why it's sacred. Take human life for an example. There is no mater..."
Who said nothing is sacred because it's all made up? The fact is Carlin's point is valid. Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away. The Bill of Rights is nothing more than a list of privileges you have at the moment. You had them yesterday, and you might have them tomorrow. Or you might not. I wonder how women in America feel right now about their "rights"?
J. wrote: "And more relevantly to the thread, what do we do when someone else stops viewing human life as sacred?"As for what we do when someone stops viewing human life as sacred... stop me if you've heard this one before, we take their guns away.
Eldon wrote: "As for what we do when someone stops viewing human life as sacred... stop me if you've heard this one before, we take their guns away."How do you do that when the aberrant is a president, prime minister, monarch, and/or general secretary?
And before you go off about "right wing conspiracy fantasies", read The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956, The Diary of Anne Frank, and Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung: Mao's Little Red Book Original Version. There's always another one waiting.
J. wrote: "And before you go off about "right wing conspiracy fantasies"..."J., let's just say that arguing on the internet is never a good look. I admire your passion for the cause of gun ownership, and the right to do so. I don't agree with it, but a civilized society allows for disagreement without becoming enemies, right?
I would hope we can both agree on rights requiring responsibility. If you want the right, then you need to act responsibly. Agree?
Ian wrote: "If there were nobody shooting there would be no need to shoot back. In most places in the world malls are fairly safe places."Safe places" IMHO is just another term for "soft targets." These shooters don't go to cop bars or police stations or hunting clubs, they go to schools, malls, churches, places where they think there won't be anyone to shoot back.
Barbara wrote: "These shooters don't go to cop bars or police stations or hunting clubs, they go to schools, malls, churches, places where they think there won't be anyone to shoot back."That's a good point Barbara. I've no doubt they're looking for easy targets. Question is, though, what to do about it? Is the answer arming every citizen of age? Do Americans need to carry weapons in order to feel safe going outside? I hope that isn't the case because that seems such a sad way to live :(
Barbara, malls here are fairly safe places. Anyone taking a rifle in would be seen entering with it because it is hard to conceal a rifle and there is usually cctv around them. In NZ there are very few handguns because they are basically illegal to the general public- their only purpose is to shoot people.To the best of my knowledge there has been no shooting in an NZ mall, which, to my mind, makes them fairly safe. There is no way to stop the odd determined fanatic. If we take our Christchurch shooting, you would never expect people going to a mosque to be armed, so yes, there are soft targets for the fanatic, but the point then is, how many such fanatics are there? Most of the US shootings seem to me to be from merely disgruntled idiots that have too easy an access to firearms.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
A Republic, If You Can Keep It (other topics)The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956 (other topics)
The Diary of Anne Frank (other topics)
Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung: Mao’s Little Red Book Original Version (other topics)
Perhaps you mean more people are being killed in one event.
Again this is misleading because there are thousands of gang related killings or black on black random killings across America every day so if it's a numbers game the massed shootings merely represent the number of people killed in any one spot.
I think it has little to do with the weapons, that's just as misleading. Where criminals don't have guns they use knives.
I think that the massed shootings are highlighted by the media to enable the government to do away with the second amendment.
Then the rich elites and the corporations will rule America without fear of a citizen uprising and consequently they will rule world.
Any attempt to remove the second amendment is simply a power grab by the rich elites.