World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Why are US mass shootings getting more deadly?
My view of the US second amendment is it was written by a group of people with strong memories of the revolution and who did not wish to see their work evaporate. But the social environment now is totally different. Stability does not depend on a militia. You have the strongest military in the world by far, and probably more police forces than anywhere. The police are supposed to serve the population but the population rewards them by providing all and sundry with the means to kill them, so instead of having a difficult job to do, many of them are probably terrified half the time, and respond far too aggressively.Carlin was right about rights. They are just what a group of men thought were desirable a way back then. Some are less desirable now.
Ian wrote: "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..."And yet...
New Zealand PM Ardern says supermarket stabbing was 'terrorist attack'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-5...
Safety is a lulling illusion. Holding the line against chaos requires constant vigilance. Forgetting that leads to sorrow.
Eldon wrote: "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 owners..."
Polite behavior should always be the norm. Unfortunately, if they take away my rights and property, they won't do it politely.
While I personally adhere to the rules of gun safety. I have seen many an argument about "responsibility" being used to strip people of their rights. Therefore, I am loathe to agree to a general, undefined statement.
J. wrote: "While I personally adhere to the rules of gun safety. I have seen many an argument about "responsibility" being used to strip people of their rights. Therefore, I am loathe to agree to a general, undefined statement."I wasn't aware the concept of responsibility was undefined. I would hope most everyone could identify the difference between responsible and irresponsible behaviour, or we're in greater trouble than previously thought.
But setting that aside for a minute, I'd like to ask. If more guns and armed citizens are the answer to increased gun violence, then why does America have so many mass shootings? If more guns represent increased safety then wouldn't the country with the most guns (by far) also be the safest? And yet... here we are.
I didn't say that more guns was the best solution. I am saying that grabbing guns will breed resentment in millions of amed Americans. Where might that lead?How do you deal with young losers who hate the world so much that they're willing to murder children to spite us all?
Every new problem arises from its antecedent. So...
How do you fix a society that shuttered hundreds of mental health hospitals and dumped their patients onto the streets rather than paying to reform said hospitals? How do you mend families riven by one generation's self obsession? How do you fix a culture that celebrates successful criminals and denigrates true heroes? How do you oust politicians who keep millions of inner city youths in relative poverty, so that they can milk those communities for votes? How do you help people to understand that their lives are the result of their choices; that through good choices and perseverance they may make something great of themselves?
J. wrote: "How do you deal with young losers who hate the world so much that they're willing to murder children to spite us all?..."You raise some valid questions, J. I'm the solution to them is beyond my expertise in the area. These are deep rooted and complex societal issues that need addressing.
What I do know, though, are two things. The answer to none of these problems is guns in the hands of more people. Violence will not solve anything. And second, it's incredibly sad to see so many Americans place their right to gun ownership above the lives of innocent children. If giving up a gun could save even one life, I would not hesitate to do so.
Eldon wrote: "What I do know, though, are two things. The answer to none of these problems is guns in the hands of more people. Violence will not solve anything. And second, it's incredibly sad to see so many Americans place their right to gun ownership above the lives of innocent children. If giving up a gun could save even one life, I would not hesitate to do so."1.) Whenever someone starts pushing for gun control, people rush out to buy guns before any laws are passed. Therefore, pushing for gun control puts more guns on the streets; often in the hands of dilettantes and idiots.
2.) Saying, "Violence will not solve anything.", rings a bit hollow when you are advocating for the government to threaten and use violence against law abiding gun owners.
3.) "Won't somebody think about the children?" I do. I want them to grow up in intact and loving homes. I want them to have an education available to them which could help them achieve more than we will. And I want them to inherit a world full of opportunities. None of those hopes are served by stripping them of their rights. (I note, with dark humor, how differently many of the anti-gun crowd react to being asked, "What about the children?", while standing outside of an abortion clinic.)
4.) Do you have a firearm to surrender for your utopia?
J., whether Eldon has a firearm is not relevant. Also, it is a bit unfair to say he is advocating "to threaten and use violence against law abiding gun owners." Why would the government be threatening people obeying the law? If the government changes the law, then the previous people either comply or they are no longer law-abiding.However, there is the point that neither Eldon nor I actually live in the US so in the end it is none of our business. As long as the blight is not exported. Americans have to decide for themselves how they want to live and if they want to have shootouts in malls, that is their business, not ours.
Eldon wrote: "I'd like to ask. If more guns and armed citizens are the answer to increased gun violence, then why does America have so many mass shootings? ..."I have already covered this topic. It is how you identify mas shootings. All it is counted as shooting of three or more people not counting the shooter. That includes gang and drug shootings and family killings. What gets lost in translation is what normally would be counted is a wild-man running loose and shooting up the mall. Both mall and school shootings are incredibly rare events. That is why they are so shocking every time.
If you going to die by gun, you are more likely to die by your own hand than another person.
You say we are violent, fair enough, and yet with all of the guns available less than 1% are used in any crime and not just homicide. That is the FBI reporting.
What I find amazing is how your prime Minister says you do not have the right to use a gun to defend your life. If our President tried that boner, he would be laughed out of room.
Eldon wrote: "If giving up a gun could save even one life, I would not hesitate to do so. ..."Traditionally a child is more likely to die in a car accident than by firearm. Should we give up cars?
Ian wrote: "J., whether Eldon has a firearm is not relevant. Also, it is a bit unfair to say he is advocating "to threaten and use violence against law abiding gun owners." Why would the government be threaten..."Eldon specifically posted, "If giving up a gun could save even one life, I would not hesitate to do so." If he doesn't have a gun to surrender, then he is surrendering the property of others. Claiming a moral position is far easier than living it.
If your government can make you a criminal so easily, then you have no rights, you own nothing, and the only joys you will ever know are the ones which your government allows you. In short, you are the property of the state. Is that something which you would wish for yourself, your family, and your neighbors? Or should governments be the ones who serve the people?
So many urbane, educated Westerners deride my nation as backwards, racist, and prone to fascism. But many of those same people immigrate here. And for all of our institutional racism, so many people of color want to immigrate here. Why is that?
Ian wrote: "J., whether Eldon has a firearm is not relevant. Also, it is a bit unfair to say he is advocating "to threaten and use violence against law abiding gun owners." Why would the government be threaten..."Actually it is relevant to this topic right now. Eldon has noted he would give up his firearm if it would save the life of one child. Ok, first does he have a firearm? If not, then it is hot air to try and make some moral statement. In other words, make himself feel better and try to be morally superior. If he does have a firearm, then it is all hot air because he can give it up and potentially save the life of that proverbial child. Yet he does not, that would make him a hypocrite.
To me it is no better than the guy that says we need to pay more taxes and yet never does when in reality you can voluntarily pay more taxes on a line in our yearly tax form. Do you know what they all say when questioned? Why should I? Nobody else does.
Papaphilly wrote: "Eldon wrote: "If giving up a gun could save even one life, I would not hesitate to do so. ..."Traditionally a child is more likely to die in a car accident than by firearm. Should we give up cars?"
Cars take you from A to B, help you bring home the groceries and help you move stuff. Guns kill. If you had to give up one, I know what I would choose.
And no, I don't have a gun, but I used to have them and gave them up when I decided I was in the wrong place for hunting anything.
J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "J., whether Eldon has a firearm is not relevant. Also, it is a bit unfair to say he is advocating "to threaten and use violence against law abiding gun owners." Why would the government..."The government making you a criminal so easily? What I wrote was "If the government changes the law, then the previous people either comply or they are no longer law-abiding." Governments don't go around making people criminals, or at least not here. However, governments do change the law, and if the majority agree, it happens. Nobody has a "right" to keep doing anything, especially if the "right" is clearly hurting people far more than it is benefiting people.
In NZ and in Australia, after obvious gun violence, governments banned semiautomatic military-style rifles and here, anything over ten rounds. It did not make criminals out of anybody unless they refused to hand in weapons during a buy-back. I would never claim there won't be another mass shooting, but it does reduce the prospect of a large number of deaths.
When the gun culture is constitutionally protected and rooted, banning them would definitely look and be deemed as stripping of rights. By the way, does “arms” include nukes, fighter jets, tank squads? If no - why not? Can Elon Musk have a private army by arming all his employees with top notch weaponry?Just my opinion - no problem with citizens having guns. Tighter screening is needed to prevent them getting into psychos’ hands and maybe ex-cons with record of violence for a certain period. If for driving license, we need an ophthalmologist clearing, maybe a psychiatrist- for guns? Not sure, why automatic - yes, while ballistic - no? Just random thinking out loud, agreeing that it’s totally an American issue to solve or leave it as it is
J. wrote: " Saying, "Violence will not solve anything.", rings a bit hollow when you are advocating for the government to threaten and use violence against law abiding gun owners...."Please show me where I advocated for this? How exactly do you equate a government enacting changes to the law with threatening violence? Perhaps the real issue here is an institutional mistrust of authority?
Ian wrote: "J., whether Eldon has a firearm is not relevant. Also, it is a bit unfair to say he is advocating "to threaten and use violence against law abiding gun owners." Why would the government be threaten..."Well said, Ian.
Papaphilly wrote: "What I find amazing is how your prime Minister says you do not have the right to use a gun to defend your life. ..."What I find amazing is that you're okay with needing to defend your life. Why should it be threatened in the first place?
Papaphilly wrote: Traditionally a child is more likely to die in a car accident than by firearm. Should we give up cars?Please don't muddy the waters. A car has the potential to kill, yes, but as Ian pointed out that's not the purpose of the vehicle. A gun has only one purpose. And I know, target practice doesn't kill anyone, but at this point let's be honest with each other. You won't convince me of your argument, and I won't convince you of mine. Let us agree to disagree and move on with our lives.
Eldon wrote: "Please show me where I advocated for this? How exactly do you equate a government enacting changes to the law with threatening violence? Perhaps the real issue here is an institutional mistrust of authority?"Every law is backed with violence. If you don't believe that, then refuse to pay a fine and see what happens when the cops show up at your door.
Mistrust is the only sane position on authority.
J. wrote: "Every law is backed with violence. If you don't believe that, then refuse to pay a fine and see what happens when the cops show up at your door.Mistrust of authority is the only sane position on authority."
Agree to disagree. I wish you well :)
Eldon wrote: "What I find amazing is that you're okay with needing to defend your life. Why should it be threatened in the first place?"In the history of human civilization, this brief period of liberal Western democracies is the aberration. The overwhelming majority of mankind lived their brief, laborious lives under the heels of despots of all description or else they constantly fended off marauders (and sometimes both). Don't doubt that these golden days may turn out not to be a spring but instead the last glorious days of autumn before a bitter winter.
As for personal defense against criminals: The good guys have to win every battle just to survive. The bad guys only need one bad day to win.
Eldon wrote: "Agree to disagree. I wish you well :)"Go with God. Perhaps you would enjoy some of the other threads. The Fringe Science, Exotic Weapons, and Killing Time :) threads have all had some fun, light hearted exchanges.
Ian wrote: "Cars take you from A to B, help you bring home the groceries and help you move stuff. Guns kill. If you had to give up one, I know what I would choose...."Fair enough. Yet, think about this way, both are nothing more than tools that may cause harm. It is the intent behind the tool and not the tool that causes harm. I do not expect any non-American to understand our love affair with guns. It is in our bones with us.
Ian wrote: "In NZ and in Australia, after obvious gun violence, governments banned semiautomatic military-style rifles and here, anything over ten rounds. It did not make criminals out of anybody unless they refused to hand in weapons during a buy-back. I would never claim there won't be another mass shooting, but it does reduce the prospect of a large number of deaths...."Unless they refused to hand over their firearms..... Interesting choice of words. I do not propose to tell you about Ozzie or Kiwi law. I assume you do not have the right to guns laid out in your Constitution. You also do not have the American system of government either. That is the difference. You have honorably noted that it is our choice how we move forward as a nation and I appreciate that very much. In the end, this is not about who is right as much as how we choose as a nation.
Now, you have noted you no longer own firearms. That is your right. I believe it is really obvious I am extremely pro 2nd Amendment. The dirty secret is that I own no firearms. I choose not to own firearms at the request of my wife. I choose to express my right to firearms by NOT owning and STILL back the RIGHT to them for those that wish to own firearms. I reserve the right to own firearms at some point in the future as is my RIGHT.
Nik wrote: "When the gun culture is constitutionally protected and rooted, banning them would definitely look and be deemed as stripping of rights. By the way, does “arms” include nukes, fighter jets, tank squ..."You ask really great questions and we as a nation have debated them. As in ALL RIGHTS, nothing is 100%. The Supreme Court has ALWAYS noted there can be gun control. The problem where is the edges of the limit. New York State keep ending up at the Supreme Court because they cannot learn their lesson and keep going past the proverbial line in Unconstitutionality. They are going to do it again and have said as much.
Eldon wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "What I find amazing is how your prime Minister says you do not have the right to use a gun to defend your life. ..."What I find amazing is that you're okay with needing to defe..."
Wrong question. Why do we have police? Because we have bad guys. If your life is threatened, why do you not need to defend your life? Bad guys do bad guys things and killing is one of them.
Eldon wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: Traditionally a child is more likely to die in a car accident than by firearm. Should we give up cars?Please don't muddy the waters. A car has the potential to kill, yes, but as..."
It is not about agreeing to disagree. This is not about who is right. part of the problem is that those that would not allow upstanding civilians to have guns use the dangers of weapons in the home as a talking point to control guns. The problem is they never want to talk about how rare it really is on gun deaths and how they are caused. They give you all the statistics without context to prove their point and when it its challenged, they want to change the subject because they cannot win on the merits.
Agree to disagree, that is fine. However, you do not have the right to tell others they cannot own guns because you do not want your own.
It is not muddying the waters, but clarifying them because you can present the picture accurately.
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "In NZ and in Australia, after obvious gun violence, governments banned semiautomatic military-style rifles and here, anything over ten rounds. It did not make criminals out of anybody u..."You wrote: "I assume you do not have the right to guns laid out in your Constitution." Correct, because we do not have a written constitution. We seem to have an unwritten agreement on what the constitution should be like, and we have elections, procedures, etc that follow as if there were a constitution, there is separation of state and church, the judiciary is independent, etc. Overall we get along fine.
There no right to own a gun, but with a licence you can get one, and there are a reasonably large number of them in the country. As I said I gave up owning one because I decided I was not going to use it often enough to be worth the trouble, but that was my choice. I have no objection to others owning them provided they have proper knowledge of what they do and know how to use them. It really annoys me when I hear of some idiot who shot himself by dragging a loaded gun through a wire fence by the barrel.
I also believe you are entitled to your view whether or not you own a gun. However, if you did, I would hope you would take the time to accept a few obvious aspects of how to use it and how NOT to use it.
Ian wrote: "It really annoys me when I hear of some idiot who shot himself by dragging a loaded gun through a wire fence by the barrel...."You cannot fix stupid. That to me is a Darwin Award nominee and depending on how it ended, maybe a winner.
Did not know that you did not have a Constitution. That makes your country an outlier. I know of two others that do not have formal Constitutions and they are Great Britain and Israel. I think there are a few others, but not many. But then we are an outlier when it comes to guns. There are only three countries with a right to guns expressly written into law in Constitutions.
As we have both noted and agreed upon, to each his own.
The real fun of any bill to "save the children" is all of the amendments that get added. After all, who is going to vote against the children. This video does a fair job of explaining just one of the additions to the recent "common sense" gun control law. https://youtu.be/UZAZpeGjUvs
Congratulations, y'all have been had🎉
An interesting link, which shows the benefit of our Dept of Health acting as a single buyer and putting out tenders for drugs. If nothing else, there is no bribery.
Sausage making at its best and both sides are guilty of it.
Papaphilly wrote: "Sausage making at its best and both sides are guilty of it."Except neither side of the American people wanted this sausage.
J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Sausage making at its best and both sides are guilty of it."Except neither side of the American people wanted this sausage."
Nope
Ian wrote: "An interesting link, which shows the benefit of our Dept of Health acting as a single buyer and putting out tenders for drugs. If nothing else, there is no bribery."You think that puting politicians in charge would prevent corruption?
https://youtu.be/V1L5PN9uUQE
J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "An interesting link, which shows the benefit of our Dept of Health acting as a single buyer and putting out tenders for drugs. If nothing else, there is no bribery."You think that put..."
Here those in charge are a board of civil servants. Politicians have absolutely no say in the decisions. Corruption is more difficult because you have to corrupt everyone at the same time, and Junior can rise quickly by providing evidence of attempts. Allegations are automatically overseen by the Serious Fraud Office. Not saying corruption is impossible, but it would be a lot more difficult than the scheme outlined in the previous link you showed.
Ian wrote: "My view of the US second amendment is it was written by a group of people with strong memories of the revolution and who did not wish to see their work evaporate. I take a different view. The second amendment reads: "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." Now a militia is a citizen army as opposed to a professional military, and the term "well regulated" meant "well trained" not "subject to government regulations." The founders had memories of an all powerful government and the purpose of a well regulated militia was to give the citizen's the power to resist an authoritarian government takeover. Through history and in the world today, one of the first things a dictator does when he takes power is to disarm the citizens.
And as a right stipulated in the Constitution is is just that - a right. Too many politicians see it as a privilege for them to dispense, like issuing a driver's license. Maybe I would rather the bad characters couldn't get their hands on guns, but since they can, and since nothing has prevented it, I don't want the ability of law abiding citizens to be curtailed.
Barbara, you wrote: "Now a militia is a citizen army as opposed to a professional military, and the term "well regulated" meant "well trained" not "subject to government regulations." The founders had memories of an all powerful government and the purpose of a well regulated militia was to give the citizen's the power to resist an authoritarian government takeover. "I regard that as more or less what I was trying to say. Where we differ is that today's gun owners are generally not in militias, and the troublesome ones in general are not well trained.
The founding fathers probably saw membership of such a militia as more of an obligation than a right. Either way, conditions now are very much different from then. Then, you had a right to own slaves, women could be treated almost like property. The "rights" then have changed considerably, so why is gun ownership seemingly embedded in stone? Probably, as some here have noted, because guns are embedded in the American psyche. The question of the licence should not be an insurmountable obstacle - everyone who drives a car has one and Americans, by and large, drive cars. However your point that there are so many guns out there that the bad guys will always be able to get them is valid and unquestionable. My only comment to that is that fi the good guys are going to use them for defence they should make sure they know how to use them
Read the Bill of Rights and you see phrases like "Congress shall make no law..." and "...shall not be infringed." This is because these aren't rights granted by government; they are innate rights held against government. How can a government license a right which is held against said government?
Wonder what would be deemed endangering “the security of the free state”, which the arms are meant to guarantee. A more interesting aspect
Yet where did the Bill of Rights come from? Effectively, government of the time because there was no sovereign power greater than government of the country. Very specifically, as I understand it they were proposed by the first Congress and ratified by the States around 1791.Also, "Congress shall make no law..." Try continuing it. "....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."
Not exactly relevant to whether there could be gun control
Ian wrote: "Not exactly relevant to whether there could be gun control..."Once again, the Supreme Court has ALWAYS held that there could be reasonable gun control. What cities and certain states ALWAYS do is go too far with gun control....
Too far? There will never be agreement on what is reasonable.
Ian writes: "Then, you had a right to own slaves, women could be treated almost like property."There is a difference. The second amendment is a Constitutional right. The Constitution did not permit slavery, just as it didn't permit the old laws of coverture - it simply didn't address them and left them up to the states to address or not. There were "free states" before national emancipation, just as there were areas where women's rights were more flexible before the 19th amendment was passed - in both cases, slavery and women's rights (rights of full citizenship), when the Constitution did address them, it was to grant a right (of full citizenship,) not to take a right away.
There is no point in arguing the status of constitutional issues. Regarding guns, though, I will suggest this. Do you want a gun to defend yourself should someone enter your house?If that is the purpose, are you prepared to make a kill shot without hesitation and sleep well later? If not, the gun may well make things worse. If the intruder is armed and becomes wounded he will shoot you because that's his only way out if he can move, and if he is dying he will simply want to take you with him. If he sees you point a gun at him, his only option is to shoot. If he is unarmed, he will either run or try to disarm you. Are you happy shooting an unarmed man? Are you sure he is an intruder? If you don't identify him, it may be your ex who has come back to retrieve something, a plumber your other one hired and forgot to tell you, your other one after a midnight snack. My point is that for most people a gun may create as many problems as it allegedly solves.
Ian wrote: "Too far? There will never be agreement on what is reasonable."Now you understand the problem.
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)
That's the view from Canada too, Ian