Mass violence & gun control

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, Godless said:

We aren't talking about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Godless, I want you to know that I respect you, I'm glad you're on this board, and I usually find something worth thinking about when I read your posts.  I consider you one of the valued voices I seek out, because I never want to live in an echo chamber.  So please take that into account, when I that statement is literally the stupidest thing I've seen all week.

Consider the definition of law-abiding: Someone who obeys the laws.
Consider the definition of law-breaker: Someone who does not obey the laws. 

Let's look at your suggestions:   "the meat of the gun control debate is centered on more thorough background checks and making sure ALL loopholes are closed"  and "I also want individuals with a history of domestic violence to NEVER own a firearm."

You mean to do this through legislation, right?  Ban private sales, make it illegal to transfer firearms without a background check, right?  Ok, when I summon the weapon of the dictionary, and the power of reality imbued therein, what do I see?

Law-abiding people, by definition, will follow the law, subject themselves to these background checks, and if they fail, the background check will keep that law-abiding person from getting a gun.  (because they are being punished for past lawbreaking, or they have indications of violent tendencies or something.)
Law-breaking people, also by definition, will break the law, get the gun illegally.
End result: One law-abiding person disarmed, one lawbreaker armed. 

Do you see the basic, foundational flaw in your statement there? 

You make a common mistake - you believe that making something illegal means it will stop happening.  Maybe spend a little time thinking about this.  

 

Anyway, I know I usually don't reply to your posts, and I want you to know it's usually because I find myself either in agreement, or unable to really argue with what I see.  Glad you're here!

Edited November 8, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[JoCa]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

War.

Probably.  The first thing they would do is to tell everyone they have a grace period (say 3 months) to turn in all their guns and if they don't then they will be fined/jailed/etc.  Since most of the guns are registered, it'd be pretty easy to find people who didn't turn in their guns and then fine/arrest/jail/etc.

Americas would do well to remember what happened in the 40s.  Americas were told to turn in their gold, then immediately afterwards gold ownership was banned and the money devalued 30+%.  Just insane to think that for 30+ years owning a blooming piece of inert metal was outlawed!

As for right now, the government could not take away guns . . .too many people would pushback.  But these things always occur over time; get the people acclimated to "guns are evil, why would anyone want to have them" and finally when enough people have that mentality, boom, remove guns.  Sure there might be several thousand people who revolt but if say 70% of the populance thinks "guns are evil", the 30% are going to be outnumber b/c the 70% has the military on their side . . . 

[zil]

50 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe a full citizen should be defined and following are some elements (not all but some) that I believe should define a full citizen with a right to bear arms:

First: Someone that pays taxes.

Second: Someone that has or is currently serving honorably in the military.

Third: Someone that has not been convicted of a felony.

Forth: Someone that has voluntarily aligned themselves (pledge of allegiance) as a citizen of this and only this country.

Right, women in the military for Traveler, or no guns for women.

And let's let those same organizations who have shown that they're increasingly training to shoot at each other rather than the enemy (your own point, Traveler) be the ones to train us all how to use firearms.

People in wheelchairs, but with full use of their upper body and mind, are either serving in the military in some capacity, or get to go unarmed - who would attack them anyway?

People who can't serve in the military for some health reason that makes them unsuitable for active combat, but who still have sufficient bodily control to be able to use a firearm, can't, cuz, well, they're not fit enough for military service.  Or do we lower the military standards and give these folks desk jobs?  Or do we just write them off as good fodder to throw defenseless to the criminals, cuz, afterall, they're not worth as much as the more fit people, and it's all about defending ourselves from government tyranny, so no one actually has a right to defend themselves from criminals, just tyrannical government.

Personally, I'd rather live in a place where every person, including the criminals, is armed than in a place where only a very small number of people can legally be armed.

PS: I'm the only person who's always everywhere I am.  I'm the only person who can always choose to defend me.  If I fail, it's only my fault, no one else's.  I like it that way.  I don't like it when people tell me I shouldn't have the right or means to defend myself.

Edited November 8, 2017 by zil

[Traveler]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you do not believe that the First Amendment Rights are Inalienable and can only be guaranteed as unabridged by the Second Amendment, also inalienable?  Or do you believe that only Active Military Servicemen's inalienable rights are protected by the Constitution?

 

 

 

I think many things are worthy for discussion.  I do believe that some rights are inalienable.  Life for example is an inalienable right – but I do not believe all constitutional rights are inalienable.   We have treaties concerning those officials from other countries and we cannot hold other countries accountable to our constitutional – only to our treaties.  I do not believe the right to bear arms is inalienable.  For example – I believe a 5-year-old has the inalienable right to life but I do not believe they have the right to bear arms.  As far as the first amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly – I am not sure that a 5-year-old should be free to exercise that right the same as an adult.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I think many things are worthy for discussion.  I do believe that some rights are inalienable.  Life for example is an inalienable right – but I do not believe all constitutional rights are inalienable.   We have treaties concerning those officials from other countries and we cannot hold other countries accountable to our constitutional – only to our treaties.  I do not believe the right to bear arms is inalienable.  For example – I believe a 5-year-old has the inalienable right to life but I do not believe they have the right to bear arms.  As far as the first amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly – I am not sure that a 5-year-old should be free to exercise that right the same as an adult.

 

The Traveler

@Traveler, I get what you are saying. At first, it seems like there are too many guns in America and of course the government should restrict ownership in some way. 

But you need to think about it. Is cocaine illegal? Of course it is. So is cocaine hard to get? The blunt, uncomfortable truth is that if you give anyone a few days and one lead-they can get you cocaine very easily. Heroin is also illegal. Sadly, I can probably get you heroin much quicker than I get you cocaine. And lets talk about weed. Heck, if I walk into the local high school I can get you some good stuff within five minutes. Government banning things does not work. Oh, the anti gunners can say "But it works in England! But it works in Australia!" First off, it doesn't-people still get shot in those countries. But even if it did work ,the culture is totally different. There are more  guns in America than there are citizens. I own five. Two long guns, three short guns. I assure you that in rural Florida (Where I gloriously live) this is probably conservative. Many people own more. So gun ownership is in our culture, it's part of who Americans are. Even people who aren't political own firearms. 

Don't get me wrong. I think gun control is an abomination but I'm not foolish. We own guns not to defend ourselves against the government (Your 12 gauge won't do anything against an M2A2 Bradley) but to defend ourselves against bad guys. I pray to God I never have to use my firearms. I don't hunt. I haven't gone skeet shooting in years. But I'd rather have it and not need it instead of need it and not have it. 

Finally, banning guns is illegal. Even if you could ban the second amendment, you'd also have to ban the fourth. If a police officer knocks on my door without a warrant it's sort of hard for them to enter into your house and search the place. That's not "anti-police officer" and no, I'm not a lawyer, but the government can't just pester you without good cause. 

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Right, women in the military for Traveler, or no guns for women.

And let's let those same organizations who have shown that they're increasingly training to shoot at each other rather than the enemy (your own point, Traveler) be the ones to train us all how to use firearms.

People in wheelchairs, but with full use of their upper body and mind, are either serving in the military in some capacity, or get to go unarmed - who would attack them anyway?

People who can't serve in the military for some health reason that makes them unsuitable for active combat, but who still have sufficient bodily control to be able to use a firearm, can't, cuz, well, they're not fit enough for military service.  Or do we lower the military standards and give these folks desk jobs?  Or do we just write them off as good fodder to throw defenseless to the criminals, cuz, afterall, they're not worth as much as the more fit people, and it's all about defending ourselves from government tyranny, so no one actually has a right to defend themselves from criminals, just tyrannical government.

Personally, I'd rather live in a place where every person, including the criminals, is armed than in a place where only a very small number of people can legally be armed.

PS: I'm the only person who's always everywhere I am.  I'm the only person who can always choose to defend me.  If I fail, it's only my fault, no one else's.  I like it that way.  I don't like it when people tell me I shouldn't have the right or means to defend myself.

 

I am having trouble with your logic – that someone that is not suitable for combat is suitable in using a gun for combative circumstances of self-defense???  Do you not see the irony in your argument?  BTW most individuals that serve in the military do not serve in combat roles

I have served in the military and have been trained for combat.  I could provide many cases or examples of defensive use of a firearm that I would not suggest you try -  What history has demonstrated is that even with training – in armed conflicts – most deaths are caused by friendly fire – despite what you see in most movies and TV shows. 

If you are defending yourself against a lone gunman – you are likely to do okay – but if there are more than one gunman, you are more likely to kill someone you are trying to protect than you are your opponent – and that likely hood to kill a friend goes up exponentially as your opposition increases.

One thing I have learned about using a gun for self-defense – you must already have determined in advance that you will kill somebody and are just waiting for your opportunity.  If you do not have that mindset – you are better off not to think about using a gun for self-defense but decide to defend yourself by some other means. 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

@Traveler, I get what you are saying. At first, it seems like there are too many guns in America and of course the government should restrict ownership in some way. 

But you need to think about it. Is cocaine illegal? Of course it is. So is cocaine hard to get? The blunt, uncomfortable truth is that if you give anyone a few days and one lead-they can get you cocaine very easily. Heroin is also illegal. Sadly, I can probably get you heroin much quicker than I get you cocaine. And lets talk about weed. Heck, if I walk into the local high school I can get you some good stuff within five minutes. Government banning things does not work. Oh, the anti gunners can say "But it works in England! But it works in Australia!" First off, it doesn't-people still get shot in those countries. But even if it did work ,the culture is totally different. There are more  guns in America than there are citizens. I own five. Two long guns, three short guns. I assure you that in rural Florida (Where I gloriously live) this is probably conservative. Many people own more. So gun ownership is in our culture, it's part of who Americans are. Even people who aren't political own firearms. 

Don't get me wrong. I think gun control is an abomination but I'm not foolish. We own guns not to defend ourselves against the government (Your 12 gauge won't do anything against an M2A2 Bradley) but to defend ourselves against bad guys. I pray to God I never have to use my firearms. I don't hunt. I haven't gone skeet shooting in years. But I'd rather have it and not need it instead of need it and not have it. 

Finally, banning guns is illegal. Even if you could ban the second amendment, you'd also have to ban the fourth. If a police officer knocks on my door without a warrant it's sort of hard for them to enter into your house and search the place. That's not "anti-police officer" and no, I'm not a lawyer, but the government can't just pester you without good cause. 

I believe the use of a firearm should be well defined within the law - I believe that illegal use of firearms should be a capital offense.  --- My defination of a gun law.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe the use of a firearm should be well defined within the law - I believe that illegal use of firearms should be a capital offense.  --- My defination of a gun law.

 

The Traveler

So you are in favor of guns, just not the regular citizen using them. You have no problem with the police/government using them. That's fair. I totally disagree, but at least we see where we disagree. 

Final warning for you- a government willing to kill gun users just for using them can also kill you for relatively no reason. To be logically consistent, you'd have to smile as they execute you. Or at least accept it, maybe not smile. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by MormonGator

[zil]

Just now, Traveler said:

Do you not see the irony in your argument?

No.  I reject your assertion that self defense and combat are identical situations, particularly the implied assertion that all of the former are identical to all of the latter.  I reject your assertion that all of the physical requirements for participants in one are identical to all the physical requirements for participants in the other.  Reality has proven that people who would not be accepted into military service (like little old ladies) have successfully used guns to defend themselves from attack.  I don't care how much of a friendly-fire problem the military has.  I don't care how many idiots shoot themselves or their friends because they didn't bother to train.  The existence of careless idiots is not a good reason to deny other people's rights - if it were, none of us would have any rights.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

I think many things are worthy for discussion.  I do believe that some rights are inalienable.  Life for example is an inalienable right – but I do not believe all constitutional rights are inalienable.   We have treaties concerning those officials from other countries and we cannot hold other countries accountable to our constitutional – only to our treaties.  I do not believe the right to bear arms is inalienable.  For example – I believe a 5-year-old has the inalienable right to life but I do not believe they have the right to bear arms.  As far as the first amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly – I am not sure that a 5-year-old should be free to exercise that right the same as an adult.

 

The Traveler

I'm talking about the rights enumerated in the First Amendment and not "made up rights" that some government entity made up for you.  The rights enumerated in the First Amendment are inalienable.  Full stop.  If you don't believe that, then we're not gonna agree on much.

This is a very simple discussion.  Do you believe that the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are inalienable?   Let's start with that question.

Edited November 8, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

  Reality has proven that people who would not be accepted into military service (like little old ladies) 

Good point @zil. It's that line of reasoning that makes me shocked beyond words that they let @mirkwood on a police force. 
(just playing! I have huge respect for @mirkwood both as a man and for his profession) 

Edited November 8, 2017 by MormonGator

[NeuroTypical]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe only those with full citizenship should have the right to bear arms.   I believe a full citizen should be defined and following are some elements (not all but some) that I believe should define a full citizen with a right to bear arms:

First: Someone that pays taxes.
Second: Someone that has or is currently serving honorably in the military.
Third: Someone that has not been convicted of a felony.
Forth: Someone that has voluntarily aligned themselves (pledge of allegiance) as a citizen of this and only this country.

 

Traveler's criteria I think is pretty close to how Israel does it.  (And also Starship Troopers, which I'm told is a very popular book in Israeli military circles.)

In this hypothetical Traveler's society, we have a bifurcated class system - citizens, and something that isn't a citizen but can still probably live in the country anyway and have a lesser-set of the advantages and rights bestowed upon a full citizen. 

I'm not sure what "some but not all" of these four suggest, but would it suggest the strong would protect the weak, and the weak would, by governmental decree, be unable to lawfully arm themselves for self-protection?

I guess if you're gonna suggest we redefine society, you might as well go big. 

[zil]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm not sure what "some but not all" of these four suggest, but would it suggest the strong would protect the weak, and the weak would, by governmental decree, be unable to lawfully arm themselves for self-protection?

I guess if you're gonna suggest we redefine society, you might as well go big. 

Shoot me now, please!  (I recommend "now" be a time when I don't happen to be armed.)

In other words: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, zil said:

No.  I reject your assertion that self defense and combat are identical situations, particularly the implied assertion that all of the former are identical to all of the latter.  I reject your assertion that all of the physical requirements for participants in one are identical to all the physical requirements for participants in the other.  Reality has proven that people who would not be accepted into military service (like little old ladies) have successfully used guns to defend themselves from attack.  I don't care how much of a friendly-fire problem the military has.  I don't care how many idiots shoot themselves or their friends because they didn't bother to train.  The existence of careless idiots is not a good reason to deny other people's rights - if it were, none of us would have any rights.

Saying "please do not hurt me" is an act of self defense.  Fireing a gun is an act of combat.  Combat being one type of form of selfdefense. 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Traveler's criteria I think is pretty close to how Israel does it.  (And also Starship Troopers, which I'm told is a very popular book in Israeli military circles.)

In this hypothetical Traveler's society, we have a bifurcated class system - citizens, and something that isn't a citizen but can still probably live in the country anyway and have a lesser-set of the advantages and rights bestowed upon a full citizen. 

I'm not sure what "some but not all" of these four suggest, but would it suggest the strong would protect the weak, and the weak would, by governmental decree, be unable to lawfully arm themselves for self-protection?

I guess if you're gonna suggest we redefine society, you might as well go big. 

Thanks for your understanding.  We already have classes of citizens - small children are not allowed to purchase or carry guns.

 

the Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Saying "please do not hurt me" is an act of self defense.  Fireing a gun is an act of combat.  Combat being one type of form of selfdefense. 

The Traveler

If someone breaks into your house and wants to attack your family, do you think telling him "Please do not hurt me!" or saying "You leave now or I'm telling!" will do anything? 

And no matter how tough you think you are in physical combat, if the other guy has a .38 you will lose 99.9% of the time 

[Traveler]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm talking about the rights enumerated in the First Amendment and not "made up rights" that some government entity made up for you.  The rights enumerated in the First Amendment are inalienable.  Full stop.  If you don't believe that, then we're not gonna agree on much.

This is a very simple discussion.  Do you believe that the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are inalienable?   Let's start with that question.

As a parent I have often told my small (young) children to quit talking - I did not believe that they had to right to say whatever they wanted whenever they wanted.  Have you ever told your children to be qiet? 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If someone breaks into your house and wants to attack your family, do you think telling him "Please do not hurt me!" or saying "You leave now or I'm telling!" will do anything? 

And no matter how tough you think you are in physical combat, if the other guy has a .38 you will lose 99.9% of the time 

It might - who knows for sure.  Let me ask a question.  Someone(s) has broken into your house - you know for sure that they are someone that intends to do you and your family harm - you know this for sure - lets say you even know they have a .38 - you also have a gun.  What do you do?  How do you protect your family without getting yourself or someone you love killed?

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It might - who knows for sure.  Let me ask a question.  Someone(s) has broken into your house - you know for sure that they are someone that intends to do you and your family harm - you know this for sure - lets say you even know they have a .38 - you also have a gun.  What do you do?  How do you protect your family without getting yourself or someone you love killed?

 

The Traveler

It's very simple. If he has a gun, I know he has a gun, than I'm going to shoot him. My life and the life of my family is more valuable than the life of a stranger brandishing a gun and breaking into my house. If you would let hm enter your home with a gun and kill you or your family while you sit there, watch and play checkers- than God help you. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's very simple. If he has a gun, I know he has a gun, than I'm going to shoot him. My life and the life of my family is more valuable than the life of a stranger brandishing a gun. If you would let hm enter your home with a gun and kill you or your family while you sit there and watch, than God help you. 

So simple?  I asked if someone(s) this means there is likely possibility that there is more than one.  You shoot the one you see and likely the rest will retaliate by killing you and our entire family.

Just thought to add a thought - even as I have understood scripture - you are better off getting G-d's help than on your own using a weapon.  --My opinion.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 8, 2017 by Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Traveler said:

So simple?  I asked if someone(s) this means there is likely possibility that there is more than one.  You shoot the one you see and likely the rest will retaliate by killing you and our entire family.

 

The Traveler

And your option is to cower in fear and hope they leave. I'll take mine. 

What you fail to comprehend is that there are very naughty people out there who won't listen to reason, cuddles and soft kisses. You apparently have no problem with others breaking into your home and doing what they please. That's fine, but we'll never agree. 

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

And your option is to cower in fear and hope they leave. I'll take mine. 

What you fail to comprehend is that there are very naughty people out there who won't listen to reason, cuddles and soft kisses. You apparently have no problem with others breaking into your home and doing what they please. That's fine, but we'll never agree. 

If necessary I would beg and plead – offering myself and my material goods that my family be released without harm.  Once I knew they were safe – I would act –to preserve my own life and so lead by the spirit.  I would trust G-d more than my abilities or weapons.  For sure I would listen to the spirit and trust G-d above all else.  I have been delivered from violent circumstance and I believe (know) it was by the power of G-d – which I personally prefer over any weapon.  Some think David slue Goliath with a stone – I believe it was as David said – With the power of the G-d of Israel.

 

The Traveler

[mirkwood]

40 minutes ago, zil said:

Shoot me now, please!  (I recommend "now" be a time when I don't happen to be armed.)

In other words: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Hey...I'm only a phone call and 30 seconds away! 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If necessary I would beg and plead – offering myself and my material goods that my family be released without harm.  Once I knew they were safe – I would act –to preserve my own life and so lead by the spirit.  I would trust G-d more than my abilities or weapons.  For sure I would listen to the spirit and trust G-d above all else.  I have been delivered from violent circumstance and I believe (know) it was by the power of G-d – which I personally prefer over any weapon.  Some think David slue Goliath with a stone – I believe it was as David said – With the power of the G-d of Israel.

 

The Traveler

 You have every right to beg, plead, attempt to reason, and hug your intruder into submission. You have absolutely no right to force me or your neighbor to do the same. 

[zil]

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

Hey...I'm only a phone call and 30 seconds away! 

If Traveler's world ever becomes a reality, I'll arrange for you to meet me outside the temple - I'm never armed when going to the temple.

Or were you responding to part 2?  If so, yeah, sure, however long it takes to find your number, call it, explain the situation, and hope you're at home.  Thanks, I'll stick to my own defenses and 911 (as soon as it's safe to take the time to call 911).