Mass violence & gun control

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

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.  

The reason I worded my statement the way I did is because far too often I see good law-abiding citizens freak out whenever gun control is brought up. "My cold dead hands" and whatnot. It shouldn't be necessary to specify that taking guns away from lawful gun owners is not on the table, yet here we are. 

I'm aware that there's no fool-proof way to drastically reduce gun violence without an all-out ban. I'm aware that, just like drugs, if someone really wants a gun illegally, they can probably get one without much fuss. It doesn't stop me from wondering how many mass shootings could have been prevented if people like Devin Kelley and Dylann Roof (who also should have been flagged, but wasn't because of a technicality) hadn't been able to purchase their guns legally. We can't stop every shooting. But if we can stop a few, then that's a great start. 

To illustrate what I'm trying to say, look at the abortion debate. Do you really think banning abortion is going to put an end to the practice? No, but it's very likely to reduce the number of abortions perfomed in the US. Pro-lifers advocate for banning abortion because they know that doing so will pump the brakes on the practice of it. Is it so unreasonable to think that some gun violence could be stopped by making it harder for felons to arm themselves? It's interesting to me that the argument against stricter laws is "but criminals don't follow laws". Then why do we have laws in the first place? Why does this argument only pop up when guns are the topic of discussion? 

FWIW, I think @anatess2 is right. The solution doesn't lie so much in legislation as it does in proper enforcement of current laws. Our background check system has some obvious flaws in it, as demonstrated by Roof and Kelley. Let's get those fixed. Let's dedicate more resources to tracking and prosecuting dealers of illegal firearms. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Godless

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Who in his right mind (other than a monarchist) would be opposed to it?

I think that you do not have any idea what it means for the Constitution to be a "living, breathing document".

Hint: It does not mean that we reinterpret the Constitution to fit our present fancies.

@JohnsonJones, it's the same as saying the Scriptures is a "living, breathing document".  It doesn't mean you can just willy nilly interpret it to fit your idea of doctrinal principles.  It simply means you have to divine from the authoritative scriptural interpretation how it applies to modern concepts.

Edited November 8, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Godless said:

To illustrate what I'm trying to say, look at the abortion debate. Do you really think banning abortion is going to put an end to the practice? No, but it's very likely to reduce the number of abortions perfomed in the US. Pro-lifers advocate for banning abortion because they know that doing so will pump the brakes on the practice of it. Is it so unreasonable to think that some gun violence could be stopped by making it harder for felons to arm themselves? It's interesting to me that the argument against stricter laws is "but criminals don't follow laws". Then why do we have laws in the first place? Why does this argument only pop up when guns are the topic of discussion? 

This is actually a very important point.

At its basic argument it seems like Pro-Life and Pro-Gun are... shall I say... hypocritical.  But past the surface, they are compatible as they both address the Value of Life. 

The question is - How does the imposition of abortion control be a good thing but the imposition of gun control be a bad thing (or vice versa for the other side)?

The difference in the two issues is that abortion is seen as a devaluation of life (mother's, baby's, or both) whereas gun ownership is seen as the opposite (or vice versa).  So more abortion control and less gun control are both in the side of Life Valuation for the right and both on the opposite side of Life Valuation for the left.

So when the right says criminals don't follow laws, they are arguing on the side of the gun owner who uses the firearm to preserve life making it difficult for them to do so.  Whereas when the right says, abortion control is needed even as women use back-alley methods, they are arguing on the side of preservation of the life of the fetus.

Edited November 8, 2017 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Who in his right mind (other than a monarchist) would be opposed to it?

I think that you do not have any idea what it means for the Constitution to be a "living, breathing document".

Hint: It does not mean that we reinterpret the Constitution to fit our present fancies.

Well, how many in America want the original intent?  People talk about restricting gun ownership from those who have mental disabilities...or from youth.  That is FAR more restrictive already than what was originally intended, and as such, is already attributable to a living and breathing document.  Why is this, have we as Americans become Monarchists?

No.  WE have become Federalists.  Slight difference, but very similar in idea in regards to weapons and other rights.  It is a cultural change.  Neither of the MAJOR PARTIES (Republican or Democrat) want the original intent of most of the Bill of Rights today.  They work within the modern interpretations of such things as separation between church and state (how many would advocate to having and enforcing state religions on a state scale for example?), or in regards to the right to bear arms (it's now over personal gun ownership, that means we've already gone down the line of not allowing individuals to own military grade stuff in other arenas like having your own personal F-35 that's armed with the latest and greatest military technology and other items of warfare).  Both parties I see as adhering to the ideas of a Living and Breathing document.

However, when we look at the Bill of Rights...was it re-written?  Was it actually changed?  No.  It is our interpretation of it...which I think is more reflective of our CULTURE and how we are today rather than any deep necessity of change within the Bill of Rights or the constitution itself.  Those Judges who view it as a living and breathing document tend to use this in their way of varying the interpretation which has made things that meant one thing to our Fore Fathers, mean something completely different to us today.

Part of this I think is the advancement of technology as well.  We are talking about gun laws in this thread overall, which is almost humorous in light of what the 2nd amendment was originally meant for.  Who really thinks a bunch of civilians 30/30 is going to be anywhere a match for a group of soldiers armed with M-4's, grenades, a heavy gunner/machine gun, and perhaps air support from fighters and/or bombers with maybe an AC-130 Gunship tossed into the mix.  Even if those guns were AK-15s, compared to the military hardware and abilities of just one platoon or even one fully armed Fighter/bomber in the military today, these things aren't even comparable.  Our modern weapons have far more destructive capability than anything back then, and that's changed our perspective on what we even apply these amendments to.  If we went with the original intent, it wouldn't be gun laws we would be discussing, but nuclear weapons or current air delivery for daisy cutters and if there should be some restrictions on them.  Guns are small stuff.

The destructive capabilities are just one thing that's changed the dialogue, our cultural outlook (as I said, we are Federalist today, and FAR stronger in our view of Federalism than the original Federalists were, they probably would be horrified at how far we've taken it), and many other aspects that have changed how we view the Constitution and apply it's rights to us today.

As I said though, while one side understands WHY and HOW this is important, another part of me also thinks the Founding Fathers were correct and the Constitution should adhere more towards the original intent, then what we have been doing with it today.

[zil]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Then why do we have laws in the first place?

So that we can justly punish those who violate them.  So that those who choose to be civilized know what their fellow civilians expect.  Anyone who thinks laws will prevent us from having criminals is not thinking.  Laws define criminals, they don't prevent them.  And no matter how few or how many laws you have, there will always be some criminals and some who obey.  The laws themselves don't cause obedience or criminality, individuals are that all on their own - a murderer is a murderer whether there's a law against it or not.  But unless there's a law, you can't find fault with (aka punish) someone for breaking the law - unless you just want anarchy, and then you can do whatever you want, and so can the murderer.

Edited November 9, 2017 by zil

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As I said though, while one side understands WHY and HOW this is important, another part of me also thinks the Founding Fathers were correct and the Constitution should adhere more towards the original intent, then what we have been doing with it today.

I'm on the side of the bolded phrase above.  Bigly.

[Traveler]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, you're saying that if you tell your children to be quiet you are telling them that they have no inalienable right to speak?  C'mon Traveler, we can't have a serious discussion if you keep on moving the goalposts.

So, one more time.  Serious discussion.  Do you believe that the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are inalienable?  Yes or no.

Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of inalienable - Life I understand is an inalienable right - which means that it is given by G-d and not by man.  That right is given by G-d to all creatures that move.  As much as I personally love and stand for freedom of speach I am not sure it is an inalienable right of all creatures.  When I responded to your post I was not trying to move the goalpost I was trying to see the extent you have thought this through and believe freedom of speach does not have any human limits.  Hmmmmm there is an interesting thought - that humans have right of dominion to limit the rights of other creatures. 

But even if life is an inalienable right - what will happen if science ever creates a life form?  Would such a thing have a right to its life?

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of inalienable - Life I understand is an inalienable right - which means that it is given by G-d and not by man.  That right is given by G-d to all creatures that move.  As much as I personally love and stand for freedom of speach I am not sure it is an inalienable right of all creatures.  When I responded to your post I was not trying to move the goalpost I was trying to see the extent you have thought this through and believe freedom of speach does not have any human limits.  Hmmmmm there is an interesting thought - that humans have right of dominion to limit the rights of other creatures. 

But even if life is an inalienable right - what will happen if science ever creates a life form?  Would such a thing have a right to its life?

 

The Traveler

So your answer is No.  We don't have an inalienable right to Speech or religion or press or free association.  Those rights are... what... given to us by the Federal Government?

By the way, inalienable means - cannot be separated.  That is, you can't separate a person from those rights.  You can teach/discipline a child to learn how to speak wisely.  But you cannot remove his tongue so he cannot speak.  The Founding Fathers, Christians all, believe they are inalienable because they originate from God.  We don't use this in Constitutional debates because Atheists, of course, still have to abide by inalienable.  The overarching principle does not stop at Life.  It also includes Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Bill of Rights enumerate SOME of these inalienable rights under the Life/Liberty/Pursuit umbrella as rights that the Constitution is obligated to protect AGAINST government over-reach.  The Bill of Rights, therefore, is not written to limit the people.  It is written to limit government.

Edited November 8, 2017 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

37 minutes ago, Godless said:

FWIW, I think @anatess2 is right. The solution doesn't lie so much in legislation as it does in proper enforcement of current laws. Our background check system has some obvious flaws in it, as demonstrated by Roof and Kelley. Let's get those fixed. Let's dedicate more resources to tracking and prosecuting dealers of illegal firearms. 

Sold.  Send it up the flagpole, watch me salute. 

Oh, and here's a picture of me saluting: 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sold.  Send it up the flagpole, watch me salute. 

Actually, I thought you were more the kneeling type than saluting type. Commie jerk. 

[eVa]

So who all believes tighter gun control equates to less mass violence?

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sold.  Send it up the flagpole, watch me salute. 

Oh, and here's a picture of me saluting: 

Where is your velociraptor?

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, eVa said:

So who all believes tighter gun control equates to less mass violence?

Speaking only for Gator, I believe it might have short term benefits but in the long term will lead to more violence. 

[eVa]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Speaking only for Gator, I believe it might have short term benefits but in the long term will lead to more violence. 

Thanks for sharing.  I don't feel tighter gun control would be beneficial at all.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, eVa said:

Thanks for sharing.  I don't feel tighter gun control would be beneficial at all.

You are welcome, and welcome to the boards. I already made my point clear earlier, so I'm sorry to repeat myself. 

Tighter gun control will stop people like @NeuroTypical and I from going to Cabela's and getting a new shotgun. Neither him nor I will go to a black market dealer to buy a gun. However, a gang member from the inner city will not go to Cabela's. That is one of the many, many problems with "gun control". 

It's obviously a big issue for me. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by MormonGator

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Okay - I will ask you.  You are in your home and you are armed.  Someone has broken into your home (perhaps several that are armed the point being that you do not know how many).  What do you do?  I doubt it is to shoot the first bad guy you encounter.

 

The Traveler

Of course I'm not going to shoot the first person I see the moment I see them.  That is ludicrous that you would even imply that.  Their actions when I encounter them will dictate how it all plays out.

[mirkwood]

36 minutes ago, eVa said:

So who all believes tighter gun control equates to less mass violence?

Nope.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

So your answer is No.  We don't have an inalienable right to Speech or religion or press or free association.  Those rights are... what... given to us by the Federal Government?

By the way, inalienable means - cannot be separated.  That is, you can't separate a person from those rights.  You can teach/discipline a child to learn how to speak wisely.  But you cannot remove his tongue so he cannot speak.  The Founding Fathers, Christians all, believe they are inalienable because they originate from God.  We don't use this in Constitutional debates because Atheists, of course, still have to abide by inalienable.  The overarching principle does not stop at Life.  It also includes Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The Bill of Rights enumerate SOME of these inalienable rights under the Life/Liberty/Pursuit umbrella as rights that the Constitution is obligated to protect AGAINST government over-reach.  The Bill of Rights, therefore, is not written to limit the people.  It is written to limit government.

So, your answer is Yes?  Someone has the right to scream Fire! in a crowded theater or to speak lies in a court of law?  I am only saying that there are limits and that the right to “free speech” does not have president over the right to life. And that governments have the responsibility to uphold just presidencies and differences as best as they are able.

I have said before – law is imposing the morals on one segment of the population on the rest of the population.  We can only legislate morals – we cannot change anything empirical.  A belief in G-d is that someday we will be responsible for our morals.

As a side note – I believe we as Saints of G-d have an obligation to obey the laws of the country we are citizens and live in.  If such a country has laws against bearing arms – I believe the law should be obeyed.  Nothing is simple – there are always things to be considered.  G-d can and does command that life is to be taken – sometimes from the defenseless.

 

The Traveler

[JoCa]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

So, your answer is Yes?  Someone has the right to scream Fire! in a crowded theater . . . 

A proper understanding of property rights easily takes care of this problem.  When I buy a ticket, I am asking permission to enter into someone else's property.   They say yes you can enter my property if you give me some money.  Exchange happens and viola I'm on their property (and they can't call the cops on me for trespassing).

We should be in 100% agreement that while I purchase the right to enter their property, I did not purchase the right to take a sledgehammer into their property and start smashing walls, just like I didn't purchase the right to take a match and burn the place down, just like I didn't purchase the right to say anything that I want inside the building. 

Their house their rules.  We see this all the time on forums.  The online forum while a "public" place is really a private enterprise opened up to the public.  I make an agreement I won't do xyz while in their house/theatre/forum. If I violate that agreement I can be kicked out.

Thus there is no need for a law that says "you can't yell fire in a theatre", it is (or should be) a given that it is part of the contract when you purchase the ticket.

That's why free speech is a little problematic.  You absolutely have the right to 100% free speech in any location or medium that you own 100%.  Otherwise you are subject to the rules of the private property owner and if it is truly "public" i.e. the government owns it then you have like 90% free speech (the courts have determined the government can put some restrictions on speech on public property with regards to things like lewdness). 

[NightSG]

18 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Of course I'm not going to shoot the first person I see the moment I see them.  That is ludicrous that you would even imply that.  Their actions when I encounter them will dictate how it all plays out.

Breaking into my occupied home is already a pretty definite action.  Nobody does that just to bring me a sandwich.

[The Folk Prophet]

57 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Breaking into my occupied home is already a pretty definite action.  Nobody does that just to bring me a sandwich.

Santa?

[Guest]

On 11/7/2017 at 9:44 AM, Traveler said:

In short the problem I have with this notion is the historical fact that most deaths in war (violent conflict) come from friendly fire. 

On 11/8/2017 at 11:21 AM, Traveler said:

What history has demonstrated is that even with training – in armed conflicts – most deaths are caused by friendly fire

Really?

Quote

According to the most comprehensive survey of casualties (both fatal and nonfatal), 21 percent of the casualties in World War II were attributable to friendly fire, 39 percent of the casualties in Vietnam, and 52 percent of the casualties in the first Gulf War. Thus far in the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, casualty rates are 41 percent and 13 percent, respectively.

Jon Krakauer : Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman, p. 343.

So, a book specifically designed to shine a light on the topic of friendly fire says it is not "most deaths".  Where are you getting your stats, @Traveler?

Edited November 9, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Really?

So, a book specifically designed to shine a light on the topic of friendly fire says it is not "most deaths".  Where are you getting your stats, @Traveler?

 

It was part of my training when serving in the military and I was told that this goes back to the records kept by the Romans.  I was taught that training helps reduce friendly causalities along with following orders (including those that do not seem to make sense).  Part of my training was that it is better to be united as a group or team than it is to be right as an individual.

I have concluded several things from my experiences.  I will make a quick summary:

. Idiots will likely get others killed before them.

. Most individuals in a violent conflict become idiots in a direct ratio to their training – intelligence does not seem to play much of a role – thinking in the moment is the opposite of being trained.

. Idiots have difficulty coordinating their efforts with others.  They would rather (prefer to) act on their own and have trust difficulties.  

. Idiots react rather than act.

. Idiots are at both end of the spectrum and tend to think they are super heroes or freeze and cannot do anything.

. A well-coordinated team that knows what they are doing will always defeat an individual – regardless of how good an individual is.

. The side with the most idiots involved in a violent conflict will most likely loose both the most lives and the conflict.

. Idiots are unable or unwilling to listen to the spirit in a violent conflict.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It was part of my training when serving in the military and I was told that this goes back to the records kept by the Romans.  I was taught that training helps reduce friendly causalities along with following orders (including those that do not seem to make sense).  Part of my training was that it is better to be united as a group or team than it is to be right as an individual.

So, yet another urban myth gets propagated by the military.  Have I mentioned before how often that happens?

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

So, your answer is Yes?  Someone has the right to scream Fire! in a crowded theater or to speak lies in a court of law? 

This is a silly argument.  Rights do not sit independent of each other.  How my 3rd grade Social Studies teacher taught this (which I still remember today because he's that good) is that "your Rights end where my nose begins". 

You yelling Fire in a crowded theater tramples on my Right to life.  Your lies in court tramples on my Right to a fair trial.  Etc. etc. etc.

 

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am only saying that there are limits and that the right to “free speech” does not have president over the right to life. And that governments have the responsibility to uphold just presidencies and differences as best as they are able.

The Traveler

Yes, there are limits to all your rights - My nose.

Governments have the responsibility to uphold the Constitution - which enumerates the rights the government CANNOT ABRIDGE.  It is not the government that protects people, it is their adherence to the Constitution that limits the power of government that protects people.

So, now we can move forward one step.  You have the right to say a word.  I'm going to say we established that at least.  So, let's say I'm sitting infront of you and everytime you say a word, I smack you across the face.  You have the right to say a word, I do not have the right to smack you across the face.  You can believe that, say that, promote that until the Second Coming, it's not going to change the fact that everytime you say something, I smack you across the face.   So, usually, when we ask Americans how do you resolve this situation and protect your right to say a word and not to get smacked, they would say "We call the police".  Well, you can't even say one word without getting smacked in the face, how much more for calling the police... but let's just say that's your hope and prayer.  So basically, you rely on the Police/Feds to protect your Right to Life/Liberty/Pursuit.   And if the Police/Feds/any other authority can't do the job, then what?  You get smacked across the face until you die.

This is, of course, the standard response for Europeans, Australians, and Canadians.  But what makes Americans UNIQUE in the entire planet is their historical cultural identity of independence and self-reliance.  The USA, as founded, was an experiment in societal self-determination... "You have the power to carve your own destiny".  With this power then, comes the responsibility.   Hence, the Second Amendment guarantees the protection of the First Amendment.  The Second Amendment limits the power of government so that the People will be free to exercise Self-Reliance and Responsibility in the protection of their Rights in their desire to carve their own destiny.

Your right to speak holds ZERO meaning if I can just ignore your rights and my lack of rights and smack you in the face everytime you exercise it, the cops smack you in the face as well, and the Feds smack you in the face too.  Or an invading army of ISIS fighters goes and smacks you in the face.  Your individual right to speak is a right that you should have the power to defend yourself.  A society's right to speak is a right that the society have the power to defend themselves.  That's the Second Amendment.

If it takes a nuclear arsenal to prevent you from getting smacked in the face everytime you speak, then you should be able to have one.  And of course, your right to a nuclear arsenal ends where my nose begins.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2