Sigh... You're nothing if not consistent with not thinking things all the way through before you speak. Most everything is relatively infrequent to the total entropy of the planet. But since we are talking about intentional acts, maybe this logic doesn't apply. That still doesn't explain the fear mongering about the evil guv'ment you have displayed here. That happens far LESS in the history of the human race than either gun violence or lightning strikes deaths, yet here you are, all afraid of the slippery slope these liberal scum are creating and making your life oh so much less free and enjoyable. Paranoid much. Which that is the most paralyzing fear there is. It drips from your posts.
Anyone know what the leading cause on non-natural death was in the 20th century?
It was Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder
In the 20th century, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death
Oh Okay. You havent been able to back up anything that I can see. I have. With historical evidence and statistics.Wow it's like your perception is one of those juicer machines. I put in an orange and got avocado juice back. That isn't even close to what my "question" was. And I didn't ask a non-rhetorical question. I have asked nothing in regards to your posts that in any way did not already contain the answer. These questions aren't for me. I already understand this and how wrong your entire line of thought is. Those are for you.
I believe more guns = less crime. And the statistics back it up. And with less crime, there is less murder. The statistics back that up as well. No time today to detail it all, but I will if you disbelieve it.
If there was a "question" posed, it was quite simple: Do you think if there are more salmon there will be more salmon activity? How about meteors? How about marshmallows? Taylor Swift songs? And finally, *gasp* guns? <-- OH NOZ!!!
Complex idea I know, but just press your temples very hard and grunt and you will get it. Although sometimes when I do, I get the wind something terrible. Especially after a couple of burritos.
Oh, if someone wants to blissfully run up and down the coastal sand with an umbrella in their hand during a rainstorm, then more power to them. They aren't hurting anybody but themselves if they get struck by lightning. They aren't KILLING anyone but themselves. But, if I'm standng next to them and they do it, then I'm going to say something to them, probably call them some choice name, and move away. Can't really do that when someone's got an assault weapon pointed at you, can ya? So, I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise and you certainly aren't going to convince me that assault weapons are ever going to be par-for-the-course in everyday American life (even tho it seems to be the case that they are now). We can agree to disagree, but don't question my intelligence or my thinking- I never said the founding fathers were 'dumb', just that perhaps they didn't have the foresight to see what is happening today in respect to assault weapons when they wrote one of the most beautiful documents in history, the Constitution. Have a nice day and enjoy your time here.
I do disbelieve your claim that more guns equals less crime or that there are statistics to back that up that could not be disputed. And, yes, I've seen the statistics that gun violence has gone down as sales have gone up. But the other piece of this is that the number of gun owners has also gone down--it's just that the people who already own guns are buying more of them. And yet you are trying to convince me that there isn't a fear mentality among the more vocal gun rights advocates and that it's something liberals are making up. If the punchline wasn't in such bad taste, it might make for a good joke a la how many _______ does it take to screw in a lightbulb--how many guns does it take to make a gun rights activist feel safe?
I'd also like to point out that you have joined the SKMB with the only reason being to protest your belief that Stephen's full disclosure that his share of the 99 cent purchase price (he doesn't get all 99 cents) of "Guns" will be donated to the Brady Campaign is keeping people (although logic says that would only be those who are opposed to that organization) from debating the topic of gun rights vs. gun control and yet here we are at over 140 posts in this thread alone related to the essay. And if you've still stuck to your gu....errr principles, you haven't any firsthand knowledge of what Steve actually discussed in his essay. He wrote the essay giving his opinions about the issue after having done research, realizing that there would be some who would never read it because they'd already formed an opinion for one reason or the other about his motives or conclusions, but hoping there could still be discussions. I'd say he's accomplished his intention.
look at countries with less guns (Canada, UK ). Crime rates are not higher. Definitely murder is not higher. Absolutely mass murders are not higher. These things do happen here, but rarely. And a mass shooting here was two dead (more injured).I do disbelieve your claim that more guns equals less crime or that there are statistics to back that up that could not be disputed
You are correct. Lightning is an act of nature(or god if you wish). A mass shooting is not(at least in my opinion). It is..an act of one person. Typically a deranged and mentally unstable person. I mean, come on...what normal rational human being goes into a school and blows away little kids? With a gun, with a bomb, with anything!
These acts of mass violence do not represent the tens of millions of Americans that own any type of firearm legally and safely. So why infringe on the civil rights of the very many, when it is the act of the very few that are committing these types of crimes?
If AK47's were waking up on their own in the middle of the night, loading themselves, and going on shooting sprees without a person behind the trigger, I would agree with you. But they are not. It still takes a person behind the firearm to kill. When we went thru the dark times of drunk driving(20-30 years ago), we did not ban beer and cars. We did not limit the amount of beer or booze a person could buy at a time, did we? I can still walk into a liquor store and buy a keg, or 10 kegs. And cases and cases of bottles of booze. What did we do with drunk driving? We worked on the crime, and get this....enforced the law. We have cops out now routinely stopping people that seem drunk. We have PSA's talking about the dangers of drinking and driving. We did not reinstitute prohibition, because prohibition on anything does not work. Nor will a prohibition on guns.
The number one connection these mass shooters have is mental instability. We made it much more difficult to involuntarily commit a person back in the 1970's. Why did we do that? Because it was violating a person's civil rights. These are the types of things that have to be weighed in a free society. But when you start having more and more people with severe mental problems, not have some place to go(either voluntarily or involuntarily) then you have problems when they go 'full tilt'. Other countries in the world make it much easier to involuntarily commit a person(sometimes at the expense of civil rights). Other countries do alot more in keeping those that are really a danger to themselves and others....either under lock and key or supervised or under full time or even partial treatment.
If you want to see where the failure is start by looking at Addington vs Texas and O'Connor vs Donaldson.
And of course, I am all for protecting people with mental illnesses civil rights as well. However, one must realize that with that, comes certain risks to society. Living with risks is an inherent danger in living in a free society.
From the Mcdonald decison......in the words of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
Or, in another's words...Municipal respondents maintain that the Second Amendment differs from all of the other provisions of theBill of Rights because it concerns the right to possess a deadly implement and thus has implications for public safety. And they note that there is intense disagreement on the question whether the private possession of guns in the home in-creases or decreases gun deaths and injuries.
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the danger-ous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that theCourt’s rule “[i]n some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659. Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has dis-puted public safety implications.
You bring up 9-11. What did we do after 9-11 to 'try to stop' it from happening in the future? We went to war with terrorists. ie, the people committing the heinous. acts. We beefed up security going onto a plane. We armed air marshals and some pilots. We also did some other things...like 'The Patriot Act' which I would argue was not the right thing to do, but that is a different story.Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Agree with those actions or not, but what those that think we should ban this or that firearm are really saying....is that after 9-11, we should have banned box cutters. /rollseyes
So, not to be so simplistic in the face of such overwhelming intellect, but 1799, you seem to have a laundry list defending the ownership of the magazines and gun types. Let's, of argument's sake, remove the problem you have with being so oppressed by limiting these things. Let's pretend that you will never need to fight off the guv'ment (though, it is coming any day now). And finally let's admit that those types of guns aren't really for hunting.
Now if you have cleared your mind of these preconceptions and hang-ups you have, think very hard. Now give us ANY reason why these things are necessary. How does it actually diminishes your rights to not be able to have them? I am not interested in the"chip away" argument or any debate on the 2nd Amendment. I am asking why these types of guns/magazines are necessary to the point they require constitutional protection.
I am riveted waiting for your answer.
And PITH, you manx you, keep your shorts on... I know how enticing the Internet can be...
Not to mention the simplistic understanding of mental health issues. First I want to say that not all mentally ill people will become violent and harm others. The major reason why so many mentally ill people are not receiving help has nothing to do with their being committed. There are many including paranoid schizophrenics who do not have to be institutionalized if they're receiving proper care. It has to do with the erosion of funding for services starting with the Reagan administration. The best way to help these people is by early intervention and continued treatment with oversight by trained professionals such as adult mental health social workers. Why are they not doing that? Take a look at some of the first items that are being cut in state and federal budgets and you'll see it's assistance for these sorts of programs or the rules for who and what is covered are changed so that people no longer qualify for assistance which clears the path for cutting them from the system. And who gets cut when budgets are reduced--it's not usually the managers, it's the people on the front line who actually perform the services. When there is not supervision and one-on-one assistance, these people get into trouble, don't take their meds, and de-comp which puts a strain on other systems like law enforcement, fire departments, and can lead to situations that put others in danger as we've seen. If you want the mentally ill to be less of a threat, then pay attention when budget cuts are being made and don't whine about how much of your tax dollars is being spent on assisting them in programs that have been proven to work. Tell your legislators to reconsider those cuts.
It also does not take into account those who have not yet been diagnosed and until they are would fall through the cracks and could still have access to guns because they would pass a background check. If they had a psychotic break during that time that would lead them to wanting to harm others with a gun, the system would not catch them.
Which still boils down to the access and availability of guns being the common factor in innocent people being killed by mentally ill patients who have become delusional and possibly violent.