Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 426816 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1450 on: July 01, 2016, 08:30:19 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats? You can't have it both ways.
We actually do know somewhat the difference between those using pills vs guns because there is a statistically significant difference in methodology of suicide based on gender.  Men are more likely to use guns, women pills (and to a less extent using knives to bleed out).  We know that those who use guns are "more successful" in completely the suicide making a statistical difference between rate of competed suicides between the genders where no statistical gender difference in the attempt.  Should we know more?  Yes, which is why the fact that the NRA has gotten congress to not fund the research says something.

What proposal currently being offered would impact suicide in a meaningful way?  The things I've heard (expanded background checks, assault weapons ban, semi-auto restrictions) would have little or no impact on suicide.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8527
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1451 on: July 01, 2016, 08:34:03 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats? You can't have it both ways.
We actually do know somewhat the difference between those using pills vs guns because there is a statistically significant difference in methodology of suicide based on gender.  Men are more likely to use guns, women pills (and to a less extent using knives to bleed out).  We know that those who use guns are "more successful" in completely the suicide making a statistical difference between rate of competed suicides between the genders where no statistical gender difference in the attempt.  Should we know more?  Yes, which is why the fact that the NRA has gotten congress to not fund the research says something.

There's a strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide rate, independent of rate of suicides using other methods.  https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/

Why is research into this important?  Well for example, there's some evidence that guns when stored locked pose less of a suicide risk (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/).  Legislating better storage practices could well reduce gun deaths by suicide . . . but there would need to be more research done to draw better conclusions.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1452 on: July 01, 2016, 09:06:19 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats? You can't have it both ways.
We actually do know somewhat the difference between those using pills vs guns because there is a statistically significant difference in methodology of suicide based on gender.  Men are more likely to use guns, women pills (and to a less extent using knives to bleed out).  We know that those who use guns are "more successful" in completely the suicide making a statistical difference between rate of competed suicides between the genders where no statistical gender difference in the attempt.  Should we know more?  Yes, which is why the fact that the NRA has gotten congress to not fund the research says something.

There's a strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide rate, independent of rate of suicides using other methods.  https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/

Why is research into this important?  Well for example, there's some evidence that guns when stored locked pose less of a suicide risk (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/).  Legislating better storage practices could well reduce gun deaths by suicide . . . but there would need to be more research done to draw better conclusions.

Regardless of the conclusions of any such study or studies, no sane gun owner would support such safe storage laws. Firstly, to be effective, they would have to be enforced with random inspections like in the UK. More importantly, storing firearms in accordance with proposed and existing safe storage laws would render said firearms useless for their intended purpose, resulting in a massive, blatant and obvious infringement of the 2A.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6248
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1453 on: July 01, 2016, 09:23:40 AM »
OK, I'm confused.  Second amendment is about a standing militia, right?  Switzerland still has (I think, open to clarification) a standing militia, and all who are in it are required to have a functional accessible weapon, right?  There is nothing that says this weapon, and its ammunition, can't be safely stored when not in use.  So how did the American second amendment militia morph into self-defense in the home with freely accessible weapons and ammunition?  To me they seem to be two separate issues.

Re the suicide numbers, if I really wanted to shoot myself, a hand gun would seem to be a lot more functional and easy to use than a long gun.  A lot of the mortality stats differences between Canada and the US are due to the extreme rarity of legal civilian hand guns in Canada (and we would have a lot fewer illegal ones if there wasn't such a handy source next door).  We have lots of long guns.  Anyone using those stats without acknowledging the type of guns available is being willfully blind.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1454 on: July 01, 2016, 09:30:41 AM »
OK, I'm confused.  Second amendment is about a standing militia, right?  Switzerland still has (I think, open to clarification) a standing militia, and all who are in it are required to have a functional accessible weapon, right?  There is nothing that says this weapon, and its ammunition, can't be safely stored when not in use.  So how did the American second amendment militia morph into self-defense in the home with freely accessible weapons and ammunition?  To me they seem to be two separate issues.

Re the suicide numbers, if I really wanted to shoot myself, a hand gun would seem to be a lot more functional and easy to use than a long gun.  A lot of the mortality stats differences between Canada and the US are due to the extreme rarity of legal civilian hand guns in Canada (and we would have a lot fewer illegal ones if there wasn't such a handy source next door).  We have lots of long guns.  Anyone using those stats without acknowledging the type of guns available is being willfully blind.

The Second Amendment is about ensuring that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For militia use, hunting, self defense, recreation, etc.

This is the plain meaning. This is how it was understood until recently, when the American left tried to re-write history and the Constitution in order to facilitate the march towards civilian disarmament.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1455 on: July 01, 2016, 09:37:59 AM »
Quote
There seems to be a lot of angst over the fact that the US government doesn't fund studies into gun violence. It all strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Let's say Congress gives the CDC and others $10 Billion in grants to fund the kind of studies GuitarSTV and Northwestie and others would like to see done.

Now let's suppose those studies prove conclusively that our current federal gun laws create a situation where guns cause more harm than good . As in, more people are shot accidentally/maliciously than are helped by the presence or use of a firearm. (Note: I don't believe such a study would end up showing this, but let's pretend it would for the sake of argument)

Ok, so now what? The researchers who conduct the study, as well as other experts and legislators, propose a bunch of suggestions that would help mitigate or reverse the problem identified. They include some combination of:

Registration of guns and their owners.
A general ban on handguns, with exceptions for those who obtain special licenses.
A ban on all private transfers of firearms.
A ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns paired with confiscation/"buyback".
All firearms purchases will have a 10 day waiting period.
Firearms must be stored at a gun club/range.
Firearms must be stored under lock and key, unloaded, subject to random police inspection.

Even given proof that they would mitigate the proven harm of firearms proliferation (as demonstrated by our hypothetical study), I would not support a single one of these measures. Not a single one. Neither would most gun owners. Neither would the NRA (I hope). And all of these measures would be unconstitutional. So none of the legislation would pass. And if it did, it would be struck down. But even if these measures somehow passed and made it by a derelict SCOTUS, we wouldn't follow the new laws anyway. And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

So to quote a brilliant, inspiring, and courageous woman:

What difference, at this point, does it make?

We get it.  You, and many members of the NRA are perfectly fine with the situation as is.  Other people aren't and would prefer to have more information to make an informed decision.   Your position isn't the only one that matters. 

Generally when someone is arguing against more information, they know at some gut level the information will not support their beliefs or ethics.  Sort of like religious fundamentalists.  Many of them will live and die for their beliefs.  But please stop asking others to live and die for yours.   


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8527
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1456 on: July 01, 2016, 09:42:30 AM »
OK, I'm confused.  Second amendment is about a standing militia, right?  Switzerland still has (I think, open to clarification) a standing militia, and all who are in it are required to have a functional accessible weapon, right?  There is nothing that says this weapon, and its ammunition, can't be safely stored when not in use.  So how did the American second amendment militia morph into self-defense in the home with freely accessible weapons and ammunition?  To me they seem to be two separate issues.

Re the suicide numbers, if I really wanted to shoot myself, a hand gun would seem to be a lot more functional and easy to use than a long gun.  A lot of the mortality stats differences between Canada and the US are due to the extreme rarity of legal civilian hand guns in Canada (and we would have a lot fewer illegal ones if there wasn't such a handy source next door).  We have lots of long guns.  Anyone using those stats without acknowledging the type of guns available is being willfully blind.

The Second Amendment is about ensuring that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For militia use, hunting, self defense, recreation, etc.

This is the plain meaning. This is how it was understood until recently, when the American left tried to re-write history and the Constitution in order to facilitate the march towards civilian disarmament.

The second amendment language is not very clear unless you ignore the first half of it.

"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."

It's not plain if the intent was to keep a well regulated armed militia or to enshrine the right of people to keep weapons.  There has been considerable debate as to the meaning of the amendment over time because there is little agreement on the intent.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1457 on: July 01, 2016, 09:42:45 AM »
Quote
There seems to be a lot of angst over the fact that the US government doesn't fund studies into gun violence. It all strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Let's say Congress gives the CDC and others $10 Billion in grants to fund the kind of studies GuitarSTV and Northwestie and others would like to see done.

Now let's suppose those studies prove conclusively that our current federal gun laws create a situation where guns cause more harm than good . As in, more people are shot accidentally/maliciously than are helped by the presence or use of a firearm. (Note: I don't believe such a study would end up showing this, but let's pretend it would for the sake of argument)

Ok, so now what? The researchers who conduct the study, as well as other experts and legislators, propose a bunch of suggestions that would help mitigate or reverse the problem identified. They include some combination of:

Registration of guns and their owners.
A general ban on handguns, with exceptions for those who obtain special licenses.
A ban on all private transfers of firearms.
A ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns paired with confiscation/"buyback".
All firearms purchases will have a 10 day waiting period.
Firearms must be stored at a gun club/range.
Firearms must be stored under lock and key, unloaded, subject to random police inspection.

Even given proof that they would mitigate the proven harm of firearms proliferation (as demonstrated by our hypothetical study), I would not support a single one of these measures. Not a single one. Neither would most gun owners. Neither would the NRA (I hope). And all of these measures would be unconstitutional. So none of the legislation would pass. And if it did, it would be struck down. But even if these measures somehow passed and made it by a derelict SCOTUS, we wouldn't follow the new laws anyway. And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

So to quote a brilliant, inspiring, and courageous woman:

What difference, at this point, does it make?

We get it.  You, and many members of the NRA are perfectly fine with the situation as is.  Other people aren't and would prefer to have more information to make an informed decision.   Your position isn't the only one that matters. 

Generally when someone is arguing against more information, they know at some gut level the information will not support their beliefs or ethics.  Sort of like religious fundamentalists.  Many of them will live and die for their beliefs.  But please stop asking others to live and die for yours.

What kind of decisions are we talking about here?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1458 on: July 01, 2016, 09:54:36 AM »
OK, I'm confused.  Second amendment is about a standing militia, right?  Switzerland still has (I think, open to clarification) a standing militia, and all who are in it are required to have a functional accessible weapon, right?  There is nothing that says this weapon, and its ammunition, can't be safely stored when not in use.  So how did the American second amendment militia morph into self-defense in the home with freely accessible weapons and ammunition?  To me they seem to be two separate issues.

Re the suicide numbers, if I really wanted to shoot myself, a hand gun would seem to be a lot more functional and easy to use than a long gun.  A lot of the mortality stats differences between Canada and the US are due to the extreme rarity of legal civilian hand guns in Canada (and we would have a lot fewer illegal ones if there wasn't such a handy source next door).  We have lots of long guns.  Anyone using those stats without acknowledging the type of guns available is being willfully blind.

The Second Amendment is about ensuring that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For militia use, hunting, self defense, recreation, etc.

This is the plain meaning. This is how it was understood until recently, when the American left tried to re-write history and the Constitution in order to facilitate the march towards civilian disarmament.

The second amendment language is not very clear unless you ignore the first half of it.

"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."

It's not plain if the intent was to keep a well regulated armed militia or to enshrine the right of people to keep weapons.  There has been considerable debate as to the meaning of the amendment over time because there is little agreement on the intent.

Read the entire BOR.

You will see the 1A refers to freedom of the press. Do you take this to mean that freedom of written speech only applies to members of the press?

You will see the 3A refers to quartering soldiers. Do you think that means the Federal government is free to quarter, say IRS or FBI agents, because those folks aren't "soldiers"?

You will see the 4A applies to "persons, papers, houses, effects". Do you take this to mean the government is free to search a person's car without a warrant, "car" it is not mentioned?

Do you notice that the 9A specifically states that the content and wording of the rest of the Amendments "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"?

If you read the Federalist Papers (especially no. 84) and other writings of the Framers of the Constitution, you will find overwhelming evidence that your position untenable.

If a person reads the Constitution with a mind to CONSTRUE it's words to DISPARAGE the rights of the people, they may end up at your conclusion. If a person reads it fairly, with a reasonable education regarding the context it was written it, they will arrive at the correct conclusion, the same one that every American arrived at until leftists in the mid-20th century started trying to re-write history.




Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1459 on: July 01, 2016, 10:00:06 AM »
Quote
There seems to be a lot of angst over the fact that the US government doesn't fund studies into gun violence. It all strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Let's say Congress gives the CDC and others $10 Billion in grants to fund the kind of studies GuitarSTV and Northwestie and others would like to see done.

Now let's suppose those studies prove conclusively that our current federal gun laws create a situation where guns cause more harm than good . As in, more people are shot accidentally/maliciously than are helped by the presence or use of a firearm. (Note: I don't believe such a study would end up showing this, but let's pretend it would for the sake of argument)

Ok, so now what? The researchers who conduct the study, as well as other experts and legislators, propose a bunch of suggestions that would help mitigate or reverse the problem identified. They include some combination of:

Registration of guns and their owners.
A general ban on handguns, with exceptions for those who obtain special licenses.
A ban on all private transfers of firearms.
A ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns paired with confiscation/"buyback".
All firearms purchases will have a 10 day waiting period.
Firearms must be stored at a gun club/range.
Firearms must be stored under lock and key, unloaded, subject to random police inspection.

Even given proof that they would mitigate the proven harm of firearms proliferation (as demonstrated by our hypothetical study), I would not support a single one of these measures. Not a single one. Neither would most gun owners. Neither would the NRA (I hope). And all of these measures would be unconstitutional. So none of the legislation would pass. And if it did, it would be struck down. But even if these measures somehow passed and made it by a derelict SCOTUS, we wouldn't follow the new laws anyway. And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

So to quote a brilliant, inspiring, and courageous woman:

What difference, at this point, does it make?

We get it.  You, and many members of the NRA are perfectly fine with the situation as is.  Other people aren't and would prefer to have more information to make an informed decision.   Your position isn't the only one that matters. 

Generally when someone is arguing against more information, they know at some gut level the information will not support their beliefs or ethics.  Sort of like religious fundamentalists.  Many of them will live and die for their beliefs.  But please stop asking others to live and die for yours.

Those pushing for additional regulation have substantial information that rifles commit a very small part of the crime in this country, yet they continue in their quest to ban scary looking ones.  If information  is the key, why are those arguing for gun control ignoring facts that don't support their position.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1460 on: July 01, 2016, 10:08:29 AM »
Quote
There seems to be a lot of angst over the fact that the US government doesn't fund studies into gun violence. It all strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Let's say Congress gives the CDC and others $10 Billion in grants to fund the kind of studies GuitarSTV and Northwestie and others would like to see done.

Now let's suppose those studies prove conclusively that our current federal gun laws create a situation where guns cause more harm than good . As in, more people are shot accidentally/maliciously than are helped by the presence or use of a firearm. (Note: I don't believe such a study would end up showing this, but let's pretend it would for the sake of argument)

Ok, so now what? The researchers who conduct the study, as well as other experts and legislators, propose a bunch of suggestions that would help mitigate or reverse the problem identified. They include some combination of:

Registration of guns and their owners.
A general ban on handguns, with exceptions for those who obtain special licenses.
A ban on all private transfers of firearms.
A ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns paired with confiscation/"buyback".
All firearms purchases will have a 10 day waiting period.
Firearms must be stored at a gun club/range.
Firearms must be stored under lock and key, unloaded, subject to random police inspection.

Even given proof that they would mitigate the proven harm of firearms proliferation (as demonstrated by our hypothetical study), I would not support a single one of these measures. Not a single one. Neither would most gun owners. Neither would the NRA (I hope). And all of these measures would be unconstitutional. So none of the legislation would pass. And if it did, it would be struck down. But even if these measures somehow passed and made it by a derelict SCOTUS, we wouldn't follow the new laws anyway. And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

So to quote a brilliant, inspiring, and courageous woman:

What difference, at this point, does it make?

We get it.  You, and many members of the NRA are perfectly fine with the situation as is.  Other people aren't and would prefer to have more information to make an informed decision.   Your position isn't the only one that matters. 

Generally when someone is arguing against more information, they know at some gut level the information will not support their beliefs or ethics.  Sort of like religious fundamentalists.  Many of them will live and die for their beliefs.  But please stop asking others to live and die for yours.

Those pushing for additional regulation have substantial information that rifles commit a very small part of the crime in this country, yet they continue in their quest to ban scary looking ones.  If information  is the key, why are those arguing for gun control ignoring facts that don't support their position.

I eagerly await the answer to this question.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1461 on: July 01, 2016, 11:59:17 AM »
Quote
What kind of decisions are we talking about here?

Decisions about what type of regulations they will and won't support.  Unlike you, most people recognize that there ARE grey areas when it comes to personal freedoms that include deadly weaponry. 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1462 on: July 01, 2016, 12:09:52 PM »
Quote
What kind of decisions are we talking about here?

Decisions about what type of regulations they will and won't support.  Unlike you, most people recognize that there ARE grey areas when it comes to personal freedoms that include deadly weaponry.

But... "they" don't have the right to make those kinds of decisions for me. So their opinion and support mean nothing.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1463 on: July 01, 2016, 12:24:30 PM »
And is it correct that you will engage in insurrection to support your beliefs?

Quote
And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

Even if this means killing American servicemen and women and possibly losing everything including your life?

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1464 on: July 01, 2016, 12:34:14 PM »
Quote
What kind of decisions are we talking about here?

Decisions about what type of regulations they will and won't support.  Unlike you, most people recognize that there ARE grey areas when it comes to personal freedoms that include deadly weaponry.

No, more like the definitions of 'deadly weaponry' continues to shift over time. Just like the left's usage of 'assault weapon' and semi-automatic. They throw these terms out in an attempt to invoke a fear response in support of their objectives specifically because they know the majority of their supporters on the left don't have a *clue* about guns and respond well to buzzwords.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1465 on: July 01, 2016, 12:36:17 PM »
And is it correct that you will engage in insurrection to support your beliefs?

Quote
And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

Even if this means killing American servicemen and women and possibly losing everything including your life?

Isn't that the implied reason behind why they included the 2nd Amendment? So if government backed a large number of the populace into a corner they're retain the ability to fight back against tyranny (tyranny of the majority).

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1466 on: July 01, 2016, 12:40:18 PM »
And is it correct that you will engage in insurrection to support your beliefs?

Quote
And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

Even if this means killing American servicemen and women and possibly losing everything including your life?

Are you implying that you would support a military-driven forced disarmament of the citizens of the US?  I'm not sure how to interpret your post.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1467 on: July 01, 2016, 01:29:26 PM »
OK, I'm confused.  Second amendment is about a standing militia, right?  Switzerland still has (I think, open to clarification) a standing militia, and all who are in it are required to have a functional accessible weapon, right?  There is nothing that says this weapon, and its ammunition, can't be safely stored when not in use.  So how did the American second amendment militia morph into self-defense in the home with freely accessible weapons and ammunition? To me they seem to be two separate issues.


They are not seperate issues, you are confused about what a militia actually is.  The state militias are not armies, and they are not the national guard.  The militia is the whole of the people, able to carry and use a firearm.  Even the federal statues state as much.  So the 2nd is worded as it has been, with the portion before the comma as a preamble; a reason for the limitation, not a limitation unto itself.  The Federalist Papers were very very plain about this, and no historian without an agenda could deny that the "original intent" of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the government from denying citizens the right to own & use firearms in their own defense.  I (and others) went deep into the myth that the 2nd only applied to the formation of armies many pages ago in this very thread.  I went to the trouble of quoting the proposed language of the 2nd in it's many committee variations, and they also make it quite clear that the original intent was a private, individual right to gun ownership, in an effort to support skill with firearms in ongoing generations, which is the "well regulated" part (regulated in the age of the framers, and in context, referring to training of the militia, not it's authority as a military body).  I'm not in the mood to search back for that link, but feel free to educate yourself.  If someone else would like to find that link on your behalf, I encourage that as well.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1468 on: July 01, 2016, 01:47:07 PM »
Quote
Are you implying that you would support a military-driven forced disarmament of the citizens of the US?  I'm not sure how to interpret your post.

Not at all.   My purpose in starting this thread was to understand the point of view of the firearms advocate in the US.   Winkeyman made a statement that seemed extreme to me and I'm hoping that he will clarify it.

If the SCOTUS and the US government were to make firearms illegal, I think he said that he would engage in armed insurrection.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6248
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1469 on: July 01, 2016, 02:58:07 PM »
OK, I'm confused.  Second amendment is about a standing militia, right?  Switzerland still has (I think, open to clarification) a standing militia, and all who are in it are required to have a functional accessible weapon, right?  There is nothing that says this weapon, and its ammunition, can't be safely stored when not in use.  So how did the American second amendment militia morph into self-defense in the home with freely accessible weapons and ammunition? To me they seem to be two separate issues.


They are not seperate issues, you are confused about what a militia actually is.  The state militias are not armies, and they are not the national guard.  The militia is the whole of the people, able to carry and use a firearm. 
Well I was going by a dictionary definition of militia, which is
"   n.    An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
    n.    A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
    n.    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."

Historically in Canada our militia was mostly the first one, and next the second one, since British regiments serving in North America were encouraged to settle here once their tour of duty was over.  This provided a base of experienced civilians.  These days we have the Reserves*.  You seem to be going mostly on the third one.  Umm, none of these imply a role for self-defense in the home, they imply a role of national/regional defense or national/regional response to emergencies, as group efforts, based on the bolded words in the definitions.  And I don't dispute that they imply that the citizens involved need to be able to use firearms, that is what armies do, whether they are professionals or civilians called up.  And that is what Reserves do.

Of course if no-one knows who has guns, how can they be called for service in an emergency?  Ask?  "Hey, anyone who has a gun and knows what to do with it, we would like you to come join this civilian force"?  This works in a small sparsely settled community (say either Canada or the US in the 1700's-1800's), but not so much now.  In my area, sure, in Ottawa or Toronto or Vancouver, not so much.

However once you get into defying the legally elected government, owners of firearms don't seem to fit into any of these categories.  So I am still confused.

I am also still confused about the role of handguns in US society, since they are relatively useless for civilian armies, and cause more than their fair share of problems.


*We do use our army and reserves for emergencies, this describes the Ice Storm of 1998: " It was the largest deployment of troops ever to serve on Canadian soil in response to a natural disaster since the Manitoba floods in 1997, where 14,000 troops were deployed, and the largest operational deployment of Canadian military personnel since the Korean War.

CF members from about 200 units across Canada helped provincial and municipal workers clear roads, rescue people and animals trapped by storm wreckage, evacuate the sick, shelter and feed about 100,000 people frozen out of their homes, and ensure that farmers had the generators and fuel required to keep their operations going. CP-140 aircraft from 14 Wing Greenwood, NS conducted aerial imagery of the downed power lines in Quebec and Ontario. Military engineers and technicians worked around the clock with hydro and telephone crews to repair and replace downed transmission towers and utility poles. On January 13, at the request of the Province of Quebec, CF members assumed the powers of peace officers in the most devastated areas around Montreal.

At the height of this crisis, Operation Recuperation involved 15,784 deployed personnel (including 3,740 Reservists) from all three CF commands: 10,550 in Quebec, 4,850 in Ontario and 384 in New Brunswick. In addition, 6,200 CF members and DND employees working at their regular jobs provided the logistical support required to sustain the operation.
"
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1470 on: July 01, 2016, 03:18:16 PM »

If the SCOTUS and the US government were to make firearms illegal, I think he said that he would engage in armed insurrection.


I suppose it would be how they went about it... But, odds wise. Yes and the insurgents won't need guns to do it.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1471 on: July 01, 2016, 03:21:56 PM »

    n.    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."


Yes, in the context of the time & lexicon used by the framers of the US Constitution, this is the version of "militia" that the 2nd refers to.  Again though, all of the Bill of Rights are limitations upon The federal government, whereas the body of the Constitution grants powers to said federal government.  The power to raise & equip an army is already in there as a "collective right", and the Bill of Rights were enumerated rights of the people themselves.  The preamble to the 2nd was a short explanation of the collective benefit of the right to bear arms, not an attempt to narrow the scope of the right to the militia per se.  So while the experience of using firearms was a benefit towards the collective defense of the nation, the 2nd is not an attempt to limit the right of self defense to that context.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1472 on: July 01, 2016, 03:24:38 PM »
I see California passed a bunch of new laws today on gun control.  Does anyone know if current AR-15s with the "bullet button" are now illegal?  If it's not retroactive, that sounds tough to enforce.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1473 on: July 01, 2016, 03:30:33 PM »
I see California passed a bunch of new laws today on gun control.  Does anyone know if current AR-15s with the "bullet button" are now illegal?  If it's not retroactive, that sounds tough to enforce.

I think so, it will be hard to enforce. I think the general goal is to restrict the sale and transfers of new firearms and put more laws on the books to use as leverage against gun owners in general. They also:

- Require an ID and a background check to buy ammo. You get put into a new state database that tracks ammo owners - m'kay
- Previous 'high-capacity' magazines that were retroactively allowed are now fully banned and need to be turned in
- You cannot loan guns to anyone outside family members without a background check
- Bullet buttons are now illegal to sell, needs to be a permanently fixed magazine. Not sure what that means, I think it's a roundabout way to try and stop the sale of AR-15 style rifles.

I'm leaving in December, I don't want to live in this sate anymore.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 03:35:38 PM by Yaeger »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1474 on: July 01, 2016, 03:33:08 PM »

    n.    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."


Yes, in the context of the time & lexicon used by the framers of the US Constitution, this is the version of "militia" that the 2nd refers to.  Again though, all of the Bill of Rights are limitations upon The federal government, whereas the body of the Constitution grants powers to said federal government.  The power to raise & equip an army is already in there as a "collective right", and the Bill of Rights were enumerated rights of the people themselves.  The preamble to the 2nd was a short explanation of the collective benefit of the right to bear arms, not an attempt to narrow the scope of the right to the militia per se.  So while the experience of using firearms was a benefit towards the collective defense of the nation, the 2nd is not an attempt to limit the right of self defense to that context.

That is a shaky a logic as presented by Scalia in the seminal D.C. case.  Which, was a 5-4 vote.  Needless to say we're stuck with that decision but with either one different judge or less of Scalia's convenient mental parlor-puzzle tricks and it would have gone the other way. 

The lump that is Clarance Thomas - you might just as well have a tree stump there and have it vote on the extreme right all the time.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1475 on: July 01, 2016, 03:35:01 PM »
I think it means the magazine needs to be permanently fixed (welded) to the receiver.  Similar to how AR pistols are done to make them legal.  That's just a guess though as I don't live in the state.

A database on ammo owners makes no sense to me.  It's not like you can track back a piece of ammo to a crime like you can with the rifling of a barrel.  I guess it would stop criminals from buying ammo but that will be about as effective as stopping minors from obtaining alcohol or cigarettes.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1476 on: July 01, 2016, 03:42:33 PM »

    n.    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."


Yes, in the context of the time & lexicon used by the framers of the US Constitution, this is the version of "militia" that the 2nd refers to.  Again though, all of the Bill of Rights are limitations upon The federal government, whereas the body of the Constitution grants powers to said federal government.  The power to raise & equip an army is already in there as a "collective right", and the Bill of Rights were enumerated rights of the people themselves.  The preamble to the 2nd was a short explanation of the collective benefit of the right to bear arms, not an attempt to narrow the scope of the right to the militia per se.  So while the experience of using firearms was a benefit towards the collective defense of the nation, the 2nd is not an attempt to limit the right of self defense to that context.

That is a shaky a logic as presented by Scalia in the seminal D.C. case.  Which, was a 5-4 vote.  Needless to say we're stuck with that decision but with either one different judge or less of Scalia's convenient mental parlor-puzzle tricks and it would have gone the other way. 

The lump that is Clarance Thomas - you might just as well have a tree stump there and have it vote on the extreme right all the time.

I blame the leftist judges for voting against the Constitution, like they usually do based on ideological lines. Politicians in fancy robes. We have TONS of documentation regarding the purpose and reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment like Moonshadow indicated. The drafters allowed merchant ships, private citizens, to equip their ships with CANNONS as their right under the 2nd Amendment. If you're not even going to try looking into our history and the reasoning behind it, stop.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1477 on: July 01, 2016, 03:47:26 PM »
Well - I would disagree with that assessment and say the righty judges went way out on a limb.  Here is the dissent - by any reading I think you would have to say there are valid points here.  The earlier discussion of references to the Scalia's interpretation involve a bit of hand-waving at best.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/dissent.html


Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1478 on: July 01, 2016, 05:10:27 PM »
Well - I would disagree with that assessment and say the righty judges went way out on a limb.  Here is the dissent - by any reading I think you would have to say there are valid points here.  The earlier discussion of references to the Scalia's interpretation involve a bit of hand-waving at best.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/dissent.html

They pick and choose and skirt around the issue while leaving the more relevant discussions that pertain directly to the 2nd Amendment out of the dissent. Read the Alexander Hamilton's n the Federalist Paper #29 and James Madison's Federalist paper #49 for an overview as to the drafter's interpretation.

Also, I think Scalia's opinion was far-and-away more on point that the Dissents. It was much more comprehensive and I particularly thought this quote was appropriate:

Quote
After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1479 on: July 01, 2016, 05:24:04 PM »

    n.    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."


Yes, in the context of the time & lexicon used by the framers of the US Constitution, this is the version of "militia" that the 2nd refers to.  Again though, all of the Bill of Rights are limitations upon The federal government, whereas the body of the Constitution grants powers to said federal government.  The power to raise & equip an army is already in there as a "collective right", and the Bill of Rights were enumerated rights of the people themselves.  The preamble to the 2nd was a short explanation of the collective benefit of the right to bear arms, not an attempt to narrow the scope of the right to the militia per se.  So while the experience of using firearms was a benefit towards the collective defense of the nation, the 2nd is not an attempt to limit the right of self defense to that context.

That is a shaky a logic as presented by Scalia in the seminal D.C. case.

Dude, that's not shaky logic at all, that's just history.  That was true well before the DC Heller case, and I knew almost nothing about Scalia's arguments before this thread.  If you actually spent the time to read the relevant federalist papers, you'd have no doubt that this is exactly what the framers thought of it too.  All of them.  There was zero dissent on the meaning of the 2nd until after all the framers were long dead.  Anything else is revisionist history.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1480 on: July 01, 2016, 06:50:55 PM »

    n.    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."


Yes, in the context of the time & lexicon used by the framers of the US Constitution, this is the version of "militia" that the 2nd refers to.  Again though, all of the Bill of Rights are limitations upon The federal government, whereas the body of the Constitution grants powers to said federal government.  The power to raise & equip an army is already in there as a "collective right", and the Bill of Rights were enumerated rights of the people themselves.  The preamble to the 2nd was a short explanation of the collective benefit of the right to bear arms, not an attempt to narrow the scope of the right to the militia per se.  So while the experience of using firearms was a benefit towards the collective defense of the nation, the 2nd is not an attempt to limit the right of self defense to that context.

That is a shaky a logic as presented by Scalia in the seminal D.C. case.

Dude, that's not shaky logic at all, that's just history.  That was true well before the DC Heller case, and I knew almost nothing about Scalia's arguments before this thread.  If you actually spent the time to read the relevant federalist papers, you'd have no doubt that this is exactly what the framers thought of it too.  All of them.  There was zero dissent on the meaning of the 2nd until after all the framers were long dead.  Anything else is revisionist history.

Heh.

...says:
Quote from: Northwestie
I have no figgin' idea what that is suppose to mean.  Not my claim.  Supposedly translation into less likely to be harmed by black or brown people, the boogey man, the wise acre kids across the street, my neighbors mean cat, jack-booted-government thugs, and of course, foreign invaders.   Lastly, our black president.

...calls a Supreme Court Justice's opinion "hand-waving" and "shaky logic."

Ironic, I think.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1481 on: July 01, 2016, 07:06:12 PM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats?  You can't have it both ways.

I've been wondering how a ban on semi-auto weapons or assault weapons impacts suicide.

It's clear that guns are more successful at suicide. But, if guns were banned, would the attempted suicide rate decrease? Because if we count gun wounds, we should count suicide attempts in the same way - both are negative, and both numbers inflate the statistics and change the conversation dramatically. 

ETA - looks like from Stv's source above, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/ , guns are NOT the most common way people attempt suicide. Just the most effective.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 07:09:06 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1482 on: July 01, 2016, 07:42:14 PM »

    n.    The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."


Yes, in the context of the time & lexicon used by the framers of the US Constitution, this is the version of "militia" that the 2nd refers to.  Again though, all of the Bill of Rights are limitations upon The federal government, whereas the body of the Constitution grants powers to said federal government.  The power to raise & equip an army is already in there as a "collective right", and the Bill of Rights were enumerated rights of the people themselves.  The preamble to the 2nd was a short explanation of the collective benefit of the right to bear arms, not an attempt to narrow the scope of the right to the militia per se.  So while the experience of using firearms was a benefit towards the collective defense of the nation, the 2nd is not an attempt to limit the right of self defense to that context.

That is a shaky a logic as presented by Scalia in the seminal D.C. case.

Dude, that's not shaky logic at all, that's just history.  That was true well before the DC Heller case, and I knew almost nothing about Scalia's arguments before this thread.  If you actually spent the time to read the relevant federalist papers, you'd have no doubt that this is exactly what the framers thought of it too.  All of them.  There was zero dissent on the meaning of the 2nd until after all the framers were long dead.  Anything else is revisionist history.

Heh.

...says:
Quote from: Northwestie
I have no figgin' idea what that is suppose to mean.  Not my claim.  Supposedly translation into less likely to be harmed by black or brown people, the boogey man, the wise acre kids across the street, my neighbors mean cat, jack-booted-government thugs, and of course, foreign invaders.   Lastly, our black president.

...calls a Supreme Court Justice's opinion "hand-waving" and "shaky logic."

Ironic, I think.

I'm so confused by these arguments. They question if the 2nd amendment applies to personally owning weapons, and the SCOTUS says "Yes. It does."  What's the discussion? The question has been asked, and, legally speaking, answered. It's ok to disagree, and be on the wrong side of history, but completely a waste of time to rehash the argument that has already been decided by the only people on the planet who are entrusted with the literal power to get to decide these things.

Progressing past these arguments, the losing side should focus on 'Since it has been decided individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, what limits can then be imposed?'
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1483 on: July 01, 2016, 07:46:08 PM »
As we have seen in California, it basically becomes "you can keep your guns but we will make them as functionally useless as possible."

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1484 on: July 08, 2016, 07:23:53 AM »
As we have seen in California, it basically becomes "you can keep your guns but we will make them as functionally useless as possible."

Could you please elaborate on what California does to make your guns functionally useless?

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1485 on: July 08, 2016, 08:00:50 AM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8527
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1486 on: July 08, 2016, 08:07:49 AM »
Sadly, legally carrying his weapon was likely a contributing factor in what got Philando Castile shot by the police officer.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1487 on: July 08, 2016, 08:24:19 AM »
Sadly, legally carrying his weapon was likely a contributing factor in what got Philando Castile shot by the police officer.

I would say the gun in the hands of an over-anxious officer was a much bigger factor in his death than the victim legally carrying a firearm.  A small portion of police are too willing to use deadly force.  If this went down as it is being reported (I withhold judgement until all the facts are out), the officer should be held accountable (ie charged). 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8527
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1488 on: July 08, 2016, 08:41:40 AM »
Sadly, legally carrying his weapon was likely a contributing factor in what got Philando Castile shot by the police officer.

I would say the gun in the hands of an over-anxious officer was a much bigger factor in his death than the victim legally carrying a firearm.  A small portion of police are too willing to use deadly force.  If this went down as it is being reported (I withhold judgement until all the facts are out), the officer should be held accountable (ie charged).

From everything that I've read so far, the officer should be charged and held accountable.  It's hard to imagine that having a gun visible was a net benefit to Castile in this scenario though.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1489 on: July 08, 2016, 08:44:48 AM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1490 on: July 08, 2016, 08:55:09 AM »
Sadly, legally carrying his weapon was likely a contributing factor in what got Philando Castile shot by the police officer.

I would say the gun in the hands of an over-anxious officer was a much bigger factor in his death than the victim legally carrying a firearm.  A small portion of police are too willing to use deadly force.  If this went down as it is being reported (I withhold judgement until all the facts are out), the officer should be held accountable (ie charged).

From everything that I've read so far, the officer should be charged and held accountable.  It's hard to imagine that having a gun visible was a net benefit to Castile in this scenario though.

You could apply that logic to the entire scenario - If he didn't leave the house, if he wouldn't have driven a car, if the taillight hadn't been broken, and finally if he hadn't had a gun.

At the end of the day, the officer shot him in what may have been a complete and total over-reaction.  If that is the case, the officer should be charged.

My take on this at this point, leans towards cop at fault in this one, but I like to wait until all the facts come out.  I initially leaned on cop at fault in the Michael Brown case, until the facts became very different than initially reported (some of the facts the justice department tried to bury).

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1491 on: July 08, 2016, 09:00:59 AM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

And there it is.

I am not invested in this because I am Canadian.  I an invested because I am human.  Innocent people are losing their lives.  I am invested because there is a culture of bigotry, racism and hate that seems to keep showing its face. 

I honestly don't care where you are from.  This combined culture is killing innocent people.  Not even a month ago, 49 people were killed in a night club.  Why? because they were different.

There has been hatred passed as law in the "bathroom bills"  There has been a KKK recruitment program based on stopping transgender people.  Trans people of colour are being murdered at an alarming rate. Not to mention the seeming murder of black people for no other reason then they are black.   This all needs to stop. 

So, you are right, it is not "gun culture" that is causing this.  It is a racist, bigoted, hate filled culture causing this.  Guns just make it really easy to cause mass damage.  I am wanting there to be some protections in place to not allow guns into the hands of those who will do evil. 

Guns are a useful tool.  I lived in a rural area for many years.  We used guns to hunt, trap, protect our animals from wild life, and even harvest the animals we had raised.     

Love and kindness is all that is going to "fix" this.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1492 on: July 08, 2016, 09:10:02 AM »
Sadly, legally carrying his weapon was likely a contributing factor in what got Philando Castile shot by the police officer.

I would say the gun in the hands of an over-anxious officer was a much bigger factor in his death than the victim legally carrying a firearm.  A small portion of police are too willing to use deadly force.  If this went down as it is being reported (I withhold judgement until all the facts are out), the officer should be held accountable (ie charged).

From everything that I've read so far, the officer should be charged and held accountable.  It's hard to imagine that having a gun visible was a net benefit to Castile in this scenario though.

You could apply that logic to the entire scenario - If he didn't leave the house, if he wouldn't have driven a car, if the taillight hadn't been broken, and finally if he hadn't had a gun.

At the end of the day, the officer shot him in what may have been a complete and total over-reaction.  If that is the case, the officer should be charged.

My take on this at this point, leans towards cop at fault in this one, but I like to wait until all the facts come out.  I initially leaned on cop at fault in the Michael Brown case, until the facts became very different than initially reported (some of the facts the justice department tried to bury).

Was the gun even visible? The only accounts I've seen just talk about Castile voluntarily mentioning the gun to the officer. I'm not sure the officer ever really saw the gun and just maybe overreacted to Castile reaching for his license.

It seems to me that the increasing frequency of people carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) seems to be making some law enforcement officers nervous and this unfortunately shooting is a worst case scenario resulting from that nervousness. Proper training and protocols on both sides seems to be needed; note, I'm not arguing Castile did anything wrong as a concealed carry user. Rather I'm thinking that if a person can do everything right and still get shot, what happens when a totally untrained person carrying a concealed gun encounters a jumpy law enforcement officer. Here in the state of Kansas you can legally carry a concealed gun with no training or oversight whatsoever. I've always thought that sounded like a recipe for disaster and this is the type of situation where it could easily happen.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1493 on: July 08, 2016, 09:19:09 AM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

And there it is.

I am not invested in this because I am Canadian.  I an invested because I am human.  Innocent people are losing their lives.  I am invested because there is a culture of bigotry, racism and hate that seems to keep showing its face. 

I honestly don't care where you are from.  This combined culture is killing innocent people.  Not even a month ago, 49 people were killed in a night club.  Why? because they were different.

There has been hatred passed as law in the "bathroom bills"  There has been a KKK recruitment program based on stopping transgender people.  Trans people of colour are being murdered at an alarming rate. Not to mention the seeming murder of black people for no other reason then they are black.   This all needs to stop. 

So, you are right, it is not "gun culture" that is causing this.  It is a racist, bigoted, hate filled culture causing this.  Guns just make it really easy to cause mass damage.  I am wanting there to be some protections in place to not allow guns into the hands of those who will do evil. 

Guns are a useful tool.  I lived in a rural area for many years.  We used guns to hunt, trap, protect our animals from wild life, and even harvest the animals we had raised.     

Love and kindness is all that is going to "fix" this.

No doubt your intentions are good. But again, you fundamentally misunderstand American culture. Pushing the gun control agenda much further will result in even MORE killing and bloodshed, more hate. So much more. The key to this is LEAVING EACH OTHER THE HELL ALONE, and this applies equally to bathroom bills and gun control bills.

ETA: Also, forgive me if I am off-base here, but the examples you use in your post seem to suggest that the hate and bigotry comes primarily from straight white people towards gays, blacks, trans, etc. If this is your position, you that is another fundamental misunderstanding of America. It comes from all groups, towards all groups.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 09:26:02 AM by winkeyman »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1494 on: July 08, 2016, 09:25:19 AM »
Was the gun even visible? The only accounts I've seen just talk about Castile voluntarily mentioning the gun to the officer. I'm not sure the officer ever really saw the gun and just maybe overreacted to Castile reaching for his license.

It seems to me that the increasing frequency of people carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) seems to be making some law enforcement officers nervous and this unfortunately shooting is a worst case scenario resulting from that nervousness. Proper training and protocols on both sides seems to be needed; note, I'm not arguing Castile did anything wrong as a concealed carry user. Rather I'm thinking that if a person can do everything right and still get shot, what happens when a totally untrained person carrying a concealed gun encounters a jumpy law enforcement officer. Here in the state of Kansas you can legally carry a concealed gun with no training or oversight whatsoever. I've always thought that sounded like a recipe for disaster and this is the type of situation where it could easily happen.

Dramaman - I don't know whether the gun was visible or not.  In my state, the police know you have permit when they pull you over.  Unfortunately, I've had 2 tickets since receiving my permit (totally my fault) and have had occasion to interact with the police. 

When this has happened, I (a white guy) assume the officer is a jumpy moron who might want to shoot me and act accordingly.  That means hands on the wheel, move slow, and follow commands.

Logically, police should be less afraid of someone with a concealed permit as they are trained and receive a background check, but logic may have gone out the window on this one.  In addition, cops are sometimes not held accountable in these situations so a minority of them use their weapons in situations that are avoidable.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 636
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1495 on: July 08, 2016, 09:29:12 AM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

And there it is.

I am not invested in this because I am Canadian.  I an invested because I am human.  Innocent people are losing their lives.  I am invested because there is a culture of bigotry, racism and hate that seems to keep showing its face. 

I honestly don't care where you are from.  This combined culture is killing innocent people.  Not even a month ago, 49 people were killed in a night club.  Why? because they were different.

There has been hatred passed as law in the "bathroom bills"  There has been a KKK recruitment program based on stopping transgender people.  Trans people of colour are being murdered at an alarming rate. Not to mention the seeming murder of black people for no other reason then they are black.   This all needs to stop. 

So, you are right, it is not "gun culture" that is causing this.  It is a racist, bigoted, hate filled culture causing this.  Guns just make it really easy to cause mass damage.  I am wanting there to be some protections in place to not allow guns into the hands of those who will do evil. 

Guns are a useful tool.  I lived in a rural area for many years.  We used guns to hunt, trap, protect our animals from wild life, and even harvest the animals we had raised.     

Love and kindness is all that is going to "fix" this.

No doubt your intentions are good. But again, you fundamentally misunderstand American culture. Pushing the gun control agenda much further will result in even MORE killing and bloodshed, more hate. So much more. The key to this is LEAVING EACH OTHER THE HELL ALONE, and this applies equally to bathroom bills and gun control bills.

What I am urging is not gun control as much as a conversation.  Both sides of this argument need to work together for the betterment of a culture as a whole.  Gun control may not be the answer, from the reading I have done both here and online.  Better education is. 

Better education will also help erase the bigotry that exists as well.  When people learn, there biases can and will soften.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1496 on: July 08, 2016, 10:03:37 AM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

And there it is.

I am not invested in this because I am Canadian.  I an invested because I am human.  Innocent people are losing their lives.  I am invested because there is a culture of bigotry, racism and hate that seems to keep showing its face. 

I honestly don't care where you are from.  This combined culture is killing innocent people.  Not even a month ago, 49 people were killed in a night club.  Why? because they were different.

There has been hatred passed as law in the "bathroom bills"  There has been a KKK recruitment program based on stopping transgender people.  Trans people of colour are being murdered at an alarming rate. Not to mention the seeming murder of black people for no other reason then they are black.   This all needs to stop. 

So, you are right, it is not "gun culture" that is causing this.  It is a racist, bigoted, hate filled culture causing this.  Guns just make it really easy to cause mass damage.  I am wanting there to be some protections in place to not allow guns into the hands of those who will do evil. 

Guns are a useful tool.  I lived in a rural area for many years.  We used guns to hunt, trap, protect our animals from wild life, and even harvest the animals we had raised.     

Love and kindness is all that is going to "fix" this.

No doubt your intentions are good. But again, you fundamentally misunderstand American culture. Pushing the gun control agenda much further will result in even MORE killing and bloodshed, more hate. So much more. The key to this is LEAVING EACH OTHER THE HELL ALONE, and this applies equally to bathroom bills and gun control bills.

I question the logic that gun control would lead to more killing, bloodshed and particularly hate. We had more stringent gun control for significant periods of time in the past without what we are seeing now. How would gun control make things worse?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1497 on: July 08, 2016, 11:52:27 AM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

And there it is.

I am not invested in this because I am Canadian.  I an invested because I am human.  Innocent people are losing their lives.  I am invested because there is a culture of bigotry, racism and hate that seems to keep showing its face. 

I honestly don't care where you are from.  This combined culture is killing innocent people.  Not even a month ago, 49 people were killed in a night club.  Why? because they were different.

There has been hatred passed as law in the "bathroom bills"  There has been a KKK recruitment program based on stopping transgender people.  Trans people of colour are being murdered at an alarming rate. Not to mention the seeming murder of black people for no other reason then they are black.   This all needs to stop. 

So, you are right, it is not "gun culture" that is causing this.  It is a racist, bigoted, hate filled culture causing this.  Guns just make it really easy to cause mass damage.  I am wanting there to be some protections in place to not allow guns into the hands of those who will do evil. 

Guns are a useful tool.  I lived in a rural area for many years.  We used guns to hunt, trap, protect our animals from wild life, and even harvest the animals we had raised.     

Love and kindness is all that is going to "fix" this.

No doubt your intentions are good. But again, you fundamentally misunderstand American culture. Pushing the gun control agenda much further will result in even MORE killing and bloodshed, more hate. So much more. The key to this is LEAVING EACH OTHER THE HELL ALONE, and this applies equally to bathroom bills and gun control bills.

I question the logic that gun control would lead to more killing, bloodshed and particularly hate. We had more stringent gun control for significant periods of time in the past without what we are seeing now. How would gun control make things worse?

EFFECTIVE gun control would make things worse.

By effective, I mean outright bans, confiscation, etc. Going down that road in America will certainly lead to bloodshed.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1498 on: July 08, 2016, 12:08:44 PM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

And there it is.

I am not invested in this because I am Canadian.  I an invested because I am human.  Innocent people are losing their lives.  I am invested because there is a culture of bigotry, racism and hate that seems to keep showing its face. 

I honestly don't care where you are from.  This combined culture is killing innocent people.  Not even a month ago, 49 people were killed in a night club.  Why? because they were different.

There has been hatred passed as law in the "bathroom bills"  There has been a KKK recruitment program based on stopping transgender people.  Trans people of colour are being murdered at an alarming rate. Not to mention the seeming murder of black people for no other reason then they are black.   This all needs to stop. 

So, you are right, it is not "gun culture" that is causing this.  It is a racist, bigoted, hate filled culture causing this.  Guns just make it really easy to cause mass damage.  I am wanting there to be some protections in place to not allow guns into the hands of those who will do evil. 

Guns are a useful tool.  I lived in a rural area for many years.  We used guns to hunt, trap, protect our animals from wild life, and even harvest the animals we had raised.     

Love and kindness is all that is going to "fix" this.

No doubt your intentions are good. But again, you fundamentally misunderstand American culture. Pushing the gun control agenda much further will result in even MORE killing and bloodshed, more hate. So much more. The key to this is LEAVING EACH OTHER THE HELL ALONE, and this applies equally to bathroom bills and gun control bills.

What I am urging is not gun control as much as a conversation.  Both sides of this argument need to work together for the betterment of a culture as a whole.  Gun control may not be the answer, from the reading I have done both here and online.  Better education is. 

Better education will also help erase the bigotry that exists as well.  When people learn, there biases can and will soften.

I am all for education. However, the proposition that education makes people treat each other better is one I do not believe to be true. The most dangerous organizers among Islamic terrorist groups are highly educated, as well as many suicide bombers, etc. Getting a degree in a Social Justice - type major does not make people more tolerant. It does not soften biases, it hardens biases.

I agree a conversation needs to happen. But those in a position to start such a conversation are seemingly not willing or able to initiate a productive one. BLM? Only cares about black people. Obama? Blame the guns. Hillary, Trump? Ha!

At the heart of this (by this I mean unjustified police shootings) is America's law enforcement culture. The attitude that cops have towards the people they supposedly protect and serve. The militarization of police and their willingness to kill people for stupid/no reasons. ALL people, not just people of a particular race.

Americans police kill MANY MORE whites than blacks. They also kill plenty of latinos. However, due to the media and BLM, this has been turned into a white vs. black issue, which is not the case. This framing of events puts most white people on the defensive and on the sidelines.

This is a police vs. everyone issue.

As long as the conversation is framed as a white vs. black issue, no progress will be made. There are more white people than black people, simple as that.

If it is framed as a police vs. all people issue (as it should be), progress WILL be made. There are more people than police, simple as that.


JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1499 on: July 08, 2016, 12:10:54 PM »
Another day I wake up to the new of another mass shooting in the USA.  This one was 11 police shot.  5 dead, 6 if you include one of the gun men. 

I am not sure what the answer is, but the senseless killing of another 6 people, not to mention the two that were shot by police, that started this.  I don't know what gun laws need to change.  I do know that it is the gun culture in the US that seems to be causing this.  Everyone has access to a gun, and many choose to use them.

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion amongst some.  I am sure that I will get "the only way to stop a mass shooting is a good guy with a gun" except on Wednesday a person was shot in front of his family.  He had a legal permit to concealed carry.   That did not prevent that tragedy.  Last night there were uniformed armed, trained officers.  Many of them keeping the peace at a rally.  They could not stop the event before the shooter took their own life, guns do not stop violence, they condone it.

The gun culture, huh?

Not the disgusting thug culture in this country.

Not the outrageous police culture in this country.

Not the sad culture of milquetoast, indifferent white people that assume cops are always in the right.

Not the culture of (bi-directional) racism.

None of those things are contributing factors. Just "gun culture," right?

I think I am beginning to understand you Canadians better. You seem so invested in, and so flabbergasted by this stuff. It's because you think the US and Canada are basically the same, expect America has less strict gun laws. You are sorely mistaken.

And there it is.

I am not invested in this because I am Canadian.  I an invested because I am human.  Innocent people are losing their lives.  I am invested because there is a culture of bigotry, racism and hate that seems to keep showing its face. 

I honestly don't care where you are from.  This combined culture is killing innocent people.  Not even a month ago, 49 people were killed in a night club.  Why? because they were different.

There has been hatred passed as law in the "bathroom bills"  There has been a KKK recruitment program based on stopping transgender people.  Trans people of colour are being murdered at an alarming rate. Not to mention the seeming murder of black people for no other reason then they are black.   This all needs to stop. 

So, you are right, it is not "gun culture" that is causing this.  It is a racist, bigoted, hate filled culture causing this.  Guns just make it really easy to cause mass damage.  I am wanting there to be some protections in place to not allow guns into the hands of those who will do evil. 

Guns are a useful tool.  I lived in a rural area for many years.  We used guns to hunt, trap, protect our animals from wild life, and even harvest the animals we had raised.     

Love and kindness is all that is going to "fix" this.

No doubt your intentions are good. But again, you fundamentally misunderstand American culture. Pushing the gun control agenda much further will result in even MORE killing and bloodshed, more hate. So much more. The key to this is LEAVING EACH OTHER THE HELL ALONE, and this applies equally to bathroom bills and gun control bills.

What I am urging is not gun control as much as a conversation.  Both sides of this argument need to work together for the betterment of a culture as a whole.  Gun control may not be the answer, from the reading I have done both here and online.  Better education is. 

Better education will also help erase the bigotry that exists as well.  When people learn, there biases can and will soften.

I am all for education. However, the proposition that education makes people treat each other better is one I do not believe to be true. The most dangerous organizers among Islamic terrorist groups are highly educated, as well as many suicide bombers, etc. Getting a degree in a Social Justice - type major does not make people more tolerant. It does not soften biases, it hardens biases.

I agree a conversation needs to happen. But those in a position to start such a conversation are seemingly not willing or able to initiate a productive one. BLM? Only cares about black people. Obama? Blame the guns. Hillary, Trump? Ha!

At the heart of this (by this I mean unjustified police shootings) is America's law enforcement culture. The attitude that cops have towards the people they supposedly protect and serve. The militarization of police and their willingness to kill people for stupid/no reasons. ALL people, not just people of a particular race.

Americans police kill MANY MORE whites than blacks. They also kill plenty of latinos. However, due to the media and BLM, this has been turned into a white vs. black issue, which is not the case. This framing of events puts most white people on the defensive and on the sidelines.

This is a police vs. everyone issue.

As long as the conversation is framed as a white vs. black issue, no progress will be made. There are more white people than black people, simple as that.

If it is framed as a police vs. all people issue (as it should be), progress WILL be made. There are more people than police, simple as that.

The premise of your argument, i.e. "This is a police vs. everyone issue" is just as flawed as saying all gun owners are criminals.

Are there problem officers/departments? Absolutely.  Is it fair to generalize all of law enforcement and claim that it's "us vs them"? Absolutely not.