Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 24222 times)

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #550 on: November 07, 2017, 09:47:53 AM »


http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/

In terms of policy change, there are two that have nearly-100% bipartisan support:


Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #551 on: November 07, 2017, 09:57:09 AM »
I'll quote myself from a month ago.
The shooting here in TX would have been further lessened or prevented by #3 below. I was actually surprised no one in the church shot back. The baddie was chased off and stopped by a couple good guys... with guns.

The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

I used to be anti-gun. Ban 'em all, no reason to have them, etc.

WORSE, (this is embarrassing) I looked to Government for answers to problems. Then I started thinking rationally, and discovered concepts like freedom with responsibility, etc. I'm now about as libertarian as it gets. You don't mess with my life, liberty, property, I won't mess with yours. I want to be a good neighbor to you and I assume you want the same. Government is a very unfortunate parasitical necessity and the smaller the better.

Try this analysis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.aafa76fae251

Gun owners in US have hundreds of millions of guns and TRILLIONS of rounds of ammo. They are not the problem; if they were, the map would be a different color.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #552 on: November 07, 2017, 10:06:54 AM »
What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #553 on: November 07, 2017, 10:12:28 AM »
What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.

No, I agree with Acroy.  The solution is to give the mentally ill moar guns.  It's so obvious.  How else will everyone be safe?

Barbaebigode

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #554 on: November 07, 2017, 10:22:38 AM »
I'll quote myself from a month ago.
The shooting here in TX would have been further lessened or prevented by #3 below. I was actually surprised no one in the church shot back. The baddie was chased off and stopped by a couple good guys... with guns.

The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

I used to be anti-gun. Ban 'em all, no reason to have them, etc.

WORSE, (this is embarrassing) I looked to Government for answers to problems. Then I started thinking rationally, and discovered concepts like freedom with responsibility, etc. I'm now about as libertarian as it gets. You don't mess with my life, liberty, property, I won't mess with yours. I want to be a good neighbor to you and I assume you want the same. Government is a very unfortunate parasitical necessity and the smaller the better.

Try this analysis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.aafa76fae251

Gun owners in US have hundreds of millions of guns and TRILLIONS of rounds of ammo. They are not the problem; if they were, the map would be a different color.

So the deadliest mass shooting in Texas's history is a case of success for the "good guy with a gun"? There's optimism, but this is delusion.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #555 on: November 07, 2017, 10:36:41 AM »
One factor that I think is important to keep in mind that I mentioned earlier in this thread is the effect neighbors seem to have on firearm violence. All of these euro-paradises tend to have neighbors with relatively low violence rates. As far as I know, none of them share a border with a place as violent as Mexico. Is it a coincidence that the US is somewhere between Mexico and Canada in violence? Note I'm not saying all of our problems are Mexico's fault, but this is one example of a unique issue that separates us from the usually compared countries.  Australia, the UK, France, etc all have well behaved neighbors. Is there an example of a country with a lower violence rate than the US who shares a land border with a country with a rate comparable to Mexico? http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1730562/original.jpg Notice how the shades stay relatively in the ballpark of their neighboring countries. Not many dark-light transitions.

Way before Australia's harsh gun laws, it already had way less violent crime than the US did. That gap has not widened with the laws, it's stayed consistent. Both countries have become less violent, if gun laws were really effective in Australia you'd expect the gap to widen. What is the reason for the US's difference to Australia before the gun laws there? If gun laws in the UK, Canada, and Australia changed overnight to be similar to US laws, do you all really think their murder rates would spike by a factor of 5?

I think there are many reasons for the disparity, and planting it all (or most) on guns is just looking for an easy to fix scapegoat. We have a healthcare system that causes the most bankruptcies in our country. We have the most prisoners out of any country in the world. We're literally #1 in prisoners, with more than 5x the incarceration rate as those European nations. Those prisoners are often in private prisons, who have a monetary incentive to bring the prisoners back, so reforming them is actively avoided. Judges have been caught taking bribes to send people to prison. We've got a war on drugs that literally funnels money to gangs in our very violent neighboring country.  The list goes on and on.

There are so many differences between the countries it's ridiculous. One other factor is population. We have roughly 10x the population of Australia, so assuming the two countries were exactly equal we'd expect 10x as many mass shootings in the US as there. France has 1/5 the population we do, and has had two enormous mass murders in the last two years. I get that mass shootings are a relatively small part of the problem in the US, but they are what prompts these discussions. Based purely on our population we should see "mass killing" on the news way more often than a smaller country, so it seems to be a bigger problem than it would in a small country due to news coverage.

But hey, maybe if we just take away everyone's guns, or put magazine limits or waiting periods, or only allow ones made out of wood that are single shot, we'll be just like Australia and our crime rate will drop massively. I doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

/semi-coherent rambling

I'm getting too worked up again, guess it's time for another break.

What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.

That's because the effect of these sorts of laws is that people don't seek out help for mental illness, and try to hide it so they can keep their guns/job/whatever it is. Mentally ill =/= violent. I think it's reasonable that the burden of proof rest on the government to say why they should have a constitutional right taken away. You know, due process. A quote from your article:

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 10:43:02 AM by ooeei »

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #556 on: November 07, 2017, 10:58:19 AM »
/semi-coherent rambling

I agree there are lots of differences between countries, and not everything is guaranteed to work. But the system literally failed in Texas, so why are people so opposed to trying SOMETHING? Let's see if a few small changes move us in the right direction!

No one said we're taking your guns. No one. If people would stop hugging their guns like teddy bears, we could talk. Anyone says "regulate" and people act like the 1st step is kicking down the door and forcibly taking your guns followed by a slow castration.

That's because the effect of these sorts of laws is that people don't seek out help for mental illness, and try to hide it so they can keep their guns/job/whatever it is. Mentally ill =/= violent. I think it's reasonable that the burden of proof rest on the government to say why they should have a constitutional right taken away. You know, due process. A quote from your article:

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

Then why are they getting my tax money via SS?

Statistically, 100% of people who shoot people intentionally and not in self defense or in military/police service have a mental issue. Thus, I would say it's reasonable to assume that if you have certain mental issues, you don't get access to guns. The article didn't say all mental issues are affected by the law, just ones that are bad enough that these people literally can't take care of themselves without assistance.

We use stats to make preemptive decisions all the time.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #557 on: November 07, 2017, 11:28:28 AM »
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #558 on: November 07, 2017, 11:33:58 AM »
One factor that I think is important to keep in mind that I mentioned earlier in this thread is the effect neighbors seem to have on firearm violence. All of these euro-paradises tend to have neighbors with relatively low violence rates. As far as I know, none of them share a border with a place as violent as Mexico. Is it a coincidence that the US is somewhere between Mexico and Canada in violence? Note I'm not saying all of our problems are Mexico's fault, but this is one example of a unique issue that separates us from the usually compared countries.  Australia, the UK, France, etc all have well behaved neighbors. Is there an example of a country with a lower violence rate than the US who shares a land border with a country with a rate comparable to Mexico? http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1730562/original.jpg Notice how the shades stay relatively in the ballpark of their neighboring countries. Not many dark-light transitions.

Way before Australia's harsh gun laws

Could you point out exactly what is harsh about Australia's current gun laws?


If gun laws in the UK, Canada, and Australia changed overnight to be similar to US laws, do you all really think their murder rates would spike by a factor of 5?

No, not overnight.  It would be quite surprising if over a 15 - 20 year period gun crime rates didn't significantly increase in all countries though.



I think there are many reasons for the disparity, and planting it all (or most) on guns is just looking for an easy to fix scapegoat. We have a healthcare system that causes the most bankruptcies in our country. We have the most prisoners out of any country in the world. We're literally #1 in prisoners, with more than 5x the incarceration rate as those European nations. Those prisoners are often in private prisons, who have a monetary incentive to bring the prisoners back, so reforming them is actively avoided. Judges have been caught taking bribes to send people to prison. We've got a war on drugs that literally funnels money to gangs in our very violent neighboring country.  The list goes on and on.

Agreed, gun controls and regulation are a piece of the solution - not the whole solution.



There are so many differences between the countries it's ridiculous. One other factor is population. We have roughly 10x the population of Australia, so assuming the two countries were exactly equal we'd expect 10x as many mass shootings in the US as there. France has 1/5 the population we do, and has had two enormous mass murders in the last two years. I get that mass shootings are a relatively small part of the problem in the US, but they are what prompts these discussions. Based purely on our population we should see "mass killing" on the news way more often than a smaller country, so it seems to be a bigger problem than it would in a small country due to news coverage.

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:





But hey, maybe if we just take away everyone's guns, or put magazine limits or waiting periods, or only allow ones made out of wood that are single shot, we'll be just like Australia and our crime rate will drop massively. I doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

I don't think that any single piece of legislation in the US is likely to cause crime rate to massively drop.  I don't think that anyone in this thread has made that claim.  Gun control is a small, but important part of the solution to gun violence.

What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.

That's because the effect of these sorts of laws is that people don't seek out help for mental illness, and try to hide it so they can keep their guns/job/whatever it is. Mentally ill =/= violent. I think it's reasonable that the burden of proof rest on the government to say why they should have a constitutional right taken away. You know, due process. A quote from your article:

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

I agree with your comment, that there could be knock-on effects by banning the mentally ill from holding guns.  These are valid concerns and should be studied before implementing any legislation (although my suspicion is that the lack of public education deters far more people from seeking help for mental illness than any potential weapons prohibition).

The problem with Senator Grassley's comment is that mental illness is difficult to gauge.  Clinical psychology is a pseudo-science and asking ten different professionals will yield widely varying opinions.  Honest question for you. . . do you really believe that there is a good reason for the diagnosed mentally ill to legally own and use firearms?  Even if they don't show signs of violent intent . . . given the current suicide rate with guns I'd think that there should be significant reason to pause and consider what's best for society.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #559 on: November 07, 2017, 11:36:25 AM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #560 on: November 07, 2017, 11:51:41 AM »
One factor that I think is important to keep in mind that I mentioned earlier in this thread is the effect neighbors seem to have on firearm violence. All of these euro-paradises tend to have neighbors with relatively low violence rates. As far as I know, none of them share a border with a place as violent as Mexico. Is it a coincidence that the US is somewhere between Mexico and Canada in violence? Note I'm not saying all of our problems are Mexico's fault, but this is one example of a unique issue that separates us from the usually compared countries.  Australia, the UK, France, etc all have well behaved neighbors. Is there an example of a country with a lower violence rate than the US who shares a land border with a country with a rate comparable to Mexico? http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1730562/original.jpg Notice how the shades stay relatively in the ballpark of their neighboring countries. Not many dark-light transitions.

Way before Australia's harsh gun laws, it already had way less violent crime than the US did. That gap has not widened with the laws, it's stayed consistent. Both countries have become less violent, if gun laws were really effective in Australia you'd expect the gap to widen. What is the reason for the US's difference to Australia before the gun laws there? If gun laws in the UK, Canada, and Australia changed overnight to be similar to US laws, do you all really think their murder rates would spike by a factor of 5?

I think there are many reasons for the disparity, and planting it all (or most) on guns is just looking for an easy to fix scapegoat. We have a healthcare system that causes the most bankruptcies in our country. We have the most prisoners out of any country in the world. We're literally #1 in prisoners, with more than 5x the incarceration rate as those European nations. Those prisoners are often in private prisons, who have a monetary incentive to bring the prisoners back, so reforming them is actively avoided. Judges have been caught taking bribes to send people to prison. We've got a war on drugs that literally funnels money to gangs in our very violent neighboring country.  The list goes on and on.

There are so many differences between the countries it's ridiculous. One other factor is population. We have roughly 10x the population of Australia, so assuming the two countries were exactly equal we'd expect 10x as many mass shootings in the US as there. France has 1/5 the population we do, and has had two enormous mass murders in the last two years. I get that mass shootings are a relatively small part of the problem in the US, but they are what prompts these discussions. Based purely on our population we should see "mass killing" on the news way more often than a smaller country, so it seems to be a bigger problem than it would in a small country due to news coverage.

But hey, maybe if we just take away everyone's guns, or put magazine limits or waiting periods, or only allow ones made out of wood that are single shot, we'll be just like Australia and our crime rate will drop massively. I doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

/semi-coherent rambling

Ok, going to try to dissect this.  There's 1) some sort of tacit blame on the violent neighbors to our south and their gangs?  2) News coverage is over-exploiting that we average 1 mass shooting per day in America? 3) The crime rate is to blame?

I don't know.  I'm confused.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Here are some key facts:

Quote
Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.

That's absurd.  A country with 4-4.5% of the world's population should not have nearly 1/3 of all mass shooters.

Quote
Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

So we're as good as Yemen?  What a benchmark to hit.



Quote
Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.

Quote
If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

Quote
America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Some in this thread have suggested violent crime is the problem.  The crime rate is just too high.

Quote
But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

Quote
They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

Quote
More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

Quote
This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

I actually don't like that last line because a person still has to pull the trigger, but certainly "access to guns" can make the violence worse and more deadly.

Quote
So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

As with any crime, the underlying risk is impossible to fully erase. Any individual can snap or become entranced by a violent ideology. What is different is the likelihood that this will lead to mass murder.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

Quote
“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

The article at the points out we stand out with two other nations - Mexico and Guatemala - in our approach to guns as an inherent right.  Every other country on this planet views the right to own a gun as something that must be earned and that the people who wish to buy guns and ammo must prove they are capable of handling these killing machines in a responsible manner.

The main takeaway from the article is that easier access to guns = more deaths.  America does not have more crime than other countries, just more violent ones because of the access to guns.  America does not have more people with mental illness, we just allow those people almost no barriers to purchasing guns.

The solution is very simple - if you care at all about lowering the rate of our absurdly high gun death rate, then we must make it more difficult to purchase guns and ammo.  That is a fact that you cannot dispute.  If you're going to argue otherwise you are OK with our citizens being 25x more likely to die from a gun than any other developed nation.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #561 on: November 07, 2017, 11:52:56 AM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #562 on: November 07, 2017, 12:13:40 PM »
/semi-coherent rambling

I agree there are lots of differences between countries, and not everything is guaranteed to work. But the system literally failed in Texas, so why are people so opposed to trying SOMETHING? Let's see if a few small changes move us in the right direction!

No one said we're taking your guns. No one. If people would stop hugging their guns like teddy bears, we could talk. Anyone says "regulate" and people act like the 1st step is kicking down the door and forcibly taking your guns followed by a slow castration.

And as we've said numerous times in this thread, the whole "Let's just try something" is going to end up being an endless dance. The current system failed due to a procedural error, not an error in design. No new system is going to fix that.

Quote
Then why are they getting my tax money via SS?

Statistically, 100% of people who shoot people intentionally and not in self defense or in military/police service have a mental issue. Thus, I would say it's reasonable to assume that if you have certain mental issues, you don't get access to guns. The article didn't say all mental issues are affected by the law, just ones that are bad enough that these people literally can't take care of themselves without assistance.

We use stats to make preemptive decisions all the time.

Because giving people benefits has a much lower bar set than taking away their constitutional rights. Should they also have their kids taken away? I mean, apparently they're all dangerous, so that should be a given, shouldn't it? Or should an actual trial take place on an individual basis, and due process be done?

Could you point out exactly what is harsh about Australia's current gun laws?

Whatever adjective you want to use is fine, Australia has much tougher gun laws than the US. Despite these tougher laws, the gap between the two in violent crime has remained constant. Why is it that the US has decreased at the same rate as Australia despite having much laxer gun laws?

Quote
No, not overnight.  It would be quite surprising if over a 15 - 20 year period gun crime rates didn't significantly increase in all countries though.

If gun crime is what you're concerned with, sure. If overall crime is more what you're worried about, I don't think so.

Quote
Agreed, gun controls and regulation are a piece of the solution - not the whole solution.

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:


Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

France had an incident in 2016 where 86 people were killed and over 400 were injured. Scaling for population that's the equivalent of 430 people being killed and over 2000 being injured in the US. Which one sounds worse? They had an incident in 2015 where 130 were killed and 350 were injured. In US numbers that would be 650 killed and 1750 injured. Or you could also say the US could have had 5 of those tragedies each of those years, and still be at the same level as France. Yet 5 per year sounds, well, 5 times worse than the 1 France had. The US could have had 4 tragedies of 100 deaths and 400 injured in 2016, and yet they would have been less severe on a population basis than France's 1 incident. Which country do you think the news would say is more dangerous though?

Absolute numbers matter in how people perceive things. The US is 5-10x bigger than virtually every country it's compared to, so the problem is magnified by a factor of 5-10 when they are compared using absolute numbers.

I'd also argue that defining "mass shooting" as anywhere where 4 people are injured by a gun is misleading. It's not that the info isn't valuable, but "mass shooting" conjures up a certain image in people's heads, and usually it's not a gang fight, convenience store robbery, or domestic argument.

There's also the fact that so many comparisons focus on gun violence, when we should be looking at overall violence. If one neighborhood near me has 2 gun murders in the last 10 years, and that's all, and the other neighborhood near me has 100 baseball bat murders every 6 months, I'd be inclined to take my walks in the first neighborhood, despite the infinitely higher rate of gun violence. Again, these stats are used for marketing. The US having 10000x as many gun deaths as Australia sounds way better than saying we have 5x as many homicides.

Quote
I don't think that any single piece of legislation in the US is likely to cause crime rate to massively drop.  I don't think that anyone in this thread has made that claim.  Gun control is a small, but important part of the solution to gun violence.


I agree with your comment, that there could be knock-on effects by banning the mentally ill from holding guns.  These are valid concerns and should be studied before implementing any legislation (although my suspicion is that the lack of public education deters far more people from seeking help for mental illness than any potential weapons prohibition).

The problem with Senator Grassley's comment is that mental illness is difficult to gauge.  Clinical psychology is a pseudo-science and asking ten different professionals will yield widely varying opinions.  Honest question for you. . . do you really believe that there is a good reason for the diagnosed mentally ill to legally own and use firearms?  Even if they don't show signs of violent intent . . . given the current suicide rate with guns I'd think that there should be significant reason to pause and consider what's best for society.

So clinical psychology is pseudoscience, yet we should give them veto power to constitutional rights? What?

Due process is a big deal in America. We have a court system for a reason. Letting a psychologist make a unilateral decision on someone's constitutional rights is a really big deal.

As for whether there's a good reason for them to own a gun, I'd say the same reasons as anyone else, and reason doesn't matter. If there is a good reason to deny them that right, let the court system do it, not a single pseudoscientist. Again, this doesn't get around people not seeking help for their illness because of fear either.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #563 on: November 07, 2017, 12:16:44 PM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.

There are very legitimate concerns regarding the transparency and accountability of the government regarding no-fly lists.  Several serious mistakes have already been recorded with them.  I'm saying that without a hint of being a conspiracy theorist, and with the believe that guns should be better regulated.  This is not a post you want to hitch your horse on.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #564 on: November 07, 2017, 12:17:49 PM »
Quote

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:


Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

You...you do realize the chart says PER 100,000?  It's already factoring in population.  So your "but, but...population!" counter argument is bunk plain and simple.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #565 on: November 07, 2017, 12:26:28 PM »
Ok, going to try to dissect this.  There's 1) some sort of tacit blame on the violent neighbors to our south and their gangs?  2) News coverage is over-exploiting that we average 1 mass shooting per day in America? 3) The crime rate is to blame?

I don't know.  I'm confused.

If person A lives in a neighborhood that is bordered by a slum with an insanely high crime rate, and person B lives in a neighborhood in the middle of Beverly hills bordered by 10 miles of millionaires, which person likely has a higher crime rate in their neighborhood?

The world map shows it as well. As I asked, what other country that has a homicide rate like all of these European countries borders a place with over 20 murders /100,000 people?

News in America is reporting on every thing that happens in a country of 300,000 people. News in Australia is reporting on 1/10th of that. Assuming they each report on the same amount of gun violence per population, you'd expect American news to be reporting on it 10x as often, assuming the rates were the same. (of course they are not the same, but this is to show the magnitude of the difference you get based purely on population).

Quote
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Here are some key facts:

Quote
Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.

That's absurd.  A country with 4-4.5% of the world's population should not have nearly 1/3 of all mass shooters.

Quote
Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

So we're as good as Yemen?  What a benchmark to hit.

[img]https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/11/06/interpreter-guns-capita/824e02668870e6aa07f15aacb3ee9d359d3c9349/chart_totals_capita-Artboard_2.png[img]

Quote
Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.

Quote
If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

Quote
America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Some in this thread have suggested violent crime is the problem.  The crime rate is just too high.

Quote
But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

Quote
They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

Quote
More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

Key point here being "When controlling for crime rates." Who gives a shit if the person kills you with a knife, or a gun, or their bare hands?

Quote
Quote
This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

I actually don't like that last line because a person still has to pull the trigger, but certainly "access to guns" can make the violence worse and more deadly.

See to me it suggests that guns cause GUN VIOLENCE, which is obvious. What I'm more concerned with is just plain old violence. 50 people getting chopped up by axes isn't any better to me than 50 people being shot.

Quote
Quote
So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

As with any crime, the underlying risk is impossible to fully erase. Any individual can snap or become entranced by a violent ideology. What is different is the likelihood that this will lead to mass murder.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

Quote
“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

The article at the points out we stand out with two other nations - Mexico and Guatemala - in our approach to guns as an inherent right.  Every other country on this planet views the right to own a gun as something that must be earned and that the people who wish to buy guns and ammo must prove they are capable of handling these killing machines in a responsible manner.

The main takeaway from the article is that easier access to guns = more deaths.  America does not have more crime than other countries, just more violent ones because of the access to guns.  America does not have more people with mental illness, we just allow those people almost no barriers to purchasing guns.

The solution is very simple - if you care at all about lowering the rate of our absurdly high gun death rate, then we must make it more difficult to purchase guns and ammo.  That is a fact that you cannot dispute.  If you're going to argue otherwise you are OK with our citizens being 25x more likely to die from a gun than any other developed nation.
[/quote]

The takeaway is that more guns = more gun deaths. That's a very important distinction. We have as  you said the highest firearm ownership rate in the world, but far fewer deaths than a shitload of other countries. That tells me there are likely other factors involved.

We could take away knives to reduce all knife deaths, but that doesn't mean overall deaths will decrease.

Quote

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:

[img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4130310/gun%20deaths%20preventable.jpg[/mg]

Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

You...you do realize the chart says PER 100,000?  It's already factoring in population.  So your "but, but...population!" counter argument is bunk plain and simple.

Yes I'm aware of that. I never said the US didn't have a high rate. I said the disparity is artificially inflated by the population, as even in this thread absolute statistics have been used numerous times (for example, in the post I replied to with the 1 per day stat).

Let's say the US has 5x as many murders as Australia (about right). Assuming news companies love covering murders, the US would have roughly 50x as many murders covered on the news as Australia due to our population, rather than the 5x that is reflective of the actual increase. 50 is more than 5, and exaggerates the disparity.


Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.

So just to clarify, taking away constitutional rights without a trial, or any burden of proof, or transparency in how the decision was made, is totally fine? Being against that is tinfoil hat territory?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 12:32:09 PM by ooeei »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #566 on: November 07, 2017, 12:54:44 PM »
Could you point out exactly what is harsh about Australia's current gun laws?

Whatever adjective you want to use is fine, Australia has much tougher gun laws than the US. Despite these tougher laws, the gap between the two in violent crime has remained constant. Why is it that the US has decreased at the same rate as Australia despite having much laxer gun laws?

The US has some of the most lax gun control laws in the world.

The best chart I can find comparing the US and Australia (something which you earlier argued could not be done because of differences in the countries) is here:



Gun deaths in the US have not decreased at the same rate as Australia.  At the same time it's unclear if the gun death rate in Australia decreased because of the gun laws or if it would have naturally fallen for other reasons.



Quote
No, not overnight.  It would be quite surprising if over a 15 - 20 year period gun crime rates didn't significantly increase in all countries though.

If gun crime is what you're concerned with, sure. If overall crime is more what you're worried about, I don't think so.

Well, we are (and have been) discussing gun deaths in this thread.  There will always be some sort of crime as long as there are people.  There is a difference between an angry man with access to several semi-automatic rifles, and an angry man with access to a knife.  Sure, tragedy is certainly possible in both cases . . . but deadliness is reduced in the latter.



Quote
There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:


Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

My numbers already factor in population.  That's what 'per 100,000' means.  It is not the same in the US even when you factor in population.



I'd also argue that defining "mass shooting" as anywhere where 4 people are injured by a gun is misleading. It's not that the info isn't valuable, but "mass shooting" conjures up a certain image in people's heads, and usually it's not a gang fight, convenience store robbery, or domestic argument.

You'll have to take that up with the FBI.  I just use their definition.



There's also the fact that so many comparisons focus on gun violence, when we should be looking at overall violence. If one neighborhood near me has 2 gun murders in the last 10 years, and that's all, and the other neighborhood near me has 100 baseball bat murders every 6 months, I'd be inclined to take my walks in the first neighborhood, despite the infinitely higher rate of gun violence. Again, these stats are used for marketing. The US having 10000x as many gun deaths as Australia sounds way better than saying we have 5x as many homicides.

Agreed.  But there is a clear problem with gun deaths in the US.  They are much higher than baseball bat deaths.  They are higher than other countries even accounting for population.



Quote
I don't think that any single piece of legislation in the US is likely to cause crime rate to massively drop.  I don't think that anyone in this thread has made that claim.  Gun control is a small, but important part of the solution to gun violence.

I agree with your comment, that there could be knock-on effects by banning the mentally ill from holding guns.  These are valid concerns and should be studied before implementing any legislation (although my suspicion is that the lack of public education deters far more people from seeking help for mental illness than any potential weapons prohibition).

The problem with Senator Grassley's comment is that mental illness is difficult to gauge.  Clinical psychology is a pseudo-science and asking ten different professionals will yield widely varying opinions.  Honest question for you. . . do you really believe that there is a good reason for the diagnosed mentally ill to legally own and use firearms?  Even if they don't show signs of violent intent . . . given the current suicide rate with guns I'd think that there should be significant reason to pause and consider what's best for society.

So clinical psychology is pseudoscience, yet we should give them veto power to constitutional rights? What?

Due process is a big deal in America. We have a court system for a reason. Letting a psychologist make a unilateral decision on someone's constitutional rights is a really big deal.

I agree with you absolutely on these points.  However, this goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

At the moment, clinical psychology is the best available way to diagnose mental instability.  It is currently used to determine if someone is unfit to drive, unfit to marry, unfit to manage their finances, etc.  If we are currently trusting it to make these sweeping decisions, then I fail to understand why everything should be different regarding gun ownership.  Now, if you have a better way to diagnose (and especially treat) mental problems . . . I'm going to back you all the way and push for psychology to change.  Again though, that discussion is out of scope.



As for whether there's a good reason for them to own a gun, I'd say the same reasons as anyone else, and reason doesn't matter. If there is a good reason to deny them that right, let the court system do it, not a single pseudoscientist. Again, this doesn't get around people not seeking help for their illness because of fear either.

We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #567 on: November 07, 2017, 01:24:05 PM »
The best chart I can find comparing the US and Australia (something which you earlier argued could not be done because of differences in the countries) is here:

[mg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf/page1-1200px-Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf.jpgimg]

Gun deaths in the US have not decreased at the same rate as Australia.  At the same time it's unclear if the gun death rate in Australia decreased because of the gun laws or if it would have naturally fallen for other reasons.

The problem is you're looking at gun death rates. Look again at just murder/homicide rates. The numbers are roughly the same, although not exact.

Quote
Well, we are (and have been) discussing gun deaths in this thread.  There will always be some sort of crime as long as there are people.  There is a difference between an angry man with access to several semi-automatic rifles, and an angry man with access to a knife.  Sure, tragedy is certainly possible in both cases . . . but deadliness is reduced in the latter.

Except there is far more than a knife available to angry people. Cars, trucks, bomb making equipment.

Quote
My numbers already factor in population.  That's what 'per 100,000' means.  It is not the same in the US even when you factor in population.

Yes I get that. See my response to the person above.


Quote
You'll have to take that up with the FBI.  I just use their definition.

If we want to split hairs the FBI defines a mass killing (3 or more killed), not mass shootings. Mass shootings are defined and data collected by a 3rd party, and include injured which the FBI does not.

My point about the perception still stands.

Quote
Agreed.  But there is a clear problem with gun deaths in the US.  They are much higher than baseball bat deaths.  They are higher than other countries even accounting for population.

Yes, but as we discussed earlier in the thread, most people who commit gun crimes commit other violent crimes first. I think attempting to prevent all of it is the way to go, but your point is taken.

Quote
I agree with you absolutely on these points.  However, this goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

At the moment, clinical psychology is the best available way to diagnose mental instability.  It is currently used to determine if someone is unfit to drive, unfit to marry, unfit to manage their finances, etc.  If we are currently trusting it to make these sweeping decisions, then I fail to understand why everything should be different regarding gun ownership.  Now, if you have a better way to diagnose (and especially treat) mental problems . . . I'm going to back you all the way and push for psychology to change.  Again though, that discussion is out of scope.

Agreed. I just get very hesitant when talking about taking away people's rights without a trial. That's a very big deal, and not something to be taken lightly.

Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.


DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #568 on: November 07, 2017, 01:30:15 PM »
We could take away knives to reduce all knife deaths, but that doesn't mean overall deaths will decrease.

JFC.  Of those 3 that you listed, which allows a murderer to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time?  This isn't hard.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #569 on: November 07, 2017, 01:51:54 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

For example, "Limits on the number of guns able to be purchased in a given time frame, in exchange for the repeals of silencer regulation."

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

Sigh.

This is why the conversation is over before it starts.

Because for every single measure that could reduce gun violence, there is an instance that someone can point to and say, "It wouldn't have worked in this instance."

So, yeah. I'm out. I don't know why I bother.

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.
Because it's still ludicrous to not have a searchable database of all registered guns rather then requiring it to be manual because the boogeyman of "they'll come get my guns if we do that" always gets tossed up there.  I'm all for as little as possible too, but let's let the little include the blatantly obvious stupid things that are missed because of made up hysterics about what would happen if we had digital records and how the Nazis are our example of why this is bad.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #570 on: November 07, 2017, 02:04:20 PM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.
Missed my point.

No fly list is (not getting into another tangent but...) generally ok; however expanding that same list to include things like not being able to exercise other personal liberties is egregious.


caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #571 on: November 07, 2017, 02:09:14 PM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

This is what never makes any sense to me.  If you've got nothing to hide who cares what list you're on?  I'm not walking around worrying about what list I get placed on.  If I've got a government that uses a list to do inappropriate things to me then it's the same arguement all the no regulation gun advocates spout off; "the criminals will break the rules".  If they use the "secret government list" to encroach on personal liberty we've already passed the point of tyrannical government and they'd be doing things to me with or without a list.  The list is not the enabler.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #572 on: November 07, 2017, 02:20:17 PM »
Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.

Rights are not absolute.  It's a (commonly made) mistake to think of them in this way.

As a society we choose which rights people will have.  To do this we need to take into account a lot of different factors.  One of them is certainly need.  In this way, rights do work based on need.

To answer your question about police, I'd say that the need to have a home free of the violence and noise associated with a police raid is the driving force behind the laws written to prevent wanton acts by police.  It's balanced by the need of the police to raid homes where they have evidence of wrongdoing by requiring a court order.

Someone needs a swastika flag to identify themselves as a white supremacist, or more generally an asshole.  Their need is met by our current societal rules regarding free speech.  In Germany they made a different decision (perhaps understandably given their history).

The last question regarding 'talking badly about other races or religions' is kinda a tough one.  There are laws regarding hate speech, slander, and libel.  There is also a need for free discussion of ideas (if only to clearly demonstrate why holding racist attitudes is wrong).  Again, society has to choose a balance.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #573 on: November 07, 2017, 02:30:13 PM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

This is what never makes any sense to me.  If you've got nothing to hide who cares what list you're on?  I'm not walking around worrying about what list I get placed on.  If I've got a government that uses a list to do inappropriate things to me then it's the same arguement all the no regulation gun advocates spout off; "the criminals will break the rules".  If they use the "secret government list" to encroach on personal liberty we've already passed the point of tyrannical government and they'd be doing things to me with or without a list.  The list is not the enabler.

What if you've done nothing and still end up on the list?  Good luck getting off.  This is the same list the ACLU has called unconstitutional.

https://www.cnet.com/news/theres-no-getting-off-that-no-fly-list/

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #574 on: November 07, 2017, 02:35:36 PM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

This is what never makes any sense to me.  If you've got nothing to hide who cares what list you're on?  I'm not walking around worrying about what list I get placed on.  If I've got a government that uses a list to do inappropriate things to me then it's the same arguement all the no regulation gun advocates spout off; "the criminals will break the rules".  If they use the "secret government list" to encroach on personal liberty we've already passed the point of tyrannical government and they'd be doing things to me with or without a list.  The list is not the enabler.

What if you've done nothing and still end up on the list?  Good luck getting off.  This is the same list the ACLU has called unconstitutional.

https://www.cnet.com/news/theres-no-getting-off-that-no-fly-list/
That is a good point.  I'm not talking about the no fly list which is clearly made for a purpose of restricting the ability to do something (fly).  My frustration is this concern with simply registering a gun and being in that list.  That list is only then intended to be used in the event a weapon is used inappropriately.  The purpose of the list is not restrictive for its existence.  So my point was if I own a gun they can put me on that list of gun owner with these guns.   

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #575 on: November 07, 2017, 02:37:44 PM »
Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.

Rights are not absolute.  It's a (commonly made) mistake to think of them in this way.

As a society we choose which rights people will have.  To do this we need to take into account a lot of different factors.  One of them is certainly need.  In this way, rights do work based on need.

To answer your question about police, I'd say that the need to have a home free of the violence and noise associated with a police raid is the driving force behind the laws written to prevent wanton acts by police.  It's balanced by the need of the police to raid homes where they have evidence of wrongdoing by requiring a court order.

Someone needs a swastika flag to identify themselves as a white supremacist, or more generally an asshole.  Their need is met by our current societal rules regarding free speech.  In Germany they made a different decision (perhaps understandably given their history).

The last question regarding 'talking badly about other races or religions' is kinda a tough one.  There are laws regarding hate speech, slander, and libel.  There is also a need for free discussion of ideas (if only to clearly demonstrate why holding racist attitudes is wrong).  Again, society has to choose a balance.

True, you make a good point, I went a bit outside of our conversation, and you're of course right that rights aren't absolute. Need is a component (although not always necessary) of considerations when discussing what rights people do/should have.

In any case, it's rare to single out groups of people who we restrict rights on without a fair trial, and holding them to a different standard of "needing" something seems out of place. If the right to bear arms is considered important and worth protecting for the general population, I think that applies to everyone until they are deemed to be unfit by a court, not because someone says "well why would they need it anyway?"

"Why would they need it?" is not a compelling argument for restricting rights from a portion of the population without fair trial.


DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #576 on: November 07, 2017, 06:21:01 PM »
https://twitter.com/repdinatitus/status/927973090201567232

Well, no need to wonder anymore - Republicans don't give a shit about reducing gun violence.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #577 on: November 07, 2017, 06:23:49 PM »
I was actually surprised no one in the church shot back.

(If that's get me banned/suspended so be it.)

Dude. Go fuck yourself.

MOD EDIT: That doesn't help reasonable debate. If you have a problem, explain why. Thanks!
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 05:52:20 PM by arebelspy »
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #578 on: November 07, 2017, 08:11:56 PM »
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

Self defense is perhaps the primary reason American gun enthusiasts insist on their firearms.   Why wouldn't they have them in church?

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #579 on: November 07, 2017, 08:13:18 PM »
I was actually surprised no one in the church shot back.

(If that's get me banned/suspended so be it.)

Dude. Go fuck yourself.
Actually Acroys comment is important - and one of the fears many people on both sides of the debate have about both open and concealed carry policy is that in.this situation a bunch of armed people would open fire upon a shooter during a highly chaotic time causing more harm. Texas I believe is an.open carry state and many people do carry guns with them at all times including into.church.  So it would seem likely that someone (or multiple people) may be armed.  Unlike LEOs who have been trained to look beyond the active shooter and assess the activity that is happening around them, the average gun owner isn't.
Retired at 42

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #580 on: November 07, 2017, 08:34:59 PM »

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

This is what never makes any sense to me.  If you've got nothing to hide who cares what list you're on?  I'm not walking around worrying about what list I get placed on.  If I've got a government that uses a list to do inappropriate things to me then it's the same arguement all the no regulation gun advocates spout off; "the criminals will break the rules".  If they use the "secret government list" to encroach on personal liberty we've already passed the point of tyrannical government and they'd be doing things to me with or without a list.  The list is not the enabler.

What if you've done nothing and still end up on the list?  Good luck getting off.  This is the same list the ACLU has called unconstitutional.

https://www.cnet.com/news/theres-no-getting-off-that-no-fly-list/
That is a good point.  I'm not talking about the no fly list which is clearly made for a purpose of restricting the ability to do something (fly).  My frustration is this concern with simply registering a gun and being in that list.  That list is only then intended to be used in the event a weapon is used inappropriately.  The purpose of the list is not restrictive for its existence.  So my point was if I own a gun they can put me on that list of gun owner with these guns.
But how would a list stop mass shootings? In most cases the people who have done the shooting attained their firearms legally and would be on the list. Or attained them illegally and wouldn't be on a list. In either case a list doesn't deter them at all.  While I personally don't have a problem with a private (not for public viewing) national database for law enforcement purposes of registered gun owners and a list of firearms they have, I only see its usefulness in tracking guns and owners not in deterring gun crimes,,suicides, accidental shootings, or mass shootings. So what would be it's purpose?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 12:38:40 AM by spartana »
Retired at 42

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #581 on: November 07, 2017, 08:40:03 PM »
Well, the conversation has turned in a very difficult direction in Texas around how to best protect a church congregation.  The consensus seems to be that metal detectors are inappropriate (although probably the most practical solution), armed security guards send the wrong message (although, sans metal detectors, you need something).  So we are back to a more organized version of having an armed congregation.  Definitely not the direction I was hoping for, so maybe worshiping at home is the best option for my family.  Certainly safer than the current alternative.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 06:57:44 AM by EscapeVelocity2020 »
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

Radagast

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #582 on: November 07, 2017, 11:26:43 PM »
So, I am kinda wondering about my suggestion from up-thread. It seems to me like it would address the stickiest issues raised by both sides. Is there a reason this would not work?

How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.

Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. Honorable military dischargees could automatically qualify, or automatically qualify for the first level. Maybe a restriction of five purchases in a trailing five-year period to discourage high volume black marketers.

This could allow all the "uninfringed" stuff and still add a modicum of de-centralized regulation, in the form of a 4-person jury that you personally select from among all the citizens of the US.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #583 on: November 08, 2017, 07:28:57 AM »
So, I am kinda wondering about my suggestion from up-thread. It seems to me like it would address the stickiest issues raised by both sides. Is there a reason this would not work?

How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.

Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. Honorable military dischargees could automatically qualify, or automatically qualify for the first level. Maybe a restriction of five purchases in a trailing five-year period to discourage high volume black marketers.

This could allow all the "uninfringed" stuff and still add a modicum of de-centralized regulation, in the form of a 4-person jury that you personally select from among all the citizens of the US.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.

In principal this sounds like a reasonable idea to me.  My only change to the idea would be that you lose the right to recommend someone for a seven year period if anyone you recommended uses their weapon in a crime (to prevent people who think that guns should be available for everyone from offering to recommend people they don't or hardly know).













Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.

Rights are not absolute.  It's a (commonly made) mistake to think of them in this way.

As a society we choose which rights people will have.  To do this we need to take into account a lot of different factors.  One of them is certainly need.  In this way, rights do work based on need.

To answer your question about police, I'd say that the need to have a home free of the violence and noise associated with a police raid is the driving force behind the laws written to prevent wanton acts by police.  It's balanced by the need of the police to raid homes where they have evidence of wrongdoing by requiring a court order.

Someone needs a swastika flag to identify themselves as a white supremacist, or more generally an asshole.  Their need is met by our current societal rules regarding free speech.  In Germany they made a different decision (perhaps understandably given their history).

The last question regarding 'talking badly about other races or religions' is kinda a tough one.  There are laws regarding hate speech, slander, and libel.  There is also a need for free discussion of ideas (if only to clearly demonstrate why holding racist attitudes is wrong).  Again, society has to choose a balance.

True, you make a good point, I went a bit outside of our conversation, and you're of course right that rights aren't absolute. Need is a component (although not always necessary) of considerations when discussing what rights people do/should have.

In any case, it's rare to single out groups of people who we restrict rights on without a fair trial, and holding them to a different standard of "needing" something seems out of place. If the right to bear arms is considered important and worth protecting for the general population, I think that applies to everyone until they are deemed to be unfit by a court, not because someone says "well why would they need it anyway?"

"Why would they need it?" is not a compelling argument for restricting rights from a portion of the population without fair trial.

I wasn't offering 'Why would they need it?' as my argument for restricting the rights of the mentally ill to own a firearm.  I think that the very nature of many mental illnesses being combined with firearm ownership significantly increases danger to society - that's why their rights should be restricted.  I was asking why you thought that they needed this right since you were arguing that the mentally ill should be allowed to purchase firearms.  Like I've said, there are multiple factors that need to be considered when limiting rights.  There must be a need and purpose to outweigh the negative risks - otherwise there's no real debate to be had.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #584 on: November 08, 2017, 08:06:00 AM »
My point to acroy wasn't about having people armed shoot back.

One of his only points made was expressing shock that people IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP didn't start shooting.  Gee, maybe that's because even in Texas people expect to be able to practice their religious freedom without fear of being shot?  Instead of expressing sorrow or condolences to the victims, he's surprised people didn't start shooting back at the lunatic.  These were families.  These were children.  It wasn't the wild west where with guns holstered on every hip.

If one of the only points you want to bring to the table is "Wow, I'm surprised the people in the church didn't shoot back" instead of addressing how a man accused of domestic violence was able to get his hands on an AR-15 in the first place...I don't have time for you.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Just Joe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #585 on: November 08, 2017, 09:08:12 AM »
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

Self defense is perhaps the primary reason American gun enthusiasts insist on their firearms.   Why wouldn't they have them in church?

Depends on the state I suppose. I had lunch with a southern country preacher yesterday that explained that his congregation was meeting to create procedures to protect themselves. Armed church members at the front and back of the room (concealed pistols). Maybe someone watching the exterior of the church. Perhaps nobody allowed to leave and return. Also, a discussion is happening among regional churches to compare notes and ideas.

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #586 on: November 08, 2017, 01:04:54 PM »
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

My church has the following policy:
Quote
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as requireed by officers of the law.

I think church leaders would ask someone know to be peacably carrying a weapon inside the church building to lock it up in their car. Of course some people might carry a concealed weapon without anyone noticing, but knowlege of this policy would cause most members who regularly carry a concealed weapon to choose not to bring it to church.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #587 on: November 08, 2017, 03:04:27 PM »
I'm not sure - I'm surprised that Islamic extremists have not been targeting churches.   They are full of infidels worshiping their false god, after all.    If nobody is armed, then it's a very soft target by this line of reasoning.

If you're worried about terrorists and have a firearm for self defense, carrying it to church (or to school for that matter, lots of school shootings) seems like a reasonable idea.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #588 on: November 08, 2017, 03:16:24 PM »
I'm not sure - I'm surprised that Islamic extremists have not been targeting churches.   They are full of infidels worshiping their false god, after all.    If nobody is armed, then it's a very soft target by this line of reasoning.

If you're worried about terrorists and have a firearm for self defense, carrying it to church (or to school for that matter, lots of school shootings) seems like a reasonable idea.

Actually, Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam, precursor and second only to Mohammed.

Not that Islamist extremists are really what most mainstream practitioners of Islam would actually call true Muslims. But still. Not sure Christianity/Jesus is their enemy.

I think the main false gods that the terrorists are aiming for are capitalism (and its attendant worship of money) and democracy (and its attendant "degradation" of open sexuality and equal rights for women).
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #589 on: November 09, 2017, 04:03:54 PM »
I think Islamic scholars are divided as to whether Christians are infidels or fellow travellers (people of the book).   At least that's what wikipedia says.  :-)

But Islamic extremists - their opinions are clear.   Infidels all the way.    Christianity, capitalism, women's rights, democracy are all targets for hate to get the Islamic base worked up.   Synagogues have been targets for extremist bombings for a long time.   I'm surprised that churches have not been targeted in the same way.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #590 on: November 09, 2017, 04:19:35 PM »
I think Islamic scholars are divided as to whether Christians are infidels or fellow travellers (people of the book).   At least that's what wikipedia says.  :-)

But Islamic extremists - their opinions are clear.   Infidels all the way.    Christianity, capitalism, women's rights, democracy are all targets for hate to get the Islamic base worked up.   Synagogues have been targets for extremist bombings for a long time.   I'm surprised that churches have not been targeted in the same way.

Right, but I'm saying that to them, I think it's the West's lack of religious piety as far as they see it that's the problem. Synagogues are a very different situation, given the tension between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Radagast

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 664
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #591 on: November 09, 2017, 09:55:07 PM »
So, I am kinda wondering about my suggestion from up-thread. It seems to me like it would address the stickiest issues raised by both sides. Is there a reason this would not work?

How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.

Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. Honorable military dischargees could automatically qualify, or automatically qualify for the first level. Maybe a restriction of five purchases in a trailing five-year period to discourage high volume black marketers.

This could allow all the "uninfringed" stuff and still add a modicum of de-centralized regulation, in the form of a 4-person jury that you personally select from among all the citizens of the US.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.

In principal this sounds like a reasonable idea to me.  My only change to the idea would be that you lose the right to recommend someone for a seven year period if anyone you recommended uses their weapon in a crime (to prevent people who think that guns should be available for everyone from offering to recommend people they don't or hardly know).
Yup, its there: "If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction." I could change that to just seven years after conviction though.

Also, applied the prohibitions must be applied sequentially. If you recommend three buddies when you are 18, 19, and 20, and those three buddies use their weapons to rob a convenience store when you are 21, nobody need bother asking you for a recommendation until you are 42.

A few more additions: a firearm suicide cannot be held against a recommender. Also there would need to be a stipulation that a person who recommends someone may not themselves be held civilly or criminally liable or be discriminated against because of the recommendation that turned out poorly in retrospect (beyond the 7 year prohibition).

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #592 on: November 09, 2017, 11:52:33 PM »
^this all seems very onerous. What if all the people you know are anti gun and wouldn't recommend anyone? How would this many people be tracked? Not just the gun owners but all the recommenders? What if gun owners want to keep their ownership private from friends, family and neighbors? It seems very invasive and convoluted. I'm in Calif which has some of the toughist gun laws and restrictions in the nation but can't see that going over well even here.
Retired at 42

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #593 on: November 10, 2017, 06:06:36 AM »
This discussion about Islam is somewhat off-topic, but if I may correct a misconception:

I think Islamic scholars are divided as to whether Christians are infidels or fellow travellers (people of the book).   At least that's what wikipedia says.  :-)

But Islamic extremists - their opinions are clear.   Infidels all the way.    Christianity, capitalism, women's rights, democracy are all targets for hate to get the Islamic base worked up.   Synagogues have been targets for extremist bombings for a long time.   I'm surprised that churches have not been targeted in the same way.

Right, but I'm saying that to them, I think it's the West's lack of religious piety as far as they see it that's the problem. Synagogues are a very different situation, given the tension between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.
As tempting as it might be to blame Muslim aggression against Jews on the "tension" in the Middle East (and by extension, partially on the Jews in the Middle East), this is simply not the case; antisemitism is deeply rooted in Islam, much more so than hatred of Christians, making synagogues much more of a target. Of course in countries that don't have Jews and synagogues, churches have to do, such as in Egypt.

Quote from: Quran 5:82
Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
Quote from: Sahih Muslim 41:6985
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
There are many anti-Christian statements in the Quran as well, but generally nothing of this level. Of course, this has not stayed in the past and mainstream Islamic scholars still hold the same stance. For example, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who denounces extremism, Salafism, Wahhabism, etc. has said:
Quote
"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers"
More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.

Originally, Muhammad thought he could convert Jews to Islam, but when he failed he got pretty pissed off and butchered inhabitants of the ancient Jewish community at Khaybar, who were later expelled by his successor. Throughout history, well before the establishment of Israel, Muslims have emulated this behavior. And even nowadays antisemitic Muslims will threaten Jews with "remember Khaybar".
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 06:08:47 AM by farfromfire »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2567
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #594 on: November 10, 2017, 03:06:28 PM »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #595 on: November 10, 2017, 05:23:32 PM »

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #596 on: November 10, 2017, 11:22:13 PM »

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.
Islam has not been reformed in any meaningful way - the mainstream beliefs still support what a modern Westerner would consider extremism (such as a command to kill all Jews), and so both Muslims and non-Muslims use the same word but with a completely different meaning, belonging to a completely different time (hence anachronistic). This leads non-Muslims to think that some beliefs have dropped out of modern practice of Islam when they have not.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #597 on: November 11, 2017, 12:30:32 AM »
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

Self defense is perhaps the primary reason American gun enthusiasts insist on their firearms.   Why wouldn't they have them in church?

Depends on the state I suppose. I had lunch with a southern country preacher yesterday that explained that his congregation was meeting to create procedures to protect themselves. Armed church members at the front and back of the room (concealed pistols). Maybe someone watching the exterior of the church. Perhaps nobody allowed to leave and return. Also, a discussion is happening among regional churches to compare notes and ideas.

Wtf kind of America do you want to be living in? Because mine never has and (God willing) never will necessitate that kind of paranoia.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #598 on: November 11, 2017, 12:31:19 AM »

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.
Islam has not been reformed in any meaningful way - the mainstream beliefs still support what a modern Westerner would consider extremism (such as a command to kill all Jews), and so both Muslims and non-Muslims use the same word but with a completely different meaning, belonging to a completely different time (hence anachronistic). This leads non-Muslims to think that some beliefs have dropped out of modern practice of Islam when they have not.

LMAO, seriously dude? You think most American muslims want to "kill all Jews"??? Because I would be willing to wager most mainstream American muslims support mainstream muslim beliefs, and yet somehow they are not living up to your paranoid delusions of what that means.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 12:40:55 AM by Lagom »

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #599 on: November 11, 2017, 01:16:10 AM »

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.
Islam has not been reformed in any meaningful way - the mainstream beliefs still support what a modern Westerner would consider extremism (such as a command to kill all Jews), and so both Muslims and non-Muslims use the same word but with a completely different meaning, belonging to a completely different time (hence anachronistic). This leads non-Muslims to think that some beliefs have dropped out of modern practice of Islam when they have not.

LMAO, seriously dude? You think most American muslims want to "kill all Jews"??? Because I would be willing to wager most mainstream American muslims support mainstream muslim beliefs, and yet somehow they are not living up to your paranoid delusions of what that means.
No, I did not say that. You can wager or believe what you will,   I wrote clearly about the difference between Christians and Jews in both original and current Muslim theology.