Author Topic: US School Shootings  (Read 13147 times)

px4shooter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #200 on: February 18, 2018, 07:25:05 PM »

Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'.  It is culture -


So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change.  Change is certainly possible.  Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake.  Watch for the cigarettes.  Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake.  Major change.

I snipped some of your response to highlight the most honest statements on this issue. Culture is the issue. You are absolutely right. Sadly, if you want to look at what sub-culture continues to embrace violence and spread the acceptance, you will be called a racist, bigot, etc. When an entire sub-culture, that even spans racial lines, is all about violence, killing, shooting, demeaning women, etc., why is there a surprise that same sub-culture has an extremely high violence rate and it destroys the statistics for the rest of the US?

But, like I said above, it is a sub-culture. That is the issue, but trying to highlight the issue will create nothing but racist based responses. The sub-culture loves violence, promotes the acts, and even manages to do these acts in areas with some of the most strict gun control. It shows the guns aren't the problem. It is the mental mindset of that sub-culture that is openly embraced.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3260
  • Location: Avalon
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #201 on: February 19, 2018, 01:27:46 AM »

Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'.  It is culture -


So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change.  Change is certainly possible.  Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake.  Watch for the cigarettes.  Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake.  Major change.

I snipped some of your response to highlight the most honest statements on this issue. Culture is the issue. You are absolutely right. Sadly, if you want to look at what sub-culture continues to embrace violence and spread the acceptance, you will be called a racist, bigot, etc. When an entire sub-culture, that even spans racial lines, is all about violence, killing, shooting, demeaning women, etc., why is there a surprise that same sub-culture has an extremely high violence rate and it destroys the statistics for the rest of the US?

But, like I said above, it is a sub-culture. That is the issue, but trying to highlight the issue will create nothing but racist based responses. The sub-culture loves violence, promotes the acts, and even manages to do these acts in areas with some of the most strict gun control. It shows the guns aren't the problem. It is the mental mindset of that sub-culture that is openly embraced.
I'm not North American so I am at a loss to understand what sub-culture you are referring to.  Can you explain?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3060
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #202 on: February 19, 2018, 06:11:48 AM »
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11093
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #203 on: February 19, 2018, 07:49:15 AM »
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)

As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed.  US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture.  Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.

I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.

The whole question is a red herring anyway.  There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment.  The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns.  That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense.  Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).

Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #204 on: February 19, 2018, 08:09:47 AM »
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)

As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed.  US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture.  Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.

I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.

The whole question is a red herring anyway.  There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment.  The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns.  That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense.  Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).

Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.

I prefer to use factual definitions of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Militia, when the constitution was written, was very clearly intended to be an individual right. The definition used at that time somewhat fell out of use, and the idea that a militia was an organization came later.

Quote
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?

px4 certainly veered off topic, but by and large, the most gun violence seems to be between gangs... so I believe he is referring to gang culture.  I don't know why he had to drag race into it, as gangs are made up of all races of people. His point stands, gang violence, partially a result of the war on drugs, is responsible for most firearms homicides.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #205 on: February 19, 2018, 08:19:06 AM »
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?

Holy sweeping generalizations, batwoman.
Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3060
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #206 on: February 19, 2018, 08:24:27 AM »
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?

Holy sweeping generalizations, batwoman.

I'm just trying to interpret what Px4 said.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11093
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #207 on: February 19, 2018, 09:29:13 AM »
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)

As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed.  US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture.  Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.

I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.

The whole question is a red herring anyway.  There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment.  The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns.  That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense.  Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).

Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.

I prefer to use factual definitions of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Militia, when the constitution was written, was very clearly intended to be an individual right. The definition used at that time somewhat fell out of use, and the idea that a militia was an organization came later.

Given that you're arguing the supreme court misinterpreted it for 70 years, I'm not sure that things are quite as clear as you have claimed.


According to your posted definition:

Quote
Militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

You're arguing that people don't have to belong to a militia/armed force to own a gun, so that rules out definitions 1a and 1b.  OK, cool.  Let's look at the factual definition then.


"MALE CITIZENS" - Exclusively applies to men.  This is consistent with the thought process of the time the amendment was written (women wouldn't have been any significant part of an armed fighting force).
"ABLE BODIED" - Exclusively applies to able-bodied people . . . which means that anyone with a disability (wheelchair, frail, etc.) should not be allowed to own guns.
"DECLARED BY LAW AS BEING SUBJECT TO CALL TO MILITARY SERVICE"- Exclusively applies to people between the ages of 17 and 45.  This is the legal age range where the US government can call upon someone for military service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States) in a draft.

If you support the right of women, the disabled, and people over the age of 45 to own guns this would mean that you're not following the definition that you just posted.  Since you prefer to follow the "factual definition of things", how do you square this away?
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #208 on: February 19, 2018, 09:56:02 AM »
First, none of the other decisions foreclosed on the decision in Heller... they didn't speak for or against an individual right... so it wasn't misinterpreted for 70 years.

We do discriminate on age... just not against old people at this point.

No gymnastics required: The letter of the law is somewhat of a minimum protection - a more expansive application is not proscribed by the amendment. If someone challenged it, then we should create a new amendment, where the individual right for women, men, of all ages is affirmed.


Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #209 on: February 19, 2018, 10:05:21 AM »
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)

As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed.  US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture.  Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.

I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.

The whole question is a red herring anyway.  There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment.  The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns.  That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense.  Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).

Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.

I prefer to use factual definitions of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Militia, when the constitution was written, was very clearly intended to be an individual right. The definition used at that time somewhat fell out of use, and the idea that a militia was an organization came later.

Quote
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?

px4 certainly veered off topic, but by and large, the most gun violence seems to be between gangs... so I believe he is referring to gang culture.  I don't know why he had to drag race into it, as gangs are made up of all races of people. His point stands, gang violence, partially a result of the war on drugs, is responsible for most firearms homicides.

I am truly interested. Do you have a citation for that?



ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #210 on: February 19, 2018, 10:50:23 AM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #211 on: February 19, 2018, 11:05:16 AM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #212 on: February 19, 2018, 11:17:34 AM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11093
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #213 on: February 19, 2018, 12:09:54 PM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

You argued that the more commonly used definition of the word 'organized fighting forces' wasn't the correct definition for militia in the constitution.  You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #214 on: February 19, 2018, 12:30:13 PM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.

Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #215 on: February 19, 2018, 12:55:17 PM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.

Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.


It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2.  In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2.  My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.

Quote
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.

I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #216 on: February 19, 2018, 01:35:40 PM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.

Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.


It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2.  In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2.  My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.

Quote
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.

I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.

You mean like this...

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...


So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?

Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #217 on: February 19, 2018, 02:13:44 PM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.

Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.


It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2.  In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2.  My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.

Quote
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.

I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.

You mean like this...

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...


So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?

Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.

Sounds alot like a draft... I don't see how that in any way conflicts. The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792





TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #218 on: February 19, 2018, 02:27:59 PM »
Quote
The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.

If men and women were supposed to be treated the same with regard to gun ownership rights, why did it take until 1920 for women to get the right to vote?  They were to be trusted with guns, but not with ballots?  Or is it more that you are only a strict constructionist when it suits you?  Honestly wondering.  Appreciate your feedback.

(Edit to add:  I didn't make the original post but have comments to add)

Actually, you're correct.  In reality we need something similar to the 19th Amendment in response to the second amendment...

HOWEVER-

Seeing that the whole of the constitution is written to establish what the Federal government cannot do, things that are specifically listed do not preclude citizens from doing such things.  In otherwords, The federal government cannot impede the free speech of an individual, but that does not mean another private individual (like an employer) cannot impede the free speech of an individual (example: by firing the person or limiting the avenues available for that speech output).  The constitution is written "at" the government, not "at" the people.

The view that "people can only do what the government allows" is really backwards from the way our country was founded.  In reality, it was "people can do anything that the government doesn't specifically prohibit, and the government cannot prohibit these things <list>".

(Edit 2:  Fixed a typo)
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 02:41:42 PM by TexasRunner »
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #219 on: February 19, 2018, 02:38:08 PM »
Quote
The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.

If men and women were supposed to be treated the same with regard to gun ownership rights, why did it take until 1920 for women to get the right to vote?  They were to be trusted with guns, but not with ballots?  Or is it more that you are only a strict constructionist when it suits you?  Honestly wondering.  Appreciate your feedback.

(Edit to add:  I didn't make the original post but have comments to add)

Actually, you're correct.  In reality we need something similar to the 19th Amendment in response to the second amendment...

HOWEVER-

Seeing that the whole of the constitution is written to limit what the Federal government cannot do, things that are specifically listed do not preclude citizens from doing such things.  In otherwords, The federal government cannot impede the free speech of an individual, but does not mean another private individual (like an employer) cannot impede the free speech of an individual.  The constitution is written "at" the government, not the people.

The view that "people can only do what the government allows" is really backwards from the way our country was founded.  In reality, it was "people can do anything that the government doesn't specifically prohibit, and the government cannot prohibit these things <list>".

Well said. I was not articulating this well.   I do think an amendment similar to the 19th is needed, to further my agreement.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 02:43:52 PM by ncornilsen »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #220 on: February 19, 2018, 02:54:12 PM »
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.

Because of that I want to throw this out there:

Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it. 

Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia": 
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)

Blah, blah blah...

Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list.  Not on the list, no sale.

Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.

It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.

I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...

Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 02:56:32 PM by TexasRunner »
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #221 on: February 19, 2018, 03:29:02 PM »
I am very much for a national registry, or state registries that funnel into a searchable database.  It's consistent with how we approach voting rights-we don't object to being on a list to vote.  That, combined with some enhanced liability legislation and some of the approaches listed above, are A-OK with me. 

I'd also like to see some access liability.  There was a case in NC in which a woman was traveling with a felon and her gun (she seems smart).  The felon shot through a motel wall, killing an 11 year old boy sleeping in an adjoining room who was on a trip with his soccer team.  The felon got hit with charges, but I'd like to see the gun owner in cases like that see some penalties or lose her gun license.  She allowed a felon access to her gun, and he did bad things with it.  If she didn't allow him access, it was her responsibility to take reasonable steps to secure the gun or to call 911 if he handled it without her permission.  If I let a kid drive my car, my insurance is on the hook for the damage he does, even if he took the keys while I was sleeping and went on a joy ride.  Maybe if gun owners saw their guns the same way we all see our cars and pools, as giant pits of liability, we'd see people take better care of them.  Responsible gun owners would see no change to their lives from legislation like this.

Similarly, everyone who can't go to the movies or a restaurant without a negligent discharge gets their license suspended.  Gun owners-this seems reasonable, right?  If you can't keep your gun from going off in pubic, you should have to jump through some hoops to have a gun again.

Bbqmustache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Age: 2013
    • Financial Literacy Conversations
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #222 on: February 19, 2018, 04:03:52 PM »
How about making schools harder targets:

Drill, drill, drill for shooter situations, until the kids know EXACTLY what to do.

metal detectors on every door.

Pay and train volunteer teachers and administrators to carry and use.   One security officer or an officer out front doesn't cut it.  But if a potential shooter knows he stands a good chance of getting shot several times before he really gets rolling, he may not start at all.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #223 on: February 19, 2018, 04:20:30 PM »
Should we makes schools harder targets, yup.
Metal detectors...  Eh, probably not.
Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.

"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #224 on: February 19, 2018, 04:55:34 PM »


Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.

This will require that you are okay with an increase in the number of black teenage boys shot and killed by school employees.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #225 on: February 19, 2018, 05:46:09 PM »


Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.

This will require that you are okay with an increase in the number of black teenage boys shot and killed by school employees.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

...

Is that already a problem?

(You did say increase, right, meaning there already is some non-negligible amount to consider.)

But, I'll admit, that comment really seems to have come out of left field.  Are teachers and principals evil like cops now?...
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #226 on: February 19, 2018, 05:48:06 PM »
Posting here due to relevance...

It seems many of the centrists think (probably due to the repeated assertions as such) that the left does not want to confiscate guns.  That is demonstrably false.  There is a sizable portion of the left that wants to do just that, and a vast MAJORITY that wants to regulate guns into near non-existence.

See below comments.

...
...
...
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Here ya go:

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

Quote
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjxmitU9JI

Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html

Quote
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns.  We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay

Quote
"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
-John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

Quote
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

Quote
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47


BUT SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST
Quote
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text
...  FYI that means the below posted gun would be illegal:


Along with basically every gun I own.

You wonder why one side of the table considers the other disingenuous...


Quote
(ii) All AR types, including the following:
“(I) AR–10.
“(II) AR–15.
“(III) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
“(IV) Armalite M15–T.
“(V) Barrett REC7.
“(VI) Beretta AR–70.
“(VII) Bushmaster ACR.
“(VIII) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
“(IX) Bushmaster MOE series.
“(X) Bushmaster XM15.
“(XI) Colt Match Target Rifles.

“(XII) DoubleStar AR rifles.
“(XIII) DPMS Tactical Rifles.
“(XIV) Heckler & Koch MR556.
“(XV) Olympic Arms.
“(XVI) Remington R–15 rifles.
“(XVII) Rock River Arms LAR–15.
“(XVIII) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles.
“(XIX) Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles.
“(XX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
“(XXI) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles.


And here are some really REALLY dumb quotes just for fun:
(But they still display why, rather succinctly, many gun owners are unwilling to come to the table)

Quote
Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.
-Patrician Eddington
https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ

Quote
Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.
-Joe Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg

Quote
This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
–Kevin de Leon
https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ

Quote
We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.
-Terry McAuliffe

Quote
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
– Dianne Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw

Quote
…it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book.
– Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI[/size]
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11093
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #227 on: February 19, 2018, 06:58:13 PM »
I'll respond directly to the quotes you've brought forth as 'evidence' that politicians are working hard to ban all guns.

Quote
Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

This doesn't say what your out of context quote implies.  She's specifically talking about the assault weapons that could not be covered by her bill, she's not trying to take all of your guns.



Quote
Quote
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

So, the actual quote was "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come" -
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/18/us/senate-approves-ban-on-manufacture-of-military-style-weapons.html.  You'll notice that the one you posted is not only taken out of context here (again, he was referring to assault weapons), but you also changed it to something he didn't say.



Quote
Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html

Quote
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns.  We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay

Quote
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47

Discusses limiting gun ownership of handguns.  Doesn't suggest banning all guns.  I haven't verified these quotes yet, but given the falsehoods previously passed off as truth it would probably be good if someone does.



Quote
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

Limited controls for specific weapons.  No attempt to ban all guns.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #228 on: February 19, 2018, 07:47:22 PM »
Any comments on HR 4269?

And I'll state it again.
You wonder why one side of the table considers the other disingenuous...


Relevant:
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #229 on: February 19, 2018, 07:47:51 PM »
Pretty sure this thread is a pretty good demonstration of the answer to the OP's question.

This is the spinning, flailing conversation we have every single time a mass shooting happens, INSTEAD of actually doing something about it.

Having read this thread, this^ on page 2.

I'm an American, a gunowner, and I support universal background checks. I don't support banning all weapons, or even banning weapons based on cosmetic features(like the assault weapons ban). 95% of Americans support background checks, and even 75% of NRA members support background checks.

Since 95% of Americans agree on that, I think that's a good first step. Will it solve the problem, not completely, but once it's in place we can keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Then we can go from there and see what else we can agree on. That could be magazine limitations, limitations to how many weapons someone can buy at the same time, etc.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3060
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #230 on: February 19, 2018, 08:12:39 PM »
Pretty sure this thread is a pretty good demonstration of the answer to the OP's question.

This is the spinning, flailing conversation we have every single time a mass shooting happens, INSTEAD of actually doing something about it.

Having read this thread, this^ on page 2.

I'm an American, a gunowner, and I support universal background checks. I don't support banning all weapons, or even banning weapons based on cosmetic features(like the assault weapons ban). 95% of Americans support background checks, and even 75% of NRA members support background checks.

Since 95% of Americans agree on that, I think that's a good first step. Will it solve the problem, not completely, but once it's in place we can keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Then we can go from there and see what else we can agree on. That could be magazine limitations, limitations to how many weapons someone can buy at the same time, etc.

As a fellow gun owner and American, and the author of the comment you quoted:

Me, too, Indexer. Me, too.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #231 on: February 20, 2018, 02:07:44 AM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.

Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.


It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2.  In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2.  My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.

Quote
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.

I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.

You mean like this...

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...


So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?

Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.

Sounds alot like a draft... I don't see how that in any way conflicts. The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

LOL.

It completely conflicts...

It is the antithesis of what you are proposing. (That the 2nd Amendment is about an individual's right to own and carry a gun.)
It is not.

It is however, upon reading Acts of Congress of the day, about an organised militia, of able-bodied white men who must be prepared to go to war.

Do you really, honestly believe that the members of Congress in the 1790's were thinking of anything but the protection of the government by a ready pool of semi-trained, armed young men?
Do you really think they were passing acts to that effect with the thought that "Hey, we better arm everyone in case we get uppity and out-of-hand. No worries, the militia we just organised will keep us in line."?

I propose that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be used 240 years later as a justification for having 265,000,000 guns in a country of 320 million, half of which are concentrated in the hands of 3% of the population.
The majority of households in the US do not have a gun.
The vast majority of people in the US do not own a gun.

Do you really, really believe that the lawmakers of 1790 thought, "Let's make some rights and rules up so that in the future 3% of the population has half the guns..."

 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3110
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #232 on: February 20, 2018, 04:08:01 AM »
Of course not. Lawmakers then would have never envisioned a world where most houses wouldn’t have a gun.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #233 on: February 20, 2018, 05:20:13 AM »


Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.

This will require that you are okay with an increase in the number of black teenage boys shot and killed by school employees.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

...

Is that already a problem?

(You did say increase, right, meaning there already is some non-negligible amount to consider.)

But, I'll admit, that comment really seems to have come out of left field.  Are teachers and principals evil like cops now?...
You're right, increase was not the correct word and is it is (to my knowledge) not a problem at the moment. Having worked in schools for my entire adult life and knowing that:

1. There is already a consequence disparity between white and black students (ie, black students are more likely to have more severe consequences when they misbehave relative to white students)
2. Some teachers and administrators (not tons, but a nonzero number) have racial biases against black people and;
3. The is some overlap between the people in #2 and people who would want to arm themselves in school.

If staff were armed in schools, It would seem inevitable that eventually some discipline incidents would escalate to the use of deadly force, and the odds are pretty good that it is going to be a audience of color when it happens.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #234 on: February 20, 2018, 08:25:09 AM »
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."


OK
So where did you find the original definition?

Can you send me a link please?

I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.

I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.

Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.


It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2.  In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2.  My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.

Quote
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.

I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.

You mean like this...

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...


So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?

Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.

Sounds alot like a draft... I don't see how that in any way conflicts. The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

LOL.

It completely conflicts...

It is the antithesis of what you are proposing. (That the 2nd Amendment is about an individual's right to own and carry a gun.)
It is not.

It is however, upon reading Acts of Congress of the day, about an organised militia, of able-bodied white men who must be prepared to go to war.

Do you really, honestly believe that the members of Congress in the 1790's were thinking of anything but the protection of the government by a ready pool of semi-trained, armed young men?
Do you really think they were passing acts to that effect with the thought that "Hey, we better arm everyone in case we get uppity and out-of-hand. No worries, the militia we just organised will keep us in line."?

I propose that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be used 240 years later as a justification for having 265,000,000 guns in a country of 320 million, half of which are concentrated in the hands of 3% of the population.
The majority of households in the US do not have a gun.
The vast majority of people in the US do not own a gun.

Do you really, really believe that the lawmakers of 1790 thought, "Let's make some rights and rules up so that in the future 3% of the population has half the guns..."

 
Citation on the "3% of the population has half the guns," please.

It does not conflict because the two uses are NOT mutually exclusive. We know the framers saw it as an individual right because of the words they used during the discussion.

As for your race/gender red herring, we all know the framers were not social justice warriors. They probably chose the word militia explicitly to exclude women from having this protection. As some-one up thread stated, an amendment to the constitution clarifying that the individual right ought to extend to women/minorities/seniors as well.
Quote
Do you really think they were passing acts to that effect with the thought that "Hey, we better arm everyone in case we get uppity and out-of-hand. No worries, the militia we just organised will keep us in line."?

I know the framers saw the individual right to bear arms as a way of keeping the government in line... because they said basically that. How would you think that they would think a government controlled militia would keep them in line?

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #235 on: February 20, 2018, 08:25:56 AM »
Man this is really becoming a crazy discussion.

For those debating the gun laws formed at the beginning of the nation, and the right to bear arms, it wasn't just about raising a militia. There were a lot of settlers on the edge of the wilderness who had deal with native americans. What were you going to tell these people? That they were going to have to defend themselves with bow and arrow?

And that same attitude went west as this country expanded its boarders. And with all the guns in circulation, the only real option you have in defending your home is to either (1) try to be nice and talk down someone who has entered your home and is a threat to you and your family, or (2) arm yourself and defend you and your family from someone who has entered your home and is a threat to you and your family. And lets be real here, Americans commit a lot of crimes.

But then there is also the legit reason to have guns too, such as in dealing with certain kinds of wildlife, whether for hunting or defending livestock.

So I don't think an overall ban on guns is even remotely possible nor worth discussing.

But a ban on some kinds of guns is reasonable. I can't help but those who do have a collection of different assault rifles are at the extreme side of the argument just as those who are against all guns completely. I do seem to find a pattern though, in that those who seem to commit these shootings do have a pretty sizeable collection of guns. But I am also aware that many who have collections don't hurt anyone at all. I even know a guy who makes his own bullets. He isn't extreme or anything. Just finds it more economical. I am sure to others that would be a red flag.

BTW most gangbangers use pistols in gang violence, so it isn't like you can point to one type of weapon to ban to solve all issues. Pistols kill more people than all the mass shootings combined, but because the mass shootings captures all the media attention and drives these convos, they aren't discussed. And I am not in support of a ban on pistols either, and I don't think many would be.

Honestly I am not sure what the answer is. I don't think guns get up and walk around on their own and shoot people. There is something wrong some with the people having the desire to do it. How you correct that I do not know. Its tough to change people.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11093
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #236 on: February 20, 2018, 08:39:23 AM »
Citation on the "3% of the population has half the guns," please.

This isn't exactly a well guarded secret.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show
https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms
https://www.snopes.com/2016/09/20/3-percent-americans-half-the-guns/
https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/just-3-americans-50-countrys-guns/
http://time.com/4499088/guns-us-super-owners-report/
. . . etc.



As for your race/gender red herring, we all know the framers were not social justice warriors. They probably chose the word militia explicitly to exclude women from having this protection. As some-one up thread stated, an amendment to the constitution clarifying that the individual right ought to extend to women/minorities/seniors as well.

It's not really a red herring though.  You can't argue about how important it is that we adhere to the meaning of what the founders wanted on one hand . . . and then on the other hand say that the founders were relics of their time, so we need to reinterpret what they wanted.  That's logically inconsistent.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #237 on: February 20, 2018, 08:49:03 AM »
As for your race/gender red herring, we all know the framers were not social justice warriors. They probably chose the word militia explicitly to exclude women from having this protection. As some-one up thread stated, an amendment to the constitution clarifying that the individual right ought to extend to women/minorities/seniors as well.

It's not really a red herring though.  You can't argue about how important it is that we adhere to the meaning of what the founders wanted on one hand . . . and then on the other hand say that the founders were relics of their time, so we need to reinterpret what they wanted.  That's logically inconsistent.

Its not inconsistent.  Later amendments can enforce certain re-interpretations of earlier amendments.  (As in, if we were to write a 28th amendment defining "the Militia", a re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment could naturally be included.)  Though it may not be a bad idea to alter both texts at once.

Example: 
The 16th Amendment changing the understanding of the Taxing Clause in Article 1, Section 8-  And didn't not change the original text.

(Edit to fix a typo)
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 08:53:44 AM by TexasRunner »
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2152
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #238 on: February 20, 2018, 08:59:10 AM »
BTW most gangbangers use pistols in gang violence, so it isn't like you can point to one type of weapon to ban to solve all issues. Pistols kill more people than all the mass shootings combined, but because the mass shootings captures all the media attention and drives these convos, they aren't discussed. And I am not in support of a ban on pistols either, and I don't think many would be.

Honestly I am not sure what the answer is. I don't think guns get up and walk around on their own and shoot people. There is something wrong some with the people having the desire to do it. How you correct that I do not know. Its tough to change people.

I think the difference is that gang violence is more often targeted to individuals in some way gang-affiliated or adjacent. Yes, bystanders get injured, but it's not the same kind of wholesale, indiscriminate violence you see with mass shootings. I mean, the Las Vegas thing was literally one man firing into a crowd. They hadn't done anything to provoke him, they weren't competing for him in the drug trade, they were just attending a public event.

School shootings are typically less random than that, but aren't necessarily targeted the same way gang violence is. More importantly, the costs to them, both economic and social, are orders of magnitude higher than any one instance of gang violence.

For better or worse, we don't value the lives lost to gang violence quite the same way we do children who are killed while attending school.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2305
  • Location: NZ
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #239 on: February 21, 2018, 02:51:13 AM »
Quote
I do seem to find a pattern though, in that those who seem to commit these shootings do have a pretty sizeable collection of guns. But I am also aware that many who have collections don't hurt anyone at all. I even know a guy who makes his own bullets. He isn't extreme or anything. Just finds it more economical. I am sure to others that would be a red flag.

Thanks for bringing up making ones own bullets. I have fond memories of packing shot gun shells in our scout den.
Follow me on my journey to FI.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #240 on: February 21, 2018, 08:34:26 AM »
I have a question, how do you align the two following views:

Quote
3% of the gun owners have 50% of the guns!!!11!111!!!

and

Quote
We have no idea who owns what guns, we have to have a national registry NOW!!11!!!!!1!

...

I'm having trouble seeing how one statement can be true and not intrinsically make the other false (or at least, unsubstantiated)

Thanks
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11093
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #241 on: February 21, 2018, 08:43:25 AM »
I have a question, how do you align the two following views:

Quote
3% of the gun owners have 50% of the guns!!!11!111!!!

and

Quote
We have no idea who owns what guns, we have to have a national registry NOW!!11!!!!!1!

...

I'm having trouble seeing how one statement can be true and not intrinsically make the other false (or at least, unsubstantiated)

Thanks

The 3% figure was based on a study that collected survey results from a representative number of people.  It's entirely possible that they're wrong.  We have no idea who owns what guns, we only have these self reported figures to go on.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #242 on: February 21, 2018, 10:22:46 AM »
I have a question, how do you align the two following views:

Quote
3% of the gun owners have 50% of the guns!!!11!111!!!

and

Quote
We have no idea who owns what guns, we have to have a national registry NOW!!11!!!!!1!

...

I'm having trouble seeing how one statement can be true and not intrinsically make the other false (or at least, unsubstantiated)

Thanks

You would need to understand statistics.
Population, sampling, standard deviation and statistical significance would be a good start to answering your question.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #243 on: February 21, 2018, 10:35:10 AM »
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.

Because of that I want to throw this out there:

Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it. 

Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia": 
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)

Blah, blah blah...

Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list.  Not on the list, no sale.

Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.

It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.

I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...

Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).

Thoughts?

Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought.  Obviously people are reading.

Or do we all just like arguing in circles?
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #244 on: February 21, 2018, 10:44:30 AM »
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.

Because of that I want to throw this out there:

Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it. 

Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia": 
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)

Blah, blah blah...

Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list.  Not on the list, no sale.

Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.

It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.

I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...

Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).

Thoughts?

Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought.  Obviously people are reading.

Or do we all just like arguing in circles?

If seeing children slaughtered in schools will not change people's minds, an internet forum discussion is even less likely to do so.

The range of steps that can be taken within the scope of the second amendment is pretty clear. The ability to amend the constitution is also clear (and also clearly politically impossible right now). The only thing I get out of these discussions is understanding how other people see it, especially those that have a different point of view. People are generally discussion/arguing from fundamentally different foundations. The bottom line is that America likes guns enough and considers them important enough that we, as a society, are willing to accept the resulting carnage. If the balance of that bargain no longer feels acceptable, then, and only then, will we see change.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #245 on: February 21, 2018, 10:45:32 AM »
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.

Because of that I want to throw this out there:

Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it. 

Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia": 
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)

Blah, blah blah...

Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list.  Not on the list, no sale.

Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.

It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.

I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...

Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).

Thoughts?

Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought.  Obviously people are reading.

Or do we all just like arguing in circles?

May I ask what are you doing to promote these solutions that you are on board with?  I'm voting for candidates who embrace common sense gun safety regulation. I am NOT voting for candidates whose response to massacres is to advance laws that loosen gun regulations.  I'm already doing something to try to change the status quo.  If your votes don't go to candidates who want these solutions, nothing is going to change.

https://everytown.org/senate-votes/

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html

You are right that talking in circles won't change anything.  I urge anyone reading this to look at your local, state, and federal representation and vote accordingly.  There's a big election this year, and it's the best way to make a change. 

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #246 on: February 21, 2018, 11:04:02 AM »
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.

Because of that I want to throw this out there:

Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it. 

Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia": 
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)

Blah, blah blah...

Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list.  Not on the list, no sale.

Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.

It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.

I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...

Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).

Thoughts?

Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought.  Obviously people are reading.

Or do we all just like arguing in circles?

OK. I'll bite.

Suggested solution:

1) Amendment to the constitution. Either Amend the 2nd or new Amendment.

2) Ban all handguns, assault style weapons, semi-automatic weapons with more than 5 round magazines etc. (the actual weapons banned here should be up for debate... but not the intent No tricky-dicky slipping this and that under the wire using some sort of loophole or interpretation.)

3)  Ban all weapons not used for target practice, hunting or wildlife protection (protecting humans from wildlife).

4) Institute a government funded buy back and amnesty. One time.

5) All remaining weapons to be on a gun registry.

6) Mandatory training and renewable licencing for all gun owners AND users (lets say every 5 years to start the conversation).

7) Mandatory, traceable, auditable background checks made on a central database prior to licencing.

8) Mandatory traceable, auditable confirmation of purchasers on above database by vendors (any vendor).

9) Mandatory weapons safe storage with the right of the local constabulary to inspect.

10) Zero tolerance enforcement of the above laws.

Do all of this over a 4 year period (rip the band aid off in the lame duck term of a Presidency so a change of guard doesn't derail the plan.)

There, instead of responding to your other points and answering your questions I have proposed a solution. 

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #247 on: February 21, 2018, 11:11:25 AM »
The thought just crossed my mind.. Would anyone change their minds on gun control if they saw images of the aftermath of these attacks? I can imagine the horror of blood everywhere, children torn apart by bullets, crying, injured, traumatized at seeing their friends killed in front of them. I don't need pictures to convey that horror. But somehow all of that is not enough for gun lovers to think maybe, just maybe there's something we can do about it. Is the inconvenience of having to take a safety course or register private sales really so bad that you willing to let children die? Would locking up your guns be so hard that you'd rather see a child shot than have a gun safe? I hate the idea of dead children being paraded about for this purpose, but I honestly have no idea how to impress the absolute horror of the situation on those who seem to believe its no big deal or that there's nothing that can be done to prevent this. 
My Journal: It's all gravy
Tangerine Referral Code (we each get $50!): 49886083S1


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11093
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #248 on: February 21, 2018, 11:16:46 AM »
Given the fearful and hyper-individualistic nature of many gun owners (the government is out to get me guns, ninjas will invade my home so I need military grade defenses that can be reached every second, the police can't protect me I need to do it myself, easy access to guns makes things less safe but it's better I have them in case criminals do, etc.)  I suspect that this grisly showing would have the opposite of intended impact.
My spirit animal is a tardigrade.

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #249 on: February 21, 2018, 11:26:13 AM »
Given the fearful and hyper-individualistic nature of many gun owners (the government is out to get me guns, ninjas will invade my home so I need military grade defenses that can be reached every second, the police can't protect me I need to do it myself, easy access to guns makes things less safe but it's better I have them in case criminals do, etc.)  I suspect that this grisly showing would have the opposite of intended impact.
Sadly, you're probably right. I don't think Americans realize how fucked up their outlook on guns looks to the rest of the world. This fetishizing of violence is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
My Journal: It's all gravy
Tangerine Referral Code (we each get $50!): 49886083S1