Do I Have a Constitutional Right

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't see a conflict between the right to life and the right to own a firearm.

I do see a conflict between the right to life and the act of shooting that firearm at someone.

The term "assault rifle" does not accurately describe any firearms as firearms are rated and categorized by capability.

Did those people in Vegas have a right to life?

Yes, which is why I wrote (and you dishonestly snipped) that shooting someone is in conflict with the right to life. Guns don't shoot themselves.

 

[untermensche]

Did those people in Vegas have a right to life?

Yes, which is why I wrote (and you dishonestly snipped) that shooting someone is in conflict with the right to life. Guns don't shoot themselves.

The right of that man to own those weapons is what allowed him to kill those people.

 

[fromderinside]

The right of that man to own those weapons is what allowed him to kill those people.

You agree then that the perp violated two rights he took others' lives and he took his own life. Only in Oregon does one have right to death.

 

[untermensche]

The right of that man to own those weapons is what allowed him to kill those people.

You agree then that the perp violated two rights he took others' lives and he took his own life. Only in Oregon does one have right to death.

He shot into a large crowd with a weapon that was basically an automatic. Deliberate murder.

Their rights were certainly violated but rights are human conceptions. They were human beings with lives and other people in their lives who are now traumatized. The people who survived were traumatized.

It is violence on a scale that few have ever experienced.

He should not have the right to do it.

No single person should be allowed to have the ability to do that again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't see a conflict between the right to life and the right to own a firearm.

I do see a conflict between the right to life and the act of shooting that firearm at someone.

The term "assault rifle" does not accurately describe any firearms as firearms are rated and categorized by capability.

Did those people in Vegas have a right to life?

Yes, which is why I wrote (and you dishonestly snipped) that shooting someone is in conflict with the right to life. Guns don't shoot themselves.

The right of that man to own those weapons is what allowed him to kill those people.

No, his pulling the trigger of those weapons is what allowed him to kill those people.

Why did you snip that same part again? It is as if you think that particular truth is too inconvenient and you must pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[untermensche]

The right of that man to own those weapons is what allowed him to kill those people.

No, his pulling the trigger of those weapons is what allowed him to kill those people.

Why did you snip that same part again? It is as if you think that particular truth is too inconvenient and you must pretend it doesn't exist.

Without his right to own them his finger could not have done much damage.

The thing that made that person dangerous to other people was the fact that he had the right to buy those weapons.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I do see a conflict between the right to life and the act of shooting that firearm at someone.

The thing that made him dangerous was his will to use those weapons. Inanimate objects do not practice mind control.

 

[untermensche]

I do see a conflict between the right to life and the act of shooting that firearm at someone.

The thing that made him dangerous was his will to use those weapons. Inanimate objects do not practice mind control.

What would his will have done without the weapons?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you don't pretty much remove them you aren't going to stop the mass shootings.

That explains why places like Australia, where licenced guns are readily available to those with a demonstrated need for them (despite the changes to the law post Port Arthur), still have about one mass shooting per annum, just as we did before the changes.

If you had 1 per year before the change you had a far higher rate than the US. Remember, we have 13x the population.

And your "demonstrated need" pretty much keeps new people out of guns--it's basically a slow-acting gun ban.

- - - Updated - - -

They claim not to be biased but they're using a pretty bad definition of "mass shooting". What we think of as a mass shooting is things like the MGM, not gangs fighting it out. Looking at the same database as before I find 92 mass shootings in 35 years.

Sorry, but no, shooting up 10 people is also a mass shooting.

Two gangs having a shootout isn't what most people consider a mass shooting. When people are concerned about mass shootings it's about innocents getting hit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Written to Loren Pechtel:

...Why are you only counting mass shooting fatalities?...

Right, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. He uses a strict definition of mass shooting so it becomes rare and then takes deaths associated with those as compared to self-defense shootings. It's like comparing the number of abortions due to heroin to the number of live births. It makes no sense because one item of comparison is way too narrow while the other isn't. Now I did give a different interesting statistic in last post which was number of unintentional shootings versus self-defense shootings. Those were nearly even.

Banning guns will do very little to keep guns out of criminal hands--there's enough of them out there that even with no new ones they'll have a supply until 3D printing renders a gun ban unenforceable. Thus a gun ban will do very little to reduce criminal on criminal shootouts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just say it, the 58 that died in Las Vegas is a good number. A number you are fine with, because... U-Hauls.

You utterly misunderstand my position. I'm looking at reality--the first test of a proposal should be whether it will actually work.

You're looking at it as disarm the guy and he can't shoot people. I'm looking at it and seeing that disarming him doesn't stop him from killing people. Don't waste your time putting a bank vault door on your house with an open window next to it. The benefit to banning guns is the difference between how many he could kill with a gun vs how many he could kill with a truck--and given the crowd density there he probably would have killed more with a truck, although there would have been fewer trampling injuries as it would have been over quicker.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at Europe--the Islamists have a hard time getting guns so they used cars or trucks.

I'm glad you agree that the gun control in those countries is working.

Yeah, it "works"--if all you care about is guns. If what you care about is dead innocents, though, it's not working very well at all. And it's dead innocents I care about, not the means by which they were killed.

By your weird logic we should allow mortars, machine guns, grenades, and nerve gas be purchased. Somehow that makes us all safer by your reasoning.

Mortars, machine guns and grenades should be subject to a substantial background check but not banned outright. (Note that there are about a dozen field artillery pieces in the US in private hands--complete with live ammunition. They're not showpieces, either--they fire them at real targets.) Nerve gas is in WMD territory--I'd like to see a good reason for a civilian to possess it but I wouldn't utterly rule it out. (I can think of research purposes to possess it.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rational people do everything possible to eliminate unnecessary dangers.

No. Rational people seek to minimize the total risk. That's not the same as minimizing each individual risk.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I do see a conflict between the right to life and the act of shooting that firearm at someone.

The thing that made him dangerous was his will to use those weapons. Inanimate objects do not practice mind control.

What would his will have done without the weapons?

Unless you propose to ban chemistry books, yes.

 

[untermensche]

What would his will have done without the weapons?

Unless you propose to ban chemistry books, yes.

That is an evasion.

What would THAT GUY have done THAT DAY without his beloved weapons?

Understanding he is a total coward who likes to push waitresses around.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just say it, the 58 that died in Las Vegas is a good number. A number you are fine with, because... U-Hauls.

You utterly misunderstand my position. I'm looking at reality--the first test of a proposal should be whether it will actually work.

You're looking at it as disarm the guy and he can't shoot people. I'm looking at it and seeing that disarming him doesn't stop him from killing people. Don't waste your time putting a bank vault door on your house with an open window next to it. The benefit to banning guns is the difference between how many he could kill with a gun vs how many he could kill with a truck--and given the crowd density there he probably would have killed more with a truck, although there would have been fewer trampling injuries as it would have been over quicker.

And if using a UHaul was so easy, so effective... mass murderers would be going to it as a first option.

You mistake your love of hypotheticals for reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What would his will have done without the weapons?

Unless you propose to ban chemistry books, yes.

Well since 1993, what, two major bombings (WTC and OKC) in the US compared to how many massacres?

 

[barbos]

You utterly misunderstand my position. I'm looking at reality--the first test of a proposal should be whether it will actually work.

You're looking at it as disarm the guy and he can't shoot people. I'm looking at it and seeing that disarming him doesn't stop him from killing people. Don't waste your time putting a bank vault door on your house with an open window next to it. The benefit to banning guns is the difference between how many he could kill with a gun vs how many he could kill with a truck--and given the crowd density there he probably would have killed more with a truck, although there would have been fewer trampling injuries as it would have been over quicker.

And if using a UHaul was so easy, so effective... mass murderers would be going to it as a first option.

You mistake your love of hypotheticals for reality.

Well, if Hollywood starts making movies in which good and bad guys kill each other exclusively with UHaul then statistics could swing toward vehicle based massacres.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You utterly misunderstand my position. I'm looking at reality--the first test of a proposal should be whether it will actually work.

You're looking at it as disarm the guy and he can't shoot people. I'm looking at it and seeing that disarming him doesn't stop him from killing people. Don't waste your time putting a bank vault door on your house with an open window next to it. The benefit to banning guns is the difference between how many he could kill with a gun vs how many he could kill with a truck--and given the crowd density there he probably would have killed more with a truck, although there would have been fewer trampling injuries as it would have been over quicker.

And if using a UHaul was so easy, so effective... mass murderers would be going to it as a first option.

You mistake your love of hypotheticals for reality.

People think guns when it comes to killing. Look at Europe--the truck attacks work and this guy had a huge, packed crowd to target.

 

[ZiprHead]

And if using a UHaul was so easy, so effective... mass murderers would be going to it as a first option.

You mistake your love of hypotheticals for reality.

People think guns when it comes to killing. Look at Europe--the truck attacks work and this guy had a huge, packed crowd to target.

A huge packed crowd of people of whom a large segment were carrying guns.