Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[bilby]

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

Banning all firearms is a mythical bogeyman. No western nation has banned all firearms, and nor has any serious attempt been made to do so.

If banning all firearms is the line, then the NRA should be completely happy with the US adopting the same laws that apply in the UK, or Sweden, or France, or Australia. None of those places has banned all firearms, or even come close to it.

Personally, I would be happier with simply banning firearms not optimised for non-human targets. Shooting people shouldn't be a legitimate reason for any civilian, other than perhaps a specially trained police officer, to have a firearm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

What you fail to understand is that anything you do disarms the law abiding before it disarms the criminals. You can't stop the criminals without disarming everyone.

 

[lpetrich]

That's a classic gun-nut argument, and experience elsewhere in the world does not support that. The gun regulations of elsewhere in the world keep guns out of the hands of a lot of casual criminals and unstable people and the like, so the criminals most likely to have guns are criminal gangsters and the like, and that kind of criminal is usually careful to avoid provoking the authorities.

Furthermore, if one wants protection, one is better off getting body armor. Guns won't make you bulletproof.

Also, if one wants a weapon, get something nonlethal or low-lethality, like a baseball bat or a Taser.

Another thing that helps against many of these mass shooters is that they are one person, meaning that they can easily be outnumbered, something which helps in overpowering them.

 

[bilby]

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

What you fail to understand is that anything you do disarms the law abiding before it disarms the criminals. You can't stop the criminals without disarming everyone.

That's an article of faith, and not the statement of self-evident fact you appear to imagine it to be.

And even if it were true, so what? The possession of firearms by the law abiding does little to stop criminals anyway, so it's not particularly important, even if it's not nonsense.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

What you fail to understand is that anything you do disarms the law abiding before it disarms the criminals. You can't stop the criminals without disarming everyone.

I understand your argument I just happen to disagree. A law abiding citizen isn’t going to be bothered by common sense gun laws like registration and others.

Also, I don’t think we need to identify a 100% solution before trying *any* solution. That’s just never going to happen for anything. And the right wing never makes that argument when it’s something *they* want to ban.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

What you fail to understand is that anything you do disarms the law abiding before it disarms the criminals. You can't stop the criminals without disarming everyone.

That's an article of faith, and not the statement of self-evident fact you appear to imagine it to be.

And even if it were true, so what? The possession of firearms by the law abiding does little to stop criminals anyway, so it's not particularly important, even if it's not nonsense.

Taking this on faith doesn't make it so.

We do not have good data on how many crimes are averted but even the lowest estimates are pretty high.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

What you fail to understand is that anything you do disarms the law abiding before it disarms the criminals. You can't stop the criminals without disarming everyone.

I understand your argument I just happen to disagree. A law abiding citizen isn’t going to be bothered by common sense gun laws like registration and others.

Also, I don’t think we need to identify a 100% solution before trying *any* solution. That’s just never going to happen for anything. And the right wing never makes that argument when it’s something *they* want to ban.

The devil is in the details.

There is wide support for universal background checks--but there is a big disagreement on exactly what actions should trigger the check.

For example, in the local measure that got trashcanned it would be impossible for a couple living together to have shared access to a firearm. That's the sort of thing the left likes to include (they exempt transfers between married couples) and the right quite rightly cries foul about.

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

 

[bilby]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[Toni]

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

What you fail to understand is that anything you do disarms the law abiding before it disarms the criminals. You can't stop the criminals without disarming everyone.

That's an article of faith, and not the statement of self-evident fact you appear to imagine it to be.

And even if it were true, so what? The possession of firearms by the law abiding does little to stop criminals anyway, so it's not particularly important, even if it's not nonsense.

Taking this on faith doesn't make it so.

We do not have good data on how many crimes are averted but even the lowest estimates are pretty high.

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

 

[bilby]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that.

Really? Where are the protesters? When are we going to start seeing this "huge opposition"?

Cars have been individually registered for decades.

(Yes, I know what you meant. I just can't resist responding instead to what you actually said, because it neatly highlights the abject absurdity of your position with respect to gun registration).

 

[bilby]

The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

There are no "gun banners". Even nations with really strict gun licensing haven't banned gun ownership.

What's the problem with a list of who owns what guns anyway?

Fuck "fool me once", I don't want anyone fooled, at all.

I want to know what the problem is with having a list of who owns what guns, that's not also a problem for a list of who owns what cars.

If the law says that records can't be kept, it's a fucking stupid law. Why not? What is the harm that arises from the existence of such a list?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

 

[Oleg]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

 

[Elixir]

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

First, the fact that “arms” now refers to stuff that didn’t exist when that was written.
Second, it refers to the collective “people”, and was never intended to ensure individuals‘ ability to mass murder dozens or hundreds within seconds or minutes.
Third, do you understand what “well regulated” means? I’m sure you do, but that’s not convenient to your anti-democratic intent.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

Are you a member of the militia? When was the last time you mustered? Who was your commanding officer?

 

[Oleg]

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

First, the fact that “arms” now refers to stuff that didn’t exist when that was written.
Second, it refers to the collective “people”, and was never intended to ensure individuals‘ ability to mass murder dozens or hundreds within seconds or minutes.
Third, do you understand what “well regulated” means? I’m sure you do, but that’s not convenient to your anti-democratic intent.

Uh, so "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is collective right, not an individual right? Reallty?

 

[Oleg]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

Are you a member of the militia? When was the last time you mustered? Who was your commanding officer?

Uh. The purpose of the Bills of Rights was to check the power of the new national government. To say that the Bill of Rights secured for the govenrment, as opposed to the people, a right to bear arms is just absurd.

 

[Oleg]

 

[Elixir]

You are conflating different parts of 2A, and assembling a specious argument from cherry picked phrases.
I am not here to spoon feed you, but it is apparent that you have swallowed the NRA talking points, hook line & sinker.