Flame away.

Look at all the fun, profits and jobs that were lost by cracking down on drunk driving. Just to save a very small percentage of the population being killed or injured by drunk drivers. If you were drunk and killed someone, at least you didn't do it intentionally.

I wouldn't advocate going back to the way things were in the 70's. Back then it was about a $250 fine and you didn't even lose your drivers license in the first DUI. Most people didn't worry about it until they got that first one. The second one they took your license.

Yeah, lets pass a new law to prevent this kind of thing. And when the nuts move on to another mode of killing we'll pass yet another law. I'm sure the criminal set will suddenly sit up and take notice. I know they sure have laid off the drugs when we got serious about putting people in jail for it.

The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of American Citizens are peaceful and law-abiding. Most of the homicides in the U.S. are the result of the booming trade in illegal street drugs being sold by criminal gangs. The mass shooter phenomena is a whole different can of worms but it has as much to do with how we deliver mental health care in this country as anything else. Deal with the roots of the problem and leave the Constitutional Rights of citizens alone.

I think it's a very legitimate question, and the answer is "no." Your right to fire a weapon ends where my body begins.

Or I could just not give a shit.


I really couldn't care less about your body one way or the other. I haven't seen anyone (especially not me) express the belief that shooting innocent people is a right or even that it's desirable. Your statement, therefore, makes no sense. (And you insult MY logic? Sheesh!) Unless, of course, you count yourself among the criminal element. If that's the case then your statement makes complete sense and your concern is understandable.

Well, I care about everyone's body, that it can be healthy and whole, and to the extent that our society can make such a thing a possibility, I think society should.

I don't give a shit about a lot of things, but I don't suffer hate and insults.

Welcome to DU, for however long you are here.

People intent on committing mass murder can do so (and will do so) without guns if they are not available.

About 5 or 10 years ago (don't remember exactly) a chinese man ran amok in a kindergarten and stabbed a dozen children.

You can commit mass-murder with a knife, if you really want to, but there's a difference:
If a mass-murderer uses a gun, you HAVE to use a lethal weapon to stop him.
If a mass-murderer uses a knife, any improvised and/or non-lethal weapon (e.g. a club, pepperspray...) MIGHT stop him.
Just one or two weeks ago, there was a report from China about a knife-wielding man going on a rampage in the middle of a street. AFAIR he wounded 8 people, 3 of them mortally. What stopped him? A guy sneaked behind him and gave him a martial arts kick to the back.

Limiting the availability of guns and/or ammunition won't prevent mass-murders, but the chances of the victims will rise from "none" to "maybe".

A backpack loaded with 20lbs of Diesel-soaked NH4NO3 Fertilizer and a detonator/primary would EASILY have killed more than 12 people in a crowded theater. Probably would've taken out the ehtire room and probably wouldn't have been caught. Holmes did NOT need guns to do what he did and he was clearly a determined (and fucked-up) individual.

taggets (a marker to trace explosives) in explosive materail. As usual the NRA lobby killed it. The NRA claimed the taggets in gun powder could damage a gun barrel.
that was whe n I quit the NRA. There was a supriseing poll in our local paper this morning. Now this is eastern Ohio and everyone has a gun and the readers usally oppose the liberal veiwpoint by a 2 to 1 margin. The question asked was do you think the legislature should impose tougher gun laws. The results 62% yes and 38% no. I would give you the link but haven't figured out how with my tablet. The paper is the Hearold Star in Steubenville OH.

We should go shooting sometime.

Taggants were not opposed by the NRA for fertilizer or commercial (as intended) explosives. In fact taggants are already in the majority of commercial explosives used for construction. Gunpowder manufacturers proved that the taggants could settle out in the dry mix and make loads inconsistent. The net result would be unsafe loads. This would be for factory ammo or reloaders. The damage to the barrel would be via high pressures. I've been reloading for 20 years and took an interest in the technical discussion that went on at the time.

Gunpowder is not an explosive. It's a propellant. Smokeless gunpowder will produce in the range of tens of thousands of psi pressure. Commercial explosives produce in the range of a million psi and the generated shockwave moves at hypersonic speed. Gasoline, benzine, butane, propane, hydrogen, gunpowder, coal dust and even white flour under simple but correct conditions (contained and restricted burning, conversion of chemical to thermal energy) the pressure will build and rupture the containment vessel. True explosives (TNT, plastic etc will vaporize the container.)

True blackpowder, used in fireworks, was once the method miners used to blast in mines. It's a true explosive but the pressure yield is in the hundreds of thousands of psi and a lot is required. Unstable, old school. Still made but only in small quantities. Blackpowder substitutes are propellants and extensively more stable than blackpowder (Pyrodex). Pretty much limited to modern muzzle loaders.


I believe in Oklahoma City diesel and high nitrogen fertilizer were used. It's a crude plastic explosive. Although the ATF frowns on it it's been used by farmers for years to relocate tree stumps and break up boulders in fields. The US Army even trains their Special Forces and Rangers how to field fabricate this stuff.

And that, in a nutshell, is the argument for more armed citizens.

More armed citizens means more armed criminals. How do you tell good guys from bad guys if everybody carries a lethal weapon in public?

Imagine what kind of society this would lead to:
You have to carry a gun, because everybody else also carries a gun.
Some of those other people carrying a gun might be criminals, trying to kill you.
Some of the people watching you, as you walk past them RIGHT NOW, are thinking RIGHT NOW how best to kill you if you turn out to be a criminal.

Is this the kind of society one should aspire to? Having to answer the same 3 questions every time you leave your house, over and over again?
1. Which of these people will I have to kill?
2. Which of these people are criminals trying to kill me?
3. Which of these people will try to kill me because they think I'm a criminal?

How many people will get killed accidentally, in the name of a policy that's supposed to allow its citizens to be and feel safe?

criminals generally kill each other
to answer your questions

probably none,
probably none
only the ones you are attacking as a criminal
based on current experience, fewer than the cops.

And for the accidental deaths, a simple scenario:

I'm in a crowded place. Being a typical adult, I carry a gun.
Suddenly there's a gunshot a few meters away. (Let's say a mis-fire.) Somebody screams. People start running. People draw their guns.

What are the odds, someone will overreact?
What are the consequences of such an overreaction when a bunch of panicked strangers start pointing their guns at each other?
Probably none?
I prefer none. Thank you.

a mob enforcer? The probably of even cops doing so is microscopic.
I think you underestimate the the intellect and powers of observation of people esp at such a short distance. Cars misfire, guns don't.

No, I'm too nice and not intimidating enough to be any kind of enforcer. But I have a lot of imagination.

My point is simple: I think we should not head towards a society where violence and death and thinking about violence and death are part of our everyday-life.

unfortunately, most of them live in urban shitholes like Chicago. Fixing that is more complex than whining about hicks with gun racks, but will actually work.

I would never suggest that EVERYONE carry a gun. Even among the sane and meek, a sizable percentage of them are not "switched on" enough to handle one responsibly.

The criminally minded will do what they want, when they want so lets just admit that right now. As such, they can be removed from the equation. As for everyone else, my desire is that anyone who chooses to arm themselves get educated in the laws governing the carrying of weapons and the use of deadly force AND that they seek out proper training on the use of those weapons so that, should they ever need to use one, they can do so with the highest probability of success and the lowest collateral risk. Experience tells me that only a small percentage of those who are licensed to carry will go on to acquire such training. Even so, understanding the difference between desires and rights, it is unreasonable for me to limit the latter by the former. My expectation is that my government also know the difference and abide by the limits to its authority as set forth in the Constitution.

"More armed citizens means more armed criminals."

Here in the US firearms are rather plentiful. Most any criminal that wants one can get one. One of our problems is that we "manufacture" criminals by inventing crimes. We jail people for smoking, growing and selling pot. I think nearly half of those in prison have been charged with or been sentenced for drug related crimes.

A good idea would be for us to stop trying to ban things. Banning items drives their trade underground into a black market.

4. Which of these people are really clumsy and will have their weapon accidentally discharge while geting their wallet or their car keys?

"If a mass-murderer uses a gun, you HAVE to use a lethal weapon to stop him. "

Why?

why can't someone sneak up behind a person with a gun and kick them in the back too? this is the dumbest thing I have read all day.

"Limiting the availability of guns and/or ammunition won't prevent mass-murders, but the chances of the victims will rise from "none" to "maybe"."

I doubt it.

... between a guy stabbing at everything in sight and a guy shooting at everything in sight. You can't circle the later in a safe distance for a planned attack. You would have to run from cover to cover, which hinders
* your line-of-sight
* the available paths to get within striking distance
* the coordination with others who could help you take him down

If the guy wields a knife, a chair could be enough to keep him busy, buying time so someone else could disarm him.

Why does it have to be such an "either-or?"

"Either we have guns AND mass murders, OR we get rid of guns and (pretend?) mass murders will go away."

access to guns is what is causing this.

As has been pointed out Switzerland has a higher rate of gun ownership but lower rate of violent crimes.

Also states with higher gun ownership rates don't necessarily have higher rates of violent crimes or even the odd mass shooting.

So saying "is it a reasonable price" is based on a false assumption so cannot be answer fairly.

Like asking "is it a reasonable price to be paid (occasional mass murders) to enjoy the constitutionally protected right of violent video games"?

all the relevant numbers --- also should population variance be noted in all this? thanks for the data.

Central point: Every one of those numbers represents PEOPLE! People with families, friends, and communities. The killing has got to STOP!!!

but more are killed everyday by gangs keeping the drug culture in dope. Are you taking them to task for inner city Chicago, Detroit, Mexico, Columbia? No, didn't think so.

Their guns can be melted down, too.

is to take away their money. End prohibition.

When the "statistics" aren't human beings, I'll give a rat's wazoo about the statistics. Until then, the homoskedasticity of the numbers isn't worth shit. (kinda like some people's lust for their guns, huh?)

Your retort: pushing the Aurora incident (an anecdote) to refute that claim (a trend).

It doesn't work that way.

PEOPLE ARE DYING. Whether the trend is up or down doesn't mean squat to the family, friends and communities of the people who die so the gun nuts can fellate their barrel every night.

When discussing solutions to our crime woes it is.

You see if guns are more available now but crime is down (particularly violent crime) that would suggest that guns are not causing violent crime.

So if we're discussing solutions that all revolve around getting rid of guns in some way or another that is a worthy bit of data to include.

PEOPLE ARE DYING. Whether the trend is up or down doesn't mean squat to the family, friends and communities of the people who die so the gun nuts can fellate their barrel every night.

it's a disarmed victim.

...and there will be none after we melt 'em all down.

violently hacked with a battle ax? Europe was a much more violent place back then.

Including those in the hands of the Armed Forces & law enforcement agencies?

proposal to achieve your goal?

Yes. People are dying from guns.

People will always die from guns. Even in countries with draconian gun control people die from guns.

If you don't care about the statistical significance of the deaths, then one can only conclude that even one death is too much for you.

Violent crime has been declining for decades, even as the number of firearms in circulation have increased.

If the sum of your argument is going to be "If it saves just one life..." I'm not interested.

have a lousy day

Everything has a cost. Banning firearms will cost lives too. I believe there is more truth than untruth in the studies that place the number of justifiable gun uses at many times the number of unjustified uses.

I don't know. I'm heartbroken.

What might stop me is your failure to participate. Just some give and take here, as you propose for society as a whole.
You asked a question. I'll answer then I'll ask a question.


The statistics here in the US show a homicide rate of about 4.8 per 100,000. IIRC about 3.5 per 100,000 of those list a firearm as the weapon used. That leaves about 1.3 per 100,000 using all other weapons. That 1.3 per 100,000 is still higher than the overall homicide rate for the UK, most of Scandinavia and, for that matter, most of Europe. For whatever reason, the US is more murderous than other parts of the world. That should be of utmost concern to anyone thinking about a crime problem in this country.


For my question: You believe that everyone has a contract with the government such that we give up something to get something else. Is there a list of things that government may not demand of you in exchange for what it provides?


Hoping for a thoughtful answer

I wanted to lay out the concept, that nobody is an island and you have to give up some freedoms once you enter a system you interact with.
Very simple example: A cave-man living alone can cry "wolf" as much as he wants. If he keeps shouting the word "wolf" over and over again in a settlement with other cave-men, he will eventually get beaten up for false alarm. By living in a settlement, he had to give up his freedom to say anything he wants, whenever he wants to.

What if your society has a religion that demands that your foreskin be cut off? What if your society has a religion that demands to feast during a specific time of the year? What if your society has a religion that demands that you go hunting members of other tribes, so they can be sacrificed to your society's gods?
All those deeds have negative effects on people. Yet they are executed by the members of the society, because not executing them would mean banishment from said society, resulting in the loss of benefits.
THAT'S the price we have to pay.

We live in a city, we have comfort, we have warm beds, we have easy access to food, we have easy access to medicine.
The price?
Building the city destroyed a beautiful landscape.
Flipping a switch to turn on an electric light on results in nuclear waste.
The industry that built our amenities destroyed nature, poisons the water we drink and the air we breathe.
The food is processed and artificial. Eating something as simple as a ripe tomato or the meat of a full-grown cow has become a luxury.
Medicine has to be tested in trials, leading to preventable deaths of humans and animals.

My point is: The rules of society can be changed if enough people within the society decide to do so.
These rules aren't eternal and unshakable.
They are part of a mutual contract and this contract can be broken, as long as everybody agrees to do so.
We got rid of human sacrifices. Getting rid of the "inalienable" right to own a specific kind of weapon won't be the end of civilization either.

1. How does one change the rules of society and what do we do with the non-conformists?

2. How can we get rid of an inalienable right?

Some rules are implicit, some are explicitly written down, e.g. in a constitution.

The implicit rules depend on the mind-set of the people and shift as new people are born and old people die off.

The explicit rules are harder to change as they transcended to an ideal that can bridge the gap between generations that have never met. Once it has turned into an ideal, the rule is revered and considered inalienable, lest the civilization becomes undone. Once the rule has reached a status, where considering her validity has become unthinkable, it's almost impossible to get rid of her.
Example: human rights.

And even if the people would no longer support the rule they have bound themselves to, they still need a mechanism to undo it officially or risk anarchy.
That's why scripture is so important: Spoken word travels farther in space, but written word travels farther in time. A rule written is a rule meant to last (whether it's a good idea or not).

You can't just declare a rule null and void and neglect it further on. Because then other people would also start to neglect rules, maybe at will and without discussion. A change of rules must happen in an open environment and has to be accompanied by discussion, to lend it legitimacy.

I don't know where you are at present and if you are in Europe I realize it's rather late.

Perhaps I could explain our problem better. We are a group of states united as a nation. Each states passes laws regarding itself and its residents. The Founding documents are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I myself accept "rights", including those expressed in the BoR, as attributes of humanity. Legislating them away is more or less equivalent to precipitating violations of human rights. My right to privacy, a fair trial by jury and not to be subject to cruel or unusual punishments are not subject to interference by my government, my neighbors or any social collective.

Personally, I view the right to keep and bear arms as a corollary to the right to life. My right to life entitles me to self defense. My choice of means should not be restricted to anything less than the most efficacious tools for doing so. These ideals are embodied by laws restricting me from firearms over .50 caliber, arms that operate in full-auto mode like a machine gun, most crew-served weapons, various destructive devices like booby traps and mines and mostly all explosives. Examples of arms that are generally allowed would be .38 caliber revolver, a .45 automatic, various types of standard rifles and shotguns.

I believe that other issues aside from firearm possession are also responsible for the higher homicide rate in the US. Most of Europe has a rate of about 0.8 homicides per 100,000 people per year. The US rate is 4.8. Excluding firearms the US rate is about 1.3.

The BoR was required by lots of the people in order for the Constitution to be accepted as it founds a stronger federal government than was pre-existent. For a substantial change to the BoR to be accepted, a Constitutional Convention may be needed similar to the one that took place during the Summer of 1787.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have also incorporated the restrictions of the second amendment onto state and local governments which, in effect, prohibits sweeping pans by weapon type.

There is a quote from Winston Churchill that I favor a great deal. As far as I know it's not about the RKBA but it is about rights:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

I can't help but think that other issues like maybe healthcare and especially treatment and support for those mental or emotional problems. In much of Europe these conditions can be treated for free. Here often those folks can't work which means, unless they are wealthy, they can't afford insurance/healthcare... But here we can sell them a gun. Go figure.

But they do, so you don't.

You cannot eliminate lunacy, but you can curb it's effects on society.

to alleviate the effects of lunancy on society by diagnosing and treating the lunatics.

what crude person would laugh at tragedy? doesn't that negate the whole "civilised" notion . . .

I was speaking in general terms about how America is viewed in terms of it's out of control gun culture. Do you think other countries discuss things like "guns in church", or "guns in classrooms" or "guns in bars"? They laugh at us in a bewildered way.

Don't know what the links have to do with guns in churches, classrooms, bars or other public places. Your links are about CC., not an easy thing in Canada. And the Czech Republic is hardly what I would consider the "rest of the civilized world".

it was fairly easy in Canada before 1969. Why isn't Czech Republic "civilized"? it's murder rate isn't that much different than UK's. Or shall we discuss France and the Roma? I would call Finland civilized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

It is a tiny part of the civilized world, not "the rest".

The justification for the Spanish-American War was created by the media. The reasons given for starting the Mexican-American War were lies. The rationale for getting involved in Vietnam was the so-called "Domino Effect". "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" killed alot of Indians. In the past, people used free speech to argue that slaves ought not be freed or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Why not do a complete search of any vehicle entering a parking lot? Why not do a complete search of anyone entering any building other than one's home? Why not include random searches of people on the street, roads and yes even homes to ensure nothing is being attempted?


Are the occasional mass-murders a reasonable price to pay so everyone can enjoy the right not to have unreasonable searches?

Being subject to all those searches or living in a country where only criminals and police carry guns in public?

The price of freedom is banning stupidity.

Do you know twiztidklownztx? Loves Glocks and M40's.

dayglo.

And it is both bullet and knife resistant, while the USA armor is just bullet resistant.

Because the general good of SOCIETY superceeds any rights of the individuals.

is actually the bill of suggestions?

The government can restrict free speech, search without warrant, deny jury trial etc. as long as it's for the good of society?

Felons and people adjuicated with mental illness cannot own guns. Their indiviudal rights to own a gun is taken away for the greater good of society, i.e, so they cannot harm other people.

Do you their "rights" overrules other people's rights to LIFE?

on our actions that we will be judged.

do you not have even the basic concept of life, philosophy or moral precepts?

that you are judging innocent people and taking away their rights on this basis makes me wonder.

They are innocent people? You don't believe in the greater good? Forget guns. If the town wants to extend a road on your property for the good of the drivers in the area, they can, you know. In just that simple case, they will take away your "rights".

Your "rights" END, where somebody elses rights begin.

their RIGHTS based on what GUILTY people have done? is that not your premise? you don't want anyone to have guns because some mentally ill felons have misused guns.

is that or is that NOT your premise????

yes or no.

If that is NOT your premise then please state YOUR PREMISE.

That's a terrifying (and unbalanced) philosophy. Under that rational one could easily easily justify all manner of evil and that is precisely why rights are constitutionally protected.

are you really posting in support of them and the NRA?

And do remember that at the time the age of consent in TX was 14.

The McLennan Co. Sheriff didn't think there was child molestation going on...

using the abuse of children as a reason they used tear gas to force the molesters out of their hole?

What will you post next - a promotion for The Turner Diaries, otherwise known as The Bible of the Racist Right.

Edit: Tejas has left the building. Thanks Skinner.

I'd say ZERO.

And to your question: NO, it is not a reasonable price. It is an indefensible price, to pay, even if the Constitution is interpreted to fit the desires of the most ardent gun enthusiast. Some things really are more sacred than guns.

Let's look at every day in Chicago, Cuidad Juarez, DC, St. Croix, Kingston. How many dead children are worth that bag of coke or lid?

brought other People to such misery. WHY? HOW do we, as a society, recognize and help these young men? Why do we defund our Mental Health Programs?

How we behave as a single person has consequences to the people around us. Looked at from the other side, there are phenomena influencing us, when we are part of a specific community. That's the price we pay for being part of that community.

who are in danger due to undue stresses, anxiety and lack of good mental and medical attention. to put undue restraint on innocent people does society no good and decreases the strength of our nation at the individual level. That is the debt we owe society to handle our rights with good responsibility, to be positive contributing members of society.

for example by accepting slavery

I refuse to play that game. Going forward and having learned from the past, we as individuals need to create a more harmonious society.

You are looking at it like society owes the individual. To me, society Starts with the individual.

I, as an individual, do NOT accept slavery therefore I am working to create a slaveless society.

essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

I give up my freedom to carry a gun, so others feel safe.

or

I give up my freedom to feel safe, so others can walk around with guns and feel safe.

Just as I tolerate murders and rapist abusing our other rights that set them free from time to time. If you applied the same standard to our other rights that you seek to impose on the 2nd amendment we would have to shred the entire bill of rights. The cost to society of occasional tragedies is greatly outweighed by the potential tragedies that could befall an unarmed populace.