Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9010 total)
53 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 881,552 Year: 13,300/23,288 Month: 230/795 Week: 26/33 Day: 8/5 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 59 of 848 (828648)
02-21-2018 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
02-21-2018 5:10 PM


Re: 17 Dead at Florida High School
Actually Israel's system does sound reasonable.

Faith, in another thread writes:

quote:
Hitler forced gun registration on the Jews and then confiscated their guns. It's the Left who would do that here.

Israel's system is more strict than just about anything left politicians have seriously proposed. It's a shame Conservatives don't typically agree with you on this point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 02-21-2018 5:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 1:06 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 848 (828700)
02-22-2018 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
02-22-2018 10:28 AM


compromise
If leftists didn't always immediately try to build their case for gun control after such a shooting, trying to pre-empt other points of view, there wouldn't be this predictable exchange of insults every time.

Leftists continuously put forward their case. They become a focus of news media after notorious shootings.

After a terrorist attack, rightists seem to do the same thing. Arguing for tighter immigration, more powers of surveillance, more funds for searching people, more restrictions on travel etc etc.

The rightists often get their way when a rare terrorist attack occurs. The leftists seldom get much when a common shooting occurs.

Make the case in a neutral time rather than trying to manipulate public opinion at the most emotional possible time.

In 2017 there were 346 mass shootings.

In 2018, - there was Marshall County High School on 23rd January. There was Melcroft, Pennsylvania at a car wash on the 28th January. There was Stoneman Douglas High School on 14th February. Has there been a neutral time in 2018? How long does there need to be a gap between events to classify as neutral? Does the same apply for terrorist attacks?

And calling us wingnuts doesn't help.

I'm sure calling us reprehensible leftists doesn't either. Perhaps you should avoid contributing so you are able to actually take the moral high ground rather than blaming the leftists for starting it like a kid being told off for fighting.

I'm for more gun control but I'm also a defender of the second amendment and I think having a FEW more armed people at schools and other vulnerable institutions is a reasonable solution.

The second amendment doesn't insist that all firearms should be allowable. If safety is your concern why not compromise - agree to to the banning of 'popular' weapons of mass murder - handguns, high capacity rifles etc in exchange for arming a few good men in vulnerable areas?

I argue that banning certain classes of weapons will work, you can argue the arming of some key figures will work. We might both be right - win-win. And the second amendment can stand - citizens will still have the right to keep and bear arms. Just not all arms. Like is in fact the case today.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 02-22-2018 10:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 142 of 848 (830372)
03-27-2018 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
03-27-2018 9:09 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
The problem with a table like that is that particular areas in the US have a lot more gun deaths because they are crime-ridden areas, inner city areas where the statistics are enormously high.

Like Alaska (56th most population dense with 20 deaths per 100K), Wyoming (55th) , Montana (54th), Oklahoma (41st) and Kentucky (28th 14 deaths per 100k), for instance - 5 of the top twenty states for gun death per capita.

Those aren't the areas where the second amendment is held in high esteem either, they are just violent criminals whose guns are mostly illegal anyway.

Alaska (58% own guns), Wyoming (60% own guns) , Montana (58% own guns), Oklahoma (43% own guns) and Kentucky (48%) for instance.

If only those densely populated areas could be like those quaint second amendment good old country boys like New York (7th most dense, 18% ownership, 4 deaths per 100k), Rhode Island (2nd most dense, 13% ownership, 5 per 100k), Massachusetts (3rd most dense, 13% ownership, 3 per 100k)....

I understand your general point - but if you live in a low population density State there are more gun owners and more gun deaths -- you are more likely to die from a gun than in the notorious city areas. Trump's go to of Illinois is dense (12th most dense) has a gun ownership of 20% and a per capita gun death of 9in100k for example.

And out there in Oklahoma I'm willing to bet those 43% aren't overwhelmingly illegally owning those weapons either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-27-2018 9:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 1:16 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 148 of 848 (830418)
03-28-2018 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ringo
03-28-2018 3:14 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
I would agree that very little about the 2nd Amendment makes sense outside the US. I'm just saying that it seems to be consistent - if "militia" means everybody then everybody is entitled to military weapons. I wonder if they draw the line at howitzers?

People have made the argument in favour of this very point - that since private individuals were permitted to carry cannons on their ships in the 18th Century - this was necessary and confirmed in the constitution Section I where it states that Congress has the power

quote:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Letters of Marque granted private individuals the right to engage in Naval combat without being branded a pirate. That would necessitate cannons.

People have argued that we should therefore allow for 'arms inflation' to at least the equivalent of ship cannons - which would suggest that howitzers are definitely included in that interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 3:14 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2018 6:21 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 158 of 848 (830460)
03-30-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ICANT
03-30-2018 2:22 AM


Re: Problem
When people are taught that there is no higher authority than themselves and they come to believe that they can do anything they desire to do. They then lose respect for themselves. When they have no respect for themselves they will have no respect for others or other peoples property.

See, normally that would be a series of code words meaning 'atheists are to blame' - but that clearly doesn't make sense. America is one of the most religious countries in Western Civilization. So since that can't be what you mean - who is teaching this? Are you saying that since god is imaginary, religious people are being taught that they are the highest authority? That seems unlikely too. So this is either lazy theory that doesn't mean anything specific - or you had something in mind I can't decipher.

There was 246 of those death caused by AK 47's and AR 15's and all other rifles.
The AK 47's and AR 15's are what everyone wants to ban.

Personally I want to ban handguns - but the feeling is that mass shootings and semi-automatic rifles are related and I wouldn't be terribly sad to see them go...

I have never heard anyone advocate we ban knives, fists, feet, clubs, and hammers.

Almost like there was some reason for that.

Nor has anyone suggested we go back to the horse and buggy days to save lives.

Probably because it wouldn't save lives.

But let me state here that the AK 47 and AR 15 are not assault weapons

That's a piece of pedantry that's no longer particularly relevant. What someone calls the weapon, doesn't change the weapon.

There are those that propose to repeal the 2nd amendment. That would take 38 states to ratify such a change

Well....yes. And?

The reason for the 2nd amendment in the first place was that every man would be armed which would cause any country contemplating an invasion they would not do so knowing there was a gun in every house.

And yet not even the majority of houses has a gun - and invading the USA does not seem to be on anyone's agenda.

It was also to make sure that those in power would never be able to take over the country and install a dictatorship.

That wouldn't work, and it hasn't worked. Furthermore: It's not like Hitler's private militia were waving bananas around.

As long as the people are armed we will not have a dictator although there are a lot of people in Washington who think they are our dictator's. In other words they don't work for the voters they think they are elected to go to Washington and vote their conscience regardless of what their constituents want.

Exactly. And anybody who takes up arms against them finds out why that doesn't really work all that well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 03-30-2018 2:22 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 5:49 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2018 1:34 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 167 of 848 (830473)
03-30-2018 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
03-30-2018 5:49 PM


religiosity and guns
I agree with ICANT, the loss of belief in God, or at least acknowledgment of God even at the cultural level even by nonChristians, that has been growing over the last century, does mean that people no longer have a solid authority for good behavior, or a fear of God to keep us from committing all the sins in the book.

Again, looking at other regions with low religiosity suggests this is otherwise. And looking at the US, highly religious States and low crime don't seem to correlate.

The problem of course, is nothing to do with religion. People without religion can refer to society and law as the higher authority. People with religion can believe their God justifies their crimes.

Most at EvC applaud these developments, surprising you aren't aware of them.

Of course I'm aware of them. Still 50-60% of Americans are religious. Compared with other Western nations, that's very high. I think only Italy and Portugal have a chance of beating those stats. Ireland, where abortion is practically illegal (there are about 2 dozen legally carried out a year) scores less than 50%. The point being lack of religion cannot be the reason there is as much violence as there is in the US.

While religiosity may be in decline - so is violent crime - another indication the one doesn't cause the other.

Invading the US would rapidly show up on some agendas if we were completely disarmed.

I doubt it - the military is the most advanced and well funded in the world. Armed nations have been invaded before, in any case. Organized armies are, unsurprisingly very good at winning wars. Armed citizenry can cause problems if they organize into a guerilla type operation, but its not the the pimary deterrent for invasion. Getting an invasion force to the US against the military is the principle problem - as well as supplying that army once they get a foothold. I suppose if there are a lot of guns and ammo around that might help the invaders resupply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 5:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-31-2018 6:07 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 171 of 848 (830495)
03-31-2018 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
03-31-2018 6:07 AM


Re: religiosity and guns
I still agree with ICANT. Unbelievers never get it right.

In spite of the evidence? Oh wait, what am I saying?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-31-2018 6:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 177 of 848 (830535)
04-02-2018 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
04-02-2018 1:34 AM


Re: Problem
Religion does not fix anything. In fact it usually makes a mess out of things.

You and other here point out many times all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion.

The worst part of that is I have to agree many bad things have been done in the name of religion.

But none of those people were followers of Jesus. Even though many may have claimed too. But they can not point to Jesus doing any of those things.

So we can throw out the theory that the violence is because people "are taught that there is no higher authority than themselves". Since even people who are taught there is a higher authority commit violent acts as you concede.

I do know that a lot of people are being taught they are no more than a worm. They just evolved from a lower life form.

These two sentences are in disagreement with one another.

In any case, my point still stands. Acceptance of evolution in the US is lower than most other Western countries - so can't possibly account for the violence. Also, acceptance of evolution is going up and violent crime is going down, further suggesting your link is false.

The only thing I had in my mind are that there are people who have decided they are their own god. No one can tell them what to do or not to do. Parents have no authority, laws don't mean anything. You want be a celebrity, no problem. Just get a AR15 find a crowded place and kill 40 or 50 people then kill yourself. You will be remembered for many years to come. At least you will have made a mark in history.

But this doesn't seem related to religion (or lack thereof) or evolution. So the question is - why are people doing this?

Well knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers kill a lot more people that the so called assault rifles.

So it must be that there is some reason other than kill count that there are not calls to ban them. I'm sure you can figure it out, not only is your objection raised a million times by others, but it has been answered a million times. I'll give you a clue - how many people build houses using an AR15? How many people learn to walk using their AR15s?

Why wouldn't getting rid of automobiles save lives. There has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.

Well that's almost certainly false - you have used a level of precision it is not possible to attain.

The American economy would crash without automobiles. The food network would collapse, the power grid would go under, medical supplies would not be able to taken where they need to go. In short - there would be complete chaos and millions would die within a few years, rather than over a century.

But the masses don't know the difference in an assault AR15 and a semi-automatic AR15.

As I said, that makes no difference.

At least 50% of the households in America has at least one gun in the house

It's less than a third.

But if there was a need for more households to have weapons in their homes the 3% of owners who own half of the weapons would share with their neighbors.

Hahaha. Sure.

But the people could not resist as Hitler had confiscated all the weapons the public had from everyone that was not loyal to him.

You have a chicken and egg problem here. Hitler could not confiscate guns until after he gained power. But your scenario was about preventing dictators getting power. Clearly private gun ownership not only didn't prevent Hitler gaining power, it helped him to gain power.

Also, he didn't confiscate guns from everyone not loyal to him even once he got power. He actually made guns more readily available to the masses. He confiscated guns from Jews, but they were a minority. So why didn't the masses use those guns to depose Hitler or protect the Jews?

If all weapons were confiscated in the US with only the police and military holding all the weapons. It would not be hard for a dictator to come along and get a majority of those armed people on his/her side and remove the weapons from all the police and military personal not loyal to the group and there would be no resistance to the government.

It would be pretty difficult to do this, actually. Not unless the majority of people consented.

Ask the people in Iran why they don't rise up and change their government? They tried a few years back but had only a few weapons and the US would not supply them with weapons and because of that thousands were slaughtered.

To what are you referring? To the peaceful protests in 2009 that were reacted to violently? I don't remember requests for weapons, but if there were such a thing, I'm betting they were the type of weapons not legal to own privately in the US.

Anyway, the answer is that the police and military were mostly in on the government's side and fighting the military is not something some semi-automatic AR15s is going to be much help with.

You are talking about the civil war now. That was a whole different ball game.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about people who raise arms against the government today.

But in your reality a civil war would be necessary - it couldn't possibly be 'the people' vs 'the military' since the military is composed of 'people'. If a sizeable enough number of 'the people' thought it was worth taking up arms against the government - you can bet there would be members of the military who felt likewise. And there would be a civil war.

As I said it would take 38 states to ratify a constitutional change to remove or modify the second amendment. That means it would only take 13 non ratifying states to block the change.

And as I said, "Well....yes. And?"

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2018 1:34 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 210 of 848 (831821)
04-24-2018 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by NoNukes
04-24-2018 6:50 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
1. Unfortuntately, being mentally ill and disturbed is not sufficient legal reason to be denied a gun.

Depends where you are.

2. Parents are generally not responsible for their children's crimes, and are certainly not responsible for the crimes of a 29 year old adult even if he is living at home.

Unless they give knowingly give assistance to their child in the commission of a crime. I'm not saying that is the case here, incidentally.

4. The police position is that they are unware of any law that Reiinking would have violated by being given his guns back.

The Tennessee police. Illinois police, I believe, have not commented. It is an offence in Illinois to give weapons to certain individuals, although there are potential loopholes to this. The ATF suggests there may be an Federal offence. But nobody has committed definitively one way or another as far as I can tell.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2018 6:50 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2018 9:40 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 214 of 848 (831861)
04-25-2018 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by NoNukes
04-24-2018 9:40 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
Sure. Now is that a relevant observation for this particular argument? We know where this particular shooter lives and the laws he lives under. Why not assume that I am referring to that?

I did assume you were referring to that. But there's more than one place of relevance here with regards to laws: Illinois - where there are laws allowing the State to take weapons away, and laws regarding giving weapons to people who have had a licence revoked and where the father's crime, if it was one, occurred. Tennessee, where the shooter lived. And Federal law.

I referenced all three in my response to you, so why not assume I was referring to all three?

It is not the case here. It is also the case that I said "generally" not responsible. What is your point here?

I think including the actual requirements for somebody to be considered an accomplice was kind of on point in a discussion about whether someone should be treated as an accomplice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2018 9:40 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 217 of 848 (832440)
05-03-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NoNukes
05-03-2018 3:16 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
Wrong. You don't need a license to own a rifle.

You need a FOID in Illinois.

All adults have a right to own a rifle absent some legal disqualification.

Which is the case here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2018 3:16 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2018 4:11 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 219 of 848 (832446)
05-03-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by NoNukes
05-03-2018 4:11 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
That is obviously irrelevant here.

Why's that?

Apparently not. The police are not the folks who get to decide whether you can own a gun. They can disarm you, but they don't get to decide whether you can own a gun.

Actually in Illinois the FOID is issued, and can be rescinded, by the Illinois State Police Department.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2018 4:11 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2018 7:55 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 221 of 848 (832452)
05-03-2018 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by NoNukes
05-03-2018 7:55 PM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
Didn't all of the shooting happen in Tennesse?

But we're talking about the actions of the father, who lives in Illinois.

All the media reports I've seen still say it's an open question as to whether the father handing the weapons to his son constitutes a crime. It is an offence to give someone a weapon knowing they have had their FOID rescinded. The question to this end is that it is unknown when - and thus where - exactly the father handed the weapons over to his son, and whether the action falls under the exceptions in the law.

If the handover took place in Illinois, that's a problem. But there is also information recently released that suggests it happened when the son was no longer an Illinois resident - which means several legal exemptions may apply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2018 7:55 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2018 10:34 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 225 of 848 (832672)
05-07-2018 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by NoNukes
05-05-2018 10:34 AM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
at best the dad is technically guilty of a crime.

Exactly. Technically guilty is the best kind of guilty.

The law won't hold Dad responsible for what a 29-year old adult does in Tennessee with a gun, where his possession was completely legal.

I wouldn't go that far. If the father has contravened the law - they would likely look the other way in most cases if it was known the son was leaving the State. Given what the son did, however, the people who operate the law may decide that they won't look the other way.

Since it's the USA and guns, I expect nothing will happen to the father - but we'll see.

I'd also point out that Illinois law does not even apply to non-residents who are within the state. If the son's intent was to permanently move out of Illinois, at least arguably, the dad could give him his guns back without violating the law.

This being one of the exemptions from the law I was discussing that may come into play. There is some information that suggests the son was not an Illinois resident at the time, and this may be sufficient to absolve the father.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2018 10:34 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2018 1:19 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 228 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2018 1:20 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 231 of 848 (833556)
05-23-2018 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by NoNukes
05-22-2018 1:20 AM


Re: Shooters Get Too Much Media Attention
But any conviction that holds Dad responsible for the murders that resulted would be on very flimsy grounds. In my opinion, such a conviction would be against the weight of the law.

Agreed. But I'm talking about holding him responsible for breaking the laws surrounding prohibited firearm distribution - which if true, would be fair game and be on pretty solid grounds.

Appeals processes through the courts are an uphill battle even when a person has a great case - the alternative would be in the form of a governor's pardon. Rauner doesn't have a reputation that would suggest success can be relied on there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2018 1:20 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020