School Shooting

[TripleB]

There are many many stories of now-dead police officers emptying their 6-round service revolvers into suspects with no results; this is in fact why police officers switched to high-capacity semi-automatic handguns in the 80s and 90s. Private citizens (especially those living in rougher neighborhoods) face the same threats, but typically lack the body armor and instant backup of police officers.

The specific incident taught in most police academies is the Platt/Matix shooting in Miami:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

After that incident, police everywhere started switching from Revolvers to Semi-Autos.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah I don't see the whole UN thing happening. I can't remember the last time they did anything successfully. Most of what they do is get in the way of the member nations' foreign policy, pass non-binding treaties that everyone ignores, and hand out food in 3rd world countries that immediately gets confiscated by the local dictator's militia. I don't think they're very scary.

[Gumby]

The Taliban were held up as an example of a civilian force successfully fighting a powerful traditional military.  No argument was made regarding their cause or motives.

I was actually pointing out their (lack of) sanity, not their causes or motives.

Are you consistent in your view that the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of the modern populace or do you cherry pick the rights that are acceptable to strip from the citizenry?

Considering that the "Bill of Rights" legally protected only white men when it was written, do you continue to support its original intent? Or do you allow the "whims of the modern populace" to redefine that definition?

[Pointedstick]

Are you consistent in your view that the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of the modern populace or do you cherry pick the rights that are acceptable to strip from the citizenry?

Considering that the "Bill of Rights" legally protected only white men when it was written, do you continue to support its original intent? Or do you allow the "whims of the modern populace" to redefine that definition?

That's actually not true. It protected white women and free blacks of both genders, too.

[RuralEngineer]

Are you consistent in your view that the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of the modern populace or do you cherry pick the rights that are acceptable to strip from the citizenry?

Considering that the "Bill of Rights" legally protected only white men when it was written, do you continue to support its original intent? Or do you allow the "whims of the modern populace" to redefine it?

Ah, so you equate the 2nd amendment with slavery!  Very nice.  Surely a sign of a well reasoned argument. 

The process for adding amendments is well documented and has been used extensively.  Such was the case with the 13th abolishing slavery.  It's a very different matter to then go back into the Bill of Rights and start removing the ones no longer in favor.  I would think that the difference between adding rights such as equality, Women's Suffrage, etc. and the removal of rights such as those affecting defense or religion would be self evident.  I support efforts to increase freedom and remove oppression.  Amendments that are conducive to this I support, changes that limit freedom I oppose. 

[Gumby]

Are you consistent in your view that the Bill of Rights is subject to the whims of the modern populace or do you cherry pick the rights that are acceptable to strip from the citizenry?

Considering that the "Bill of Rights" legally protected only white men when it was written, do you continue to support its original intent? Or do you allow the "whims of the modern populace" to redefine that definition?

That's actually not true. It protected white women and free blacks of both genders, too.

Then, you ought to correct the Wikipedia article on the Bill of Rights, because it says...

Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men,[3] excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black"[3] (now described as African Americans), and women.[4][5][6] These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied

[3] "The Bill of Rights: A Brief History". ACLU. March 4, 2002. Retrieved December 10, 2011. A Supreme Court opinion: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
[4] "Legal definition of Civil Rights". Legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved December 10, 2011.
[5] "Are Women Citizens and People?". Digital.library.upenn.edu. Retrieved December 10, 2011.
[6] "University of Chicago Law Review". Litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com. Retrieved December 10, 2011.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _of_Rights

[Pointedstick]

Considering that the "Bill of Rights" legally protected only white men when it was written, do you continue to support its original intent? Or do you allow the "whims of the modern populace" to redefine that definition?

That's actually not true. It protected white women and free blacks of both genders, too.

Then, you ought to correct the Wikipedia article on the Bill of Rights, because it says...

Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men,[3] excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black"[3] (now described as African Americans), and women.[4][5][6] These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied

[3] "The Bill of Rights: A Brief History". ACLU. March 4, 2002. Retrieved December 10, 2011. A Supreme Court opinion: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
[4] "Legal definition of Civil Rights". Legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved December 10, 2011.
[5] "Are Women Citizens and People?". Digital.library.upenn.edu. Retrieved December 10, 2011.
[6] "University of Chicago Law Review". Litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com. Retrieved December 10, 2011.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _of_Rights

I thought we were talking about what it said, not how people interpreted it. The bill of rights has always been selectively applied throughout its entire history; surely that doesn't mean it didn't actually offer the protections of its text, right?

[Gumby]

I thought we were talking about what it said, not how people interpreted it. The bill of rights has always been selectively applied throughout its entire history; surely that doesn't mean it didn't actually offer the protections of its text, right?

Right... so why can't we interpret what it means to "bear arms"? i.e. one doesn't need a nuclear weapon to defend their family — though, one could technically classify a nuclear weapon as "arms".

I do realize that I will never win this argument, so I really am going to bed now.

[TripleB]

I thought we were talking about what it said, not how people interpreted it. The bill of rights has always been selectively applied throughout its entire history; surely that doesn't mean it didn't actually offer the protections of its text, right?

Right... so why can't we interpret what it means to "bear arms"?

It's clear what the founding fathers meant by the second amendment. People who oppose the second amendment choose to use the "that's not what they meant" argument to try and get their way.

[Pointedstick]

I thought we were talking about what it said, not how people interpreted it. The bill of rights has always been selectively applied throughout its entire history; surely that doesn't mean it didn't actually offer the protections of its text, right?

Right... so why can't we interpret what it means to "bear arms"?

The Supreme Court did just that in 2008 with Heller and affirmed it in 2010 with McDonald. The meaning of "bear arms" is now very clear, at least until it's re-interpreted by a future SCOTUS decision.

Or were you saying you disagreed with their interpretation? Here's what it is:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear”? meant to “carry.”? See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,”? however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm”? in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”?

We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”?

Note that the definition came from Ginsburg, a liberal justice! This stuff isn't actually very controversial.

[Tyler]

It always amazes me how quickly distracted people get in their natural instinct to "fix the problem" when something terrible happens. 

Unfortunately, there are no quick legal fixes for the fundamental problem that there is evil in the world and occasionally mentally deranged murderers lose all sense of humanity and do something terrible.  I realize that's hard to accept, and part of me thinks that focusing so intently on things like guns is simply a coping mechanism for many.  Believing that a law surrounding an inanimate object would have prevented the horrid act allows you to keep your faith in humanity or avoid deeper questions about the nature of evil.  But the truth is darker than that and beyond the reach of petty laws and lectures.

[MachineGhost]

The problem with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just they know
so much that isn't true. - Ronald Reagan.

That's sheer irony considering the Repuglican Party nowadays.

[MachineGhost]

Ronald Reagan's deinstitutionalization of mental patients is why a lot of this mess is happening. By the way why do conservatives idolize a tax raising (Greenspan commission), cut and running (Lebanon), negotiate with terrorists (Iran), deficit spending president so much?

It's just pure historical revisionism or willful ignorance.  Most of the Repuglican Party despised Reagan -- the "moderate Democrat" -- during his term.

[MachineGhost]

I find the bat vs knife argument amusing. Anyone who's seen a knife defense demonstration would immediately realize that the only chance a bat wielder would have is a lucky strike to the head. There's no other way to cause an immediate fatality. If you've grappled with a knife wielder, there's no hope for you short of outside assistance.

Demolishing someone's hand or kneecaps with a baseball bat isn't incredible crippling and unimaginably painful?  Getting shot puts you in shock; I'm not so sure the overwhelming pain of having an appendage completely crushed can be avoided...

[MachineGhost]

Certainly that would be in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, which is what defined a firearm in 1791 when the amendment was passed.

Original interpretation doesn't exist in the judiciary anymore, only original intent or anti-Constitutional Progressivism.  And original intent was that the people bear and own arms in a well regulated manner.  Original interpretation (i.e. whites only) doesn't evolve over time.

[MachineGhost]

Nailed it! That's the exact intent of the 2nd amendment. It wasn't self-defense or hunting. It was to allow citizens to overthrow a future government that became tyrannical, with force, if necessary. If you're curious why the founding fathers might have included such "harsh" terms in the Bill of Rights, then you should research the "American Revolutionary War."

That is oversimplifiying the intentions of the Colonists at the time.  There were more intentions behind just worrying about Federal government tyranny.  If you take a strict intention angle, then you have no right to own and bear arms for any purpose other than securing yourself and your state against the Federal government.

[MachineGhost]

I understand. But somehow I doubt a semi-automatic weapon is going to be effective against hellfire missiles and M1A2 Abrams tanks. The 2nd amendment generally seems to be more symbolic than realistic since the citizenry would not be able to resist a tyrannical government that easily outclasses a rough militia armed with semi-automatic weapons.

Haven't you seen Red Dawn?

[MachineGhost]

I'm not saying this is a guaranteed future event. What I am purporting is if the US government decides to seize/confiscate firearms, it will likely happen in the above manner.

Didn't this NWO black helicopter paranoia B.S. die out with the right-wing militias and Sovereign Citizen movement back in the 90's?

[doodle]

I'm just curious among the gun advocates out there...are there any stricter licensing, regulation, background check procedures you would favor? Or, do you believe that American's by and large should be able to walk into a firearms store and emerge 30 minutes later with pretty much whatever gun and ammunition they want? Also, are there particular types of firearms and ammunition types where we should draw the line and make them illegal for civilians to own?

I just wonder how gun advocates view "the line".

[TripleB]

I'm just curious among the gun advocates out there...are there any stricter licensing, regulation, background check procedures you would favor? Or, do you believe that American's by and large should be able to walk into a firearms store and emerge 30 minutes later with pretty much whatever gun and ammunition they want? Also, are there particular types of firearms and ammunition types where we should draw the line and make them illegal for civilians to own?

I just wonder how gun advocates view "the line".

I'm not in favor of any government regulation for several reasons:

1) It will always be used to oppress a certain group of people. The first gun control laws were used to keep blacks from owning guns in the 1800s. New gun control laws are going to be based on "psychological" disorders. It won't be long until anyone who sends a tweet questioning the government will be classified as a "potential psychological disorder."

2) It doesn't matter what you ban, an evil person will kill a lot of people with whatever falls just below the line. Ban full auto rifles, and semi-auto rifles will be used. Would the CT shooter have killed even more people with a full auto AR15? In my mind, he'd probably have killed less people because full auto is relatively uncontrollable. If we ban semi-auto rifles, then someone skilled with a 12 gauge or a lever action will kill a bunch of people. Reduce magazines to 10 rounds only and a murderer will just carry 20 - 10 round mags and reload quickly.

3) Criminals will acquire guns regardless of the law. The law is only going to apply to law-abiding citizens, from whom we have nothing to worry about.

4) There's a cost to run these BS programs and tax payers have to foot the bill. Or gun buyers foot the bill through increased prices (or paying the background check fee). Since criminals won't acquire their guns legally, this only serves to keep guns out of law-abiding citizens.

Gun control doesn't work in any form. While most dislike the idea of a "Free For All", it's essentially one right now, except only criminals are free. Give the good guys a chance to fight back and stop spree killers in action.

Many argue "but if everyone had guns, there would be more deaths because everyone would be shooting each other and missing and killing bystanders." - This is no different than right now when armed police show up. What keeps the police from missing and hitting bystanders? Is it their "elite" level of training, which involves requalifying every 6 months by hitting a man-sized target at 10 feet with a single magazine with no time limit under no stress?

The truth is most spree killers commit suicide at the first sign of resistance. If we erect gun-free zones, it only serves to delay that resistance until police arrive, increasing the murder count.

Ironically, the government gun-free school zones allowed so many children to be killed, and the government will use that fact to erect increased gun control that will only make things worse in the future.

[Pointedstick]

I'm just curious among the gun advocates out there...are there any stricter licensing, regulation, background check procedures you would favor? Or, do you believe that American's by and large should be able to walk into a firearms store and emerge 30 minutes later with pretty much whatever gun and ammunition they want? Also, are there particular types of firearms and ammunition types where we should draw the line and make them illegal for civilians to own?

I just wonder how gun advocates view "the line".

I generally think about this kind of question from two dimensions:

1. would the proposed law have prevented this particular tragedy?
2. would the proposed law prevent future tragedies and pass constitutional muster?

As for #1, It's difficult to see how any law could have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering his mother and stealing her legally-owned firearms other than totally banning and confiscating all guns. The mother had nothing at all in her background that would disqualify her from gun ownership, and her firearms were all legal as per Connecticut's strict laws on what types you can own. Even if she had jumped through a million legal hoops to acquire them, nothing could stop her son from murdering her and taking them.

As for #2, most laws I can envision would run afoul of the constitution. Even TV pundits are admitting that with more than 300 million guns already in circulation, preventing an ill-intentioned person from acquiring one of them is all but futile. The government would need to start reducing that number i.e. confiscation. The Supreme Court has taken that option off the table.

Any other laws like mandatory licensing, registration, "safe storage" assault weapons bans, etc. are just  pissing in the wind. States that have enacted laws like these already have seen no statistically significant benefit. Here's a graph that shows states ranked according to their Brady gun control score (higher means more gun control):



If gun control advocates are in the right, one would expect gun homicide to rise in the states with low rankings. Instead, it's a totally flat random distribution. There's no correlation whatsoever. r=0. Additionally, in all states, most homicides are done with a firearm, as seen by the close tracking of the lines for firearm homicide and overall homicide. This is true in states with large amounts of gun control as well as those with little gun control. It's just not effective.

Also, I made this graph in 2008, when homicide rates and gun control were both higher. If I were to re-make it with more recent data, it would show an across-the-board decrease in both Brady scores and homicide rates.

If someone could devise a gun law that could effectively prevent bad people from acquiring guns without restricting trustworthy people's access to them, I would not complain. But no such law has ever been prevented to me. Most of the gun laws I live with daily inconvenience me and provide no actual diminution in the likelihood of a violent person committing a tragic act with a gun. As I said, they're mostly pissing in the wind.

[moda0306]

Doodle,

Exactly... I'm willing to bet 99.9% of people are in favor of a "line" somewhere.  Ie, we can't get ahold of nukes, tanks, anti-air craft missiles, hummers w/ a 50-cal gunner seat, Apache choppers, etc.  Nor should these be freely available in most peoples' opinion.

There is a line already drawn in everyone's mind, and I tend to think that we have a tendency to draw it at a point where far more offensive damage can be done with a tool than reasonable defensive utility, hunting utility, or recreational utility.

Most criminals are not afraid of laws (at least ones they think they can avoid getting caught breaking), but they ARE apt to not pay $15,000 for a gun, and ARE afraid of the chance of getting shot, even once, in the process.

Crazies are a different matter, though I'd imagine some of the rules still hold (they're unlikely to seek out and pay for very difficult-to-get weaponry, and if they think they're going to get put down after 2 shots they probably will think twice about trying to mow down a mall population).

I think "gun free zones" are a problem.  However, I think limiting guns to 10-or-less clip sizes, non-full-auto fire, and some other limitations makes it MORE DIFFICULT to get those items, as they are now scarce.  Responsible gun owners tend to hold on to these items if limited in supply and therefore the price to the black market goes way up. 

I also tend to think something on a national level is appropriate.  As the governor of CT pointed out, states are so pourous nowadays that any one state trying to take on the gun crime problem alone is unlikely to be effective (similary to any one country trying to stop global warming).

I am so frickin' willing to have an intelligent debate on this.  I tend to think that some have pre-wired themselves to simply wanting to make the opposition look like buffoons... and though there's plenty of ammo for them to use on both sides  (pardon the pun ), shouldn't we be always trying to avoid the lowest common denominator in debates?


TripleB,

Limiting who can own a rocket launcher or even a nuke is, effectively, a form of gun control.  So I'm wondering where you'd draw the line.

[TripleB]

Limiting who can own a rocket launcher or even a nuke is, effectively, a form of gun control.  So I'm wondering where you'd draw the line.

Do you have any idea how much a nuke costs? Or how well of a safe-guarded secret it is to build a nuclear weapon?

Why do gun-grabbers always point to the ridiculous "nuclear weapon" argument when even countries intent on destroying the US can't build their own nuclear bomb?

Why use a nuclear weapon in your hypothetical example. Why not a magical unicorn who's horn can instantly cause the sun to implode? Even if private nuclear weapon ownership were legalized, the average person has more likelyhood to acquire such a magical unicorn than an actual nuke.

If North Korea can't build a nuke then how can anyone else, regardless of whether they are legal or not?

[doodle]

I'm not in favor of any government regulation for several reasons:
1) It will always be used to oppress a certain group of people. The first gun control laws were used to keep blacks from owning guns in the 1800s. New gun control laws are going to be based on "psychological" disorders. It won't be long until anyone who sends a tweet questioning the government will be classified as a "potential psychological disorder."
2) It doesn't matter what you ban, an evil person will kill a lot of people with whatever falls just below the line. Ban full auto rifles, and semi-auto rifles will be used. Would the CT shooter have killed even more people with a full auto AR15? In my mind, he'd probably have killed less people because full auto is relatively uncontrollable. If we ban semi-auto rifles, then someone skilled with a 12 gauge or a lever action will kill a bunch of people. Reduce magazines to 10 rounds only and a murderer will just carry 20 - 10 round mags and reload quickly.
3) Criminals will acquire guns regardless of the law. The law is only going to apply to law-abiding citizens, from whom we have nothing to worry about.
4) There's a cost to run these BS programs and tax payers have to foot the bill. Or gun buyers foot the bill through increased prices (or paying the background check fee). Since criminals won't acquire their guns legally, this only serves to keep guns out of law-abiding citizens.
Gun control doesn't work in any form. While most dislike the idea of a "Free For All", it's essentially one right now, except only criminals are free. Give the good guys a chance to fight back and stop spree killers in action.
Many argue "but if everyone had guns, there would be more deaths because everyone would be shooting each other and missing and killing bystanders." - This is no different than right now when armed police show up. What keeps the police from missing and hitting bystanders? Is it their "elite" level of training, which involves requalifying every 6 months by hitting a man-sized target at 10 feet with a single magazine with no time limit under no stress?
The truth is most spree killers commit suicide at the first sign of resistance. If we erect gun-free zones, it only serves to delay that resistance until police arrive, increasing the murder count.
Ironically, the government gun-free school zones allowed so many children to be killed, and the government will use that fact to erect increased gun control that will only make things worse in the future.

well said tripleb.
if somebody can make a regulation that would actually work and not be an utter failure for the reasons you have listed, i would be happy to hear it and would seriously consider it.. but for the reasons you have explained such a regulation is all but impossible,

at best a regulation can be a harmless waist of money that does no good..., and only if you think government wasting money is harmless. (or necessary for economic reasons )

as for nukes (LOL) tanks choppers etc its a bit of a non problem..... you don't have to draw a line on items nobody wants.... there is no market among crazies or criminals to buy this stuff... and the few people who do want it are enemy combatant, terrorist types and the only people selling (in the us) are government agent provocateurs

I for one don't really understand the tyrannical government argument that gun advocates make. The personal defense line of reasoning seems slightly more plausible to me.

The last tyrannical governments that were overthrown...Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria (getting there) were done so by populations with meager resources. I don't think overthrowing a government necesarily comes down to overwhelming firepower.

[TripleB]

I for one don't really understand the tyrannical government argument that gun advocates make. The personal defense line of reasoning seems slightly more plausible to me.

The last tyrannical governments that were overthrown...Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria (getting there) were done so by populations with meager resources. I don't think overthrowing a government necesarily comes down to overwhelming firepower.

and yet enslaving a population often does.... the number of tyrants whose first step was the confiscation of personal arms is a pretty huge and convincing argument for "overwhelming firepower" when enslaving and murdering your population is a part of your agenda

How many of those people were killed in the streets by a corrupt Military/Police Force?

Do you think those people would rather have had guns or be disarmed?

When Hitler disarmed the Jews (yes, he did), how well did they fight back unarmed against the Nazis?