Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

[FirstFiveEighth]

I and every other male citizen of my state are in fact militia members by law. Despite the assumption of the state of dominion over all things we still have vestiges of the American notion of a citizen army to defend us. For offense they do need a regular army.

The idea of a robust militia defense and a very small standing army really died very quickly with the War of 1812. Ironically because the militia refused to engage in offensive actions like attacking Canada. So because the various state militias acted exactly how they were expected to act in 1792 when they would have gotten a pat on the back, it was decided that perhaps we did need a slightly larger, more powerful standing army. Also because the militia understandably performed poorly against professional soldiers.

 

[exnihilo]

Ah, a favorite fallacy of gunowners, the idea that weapon holders in the US could hold their own against a regular national military force. I always find this one hilarious. The Afghans fighting the US aren’t really holding their own, they are hiding behind the skirts of their women and children and couldn’t on the US to not be cruel. And, since the US doesn’t want to make an enemy of every Afghan, they try not to kill the women and the children that the enemy hides behind.

You don’t think it is possible. I do. But it really doesn’t matter if it is possible. Rights aren’t secured based on possibilities of exercising them.

Now we go off topic and claim that kitchen knives are a threat. So we already know that the number of murders committed by knives is about 1/6th that of guns. And I’m not sure what percentage of those knife murders are kitchen knives, but I’m going to take a flyer that it is a small percentage. So, it’s not comparable. Really, you think that your right to arm yourself is greater than my right to property and life because you think all of society should bare the costs of gun ownership. I guess some rights are more equal than others…

Guns are a more effective tool for killing. It isn’t therefore surprising when available they are used for that. Do you think people only kill because they have a gun? I don’t. And I don’t see how anyone could. That is why other instruments of death are part of the conversation.

 

[Jig_Saw]

You don’t think it is possible. I do. But it really doesn’t matter if it is possible. Rights aren’t secured based on possibilities of exercising them.

I agree that it has nothing to do with rights. It’s just a silly argument that gun owners seem to somehow hold as a fact and isn’t backed up by reality.

Guns are a more effective tool for killing. It isn’t therefore surprising when available they are used for that. Do you think people only kill because they have a gun? I don’t. And I don’t see how anyone could. That is why other instruments of death are part of the conversation

Exactly. Guns are a more effective tool for killing. That’s why mass murderers use them. Other methods are much less effective and would result in a lower cost to society, but you don’t care because you expect that I should give up my rights to life and property so that people can have the right to guns.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

I was just following your logic. It’s not my fault that it doesn’t make sense.

Ah, a favorite fallacy of gunowners, the idea that weapon holders in the US could hold their own against a regular national military force. I always find this one hilarious. The Afghans fighting the US aren’t really holding their own, they are hiding behind the skirts of their women and children and couldn’t on the US to not be cruel. And, since the US doesn’t want to make an enemy of every Afghan, they try not to kill the women and the children that the enemy hides behind.

Now we go off topic and claim that kitchen knives are a threat. So we already know that the number of murders committed by knives is about 1/6th that of guns. And I’m not sure what percentage of those knife murders are kitchen knives, but I’m going to take a flyer that it is a small percentage. So, it’s not comparable. Really, you think that your right to arm yourself is greater than my right to property and life because you think all of society should bare the costs of gun ownership. I guess some rights are more equal than others…

Nah, you were deliberately attacking a straw man and continue to do so.

As far as the Afghans go, the Taliban does not hide behind women and children. That is disingenuous. And they are doing quite well at destabilizing the government. If they weren’t we wouldn’t be there. Which brings us to the real point. No one expects an unorganized collective group of men with firearms to defeat the US Army, or any Army, in open combat. But what it does ensure is that armed resistance can prevent the government from gaining control over the population by waging a long guerrilla war that leads to conditions in which the government can be replaced or outside help can be solicited. There are more than 350 million firearms in this country. If an armed resistance started for some reason, the government could never stomp it out.

Now, please continue complaining how gun ownership abstractly harms you.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Nah, you were deliberately attacking a straw man and continue to do so.

Nah, you are just calling it a straw man to discount the argument because you can’t defend your position.

As far as the Afghans go, the Taliban does not hide behind women and children. That is disingenuous. And they are doing quite well at destabilizing the government. If they weren’t we wouldn’t be there. Which brings us to the real point. No one expects an unorganized collective group of men with firearms to defeat the US Army, or any Army, in open combat. But what it does ensure is that armed resistance can prevent the government from gaining control over the population by waging a long guerrilla war that leads to conditions in which the government can be replaced or outside help can be solicited. There are more than 350 million firearms in this country. If an armed resistance started for some reason, the government could never stomp it out.

Right. Because a glock is going to stop a tank. This is the most ridiculous argument. But I enjoy seeing it every time there is a discussion on gun control.

Now, please continue complaining how gun ownership abstractly harms you.

Again, a total disregard for my right to life and property. Who exactly do you think is going to pay for the costs of Las Vegas? The taxpayers. And I’m a taxpayer. So you are taking away my right to property for an abstract concept (and one that doesn’t even pass the giggle test) of holding off the US military with what’s in your rifle safe.

 

[AlNg]

What direct and quantifiable cost does that impose on you, and how am I, by virtue of owning firearms, responsible for it?

People who own cars may not be responsible for the accidents of others, but they are required to hold mandatory insurance just in case that car was used in an accident and people were injured. Similarly, people who own guns should be required to purchase insurance for each gun owned, just in case a person was injured by that particular gun. That way a person injured by that gun would be paid damages by the insurance company for the harm done to her person.

 

[AlNg]

Again, a total disregard for my right to life and property. Who exactly do you think is going to pay for the costs of Las Vegas? The taxpayers.

Gun owners forget that other people have rights.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Your argument is invalid. Mass shootings like this one have nothing to do with population numbers or drug and crime rates.

What makes a mass murderer do this?

Let’s see. A desire for fame , a Kardashian type fame, your 15 minutes in the spotlight and your name perpetually up there, one recent mass shooter kept checking social media and the news to see how viral he was going, Was his photo up, his name, would nightly news bravely interview him?
A mental issue, deeply seated, obviously, perhaps a suicide wish at the same time- another mental issue.

What else? These things are found globally, regardless of population.

It only takes one.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Jodie, again, we have tight gun laws and have experienced a nice decrease in gun related violence and suicide.

 

[josie_L]

http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/

False, and I’m reading the article itself, it’s in pdf format, just key in gun owners, crime and Harvard, it will appear on the fist page. I’ve already quoted several passages.

Moreover, the study’s main objective is “WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE”? Not the claim stated by Snopes. The researchers also happen to be crimnologists.

 

[josie_L]

And that’s because you already have a relatively low crime rate in comparison to the U.S.

 

[ucfengr]

Actually, I made no attempt to quantify it because it was a deflection from the true argument. If it is one penny, it is still my one penny and you have no right to it.

Theoretically, the cost could be negative, so maybe you owe me money. Absent quantification there’s no way to know. And you’re the one who brought up the argument, so I’m not sure how I’m deflecting by asking you to quantify this theoretical cost that you bear.

 

[josie_L]

I was speaking of gun crime in general, mass shootings make up a very small percentage of gun crime, i.e., most gun crime is associated with drugs/gangs and suicide vis a vis the U.S.

So if one wants to stop gun crime or reduce it to a substantial degree than focusing narrowly on mass shootings won’t have the desired effect.

 

[ucfengr]

People who own cars may not be responsible for the accidents of others, but they are required to hold mandatory insurance just in case that car was used in an accident and people were injured. Similarly, people who own guns should be required to purchase insurance for each gun owned, just in case a person was injured by that particular gun. That way a person injured by that gun would be paid damages by the insurance company for the harm done to her person.

If my car is stolen, my insurance company will pay me for the loss of my car, but the insurance company isn’t going to pay if the car thief purposely drives my car into a crowd at a concert and kills 20 of them. I doubt they would pay damages beyond the value of the car if the thief gets drunk and plows into a school bus.

 

[josie_L]

http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/

From the article/ study:

There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7)
population subgroups . . . .12. . . . .

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐extant studies.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this. Like any speculation, it is not subject to conclusive disproof; but the European data in Table 1 and the studies across 36 and 21 nations
already discussed show no correlation of high gun ownership nations and greater murder per capita or lower gun ownership nations and less murder per capita.48 To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism. In this connection, recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls.49 This correlation does not necessarily prove gun advocates’ assertion that gun controls actually encourage crime by depriving victims of the means of self‐defense. The explanation of this correlation may be political rather than criminological: jurisdictions afflicted with violent crime tend to severely restrict gun ownership. This, however, does not suppress the crime, for banning guns cannot alleviate the socio‐cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates. 50

 

[AlNg]

These are things that need to be worked out if insurance is required for gun ownership.

If my car is stolen, my insurance company will pay me for the loss of my car, but the insurance company isn’t going to pay if the car thief purposely drives my car into a crowd at a concert and kills 20 of them. I doubt they would pay damages beyond the value of the car if the thief gets drunk and plows into a school bus.

AFAIK, the assassin in Las Vegas did not steal his guns. He should have been required to have insurance on each one of his guns, so that the victims who were wounded and the families of those killed could receive some remuneration. One suggestion is 10 million dollars for a death benefit, and 4 million dollars for someone who had been injured. Depending on the seriousness of the injury, of course, the amount paid by the insurance would vary.
When you own a car, you are required to have insurance. It should work the same way when you own a gun.

 

[starshiptrooper]

As per DC v. Heller, the first clause of the 2nd Amendment referring to a well-regulated militia is a prefatory clause (this is consistent with how laws were written at that time) and does not limit or expand the operative text which explicitly guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

United States v. Miller states the 2nd Amendment protects ordinary military equipment that is capable of contributing to the common defense. Which makes sense as one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the citizens to act as a militia when necessary.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Theoretically, the cost could be negative, so maybe you owe me money. Absent quantification there’s no way to know. And you’re the one who brought up the argument, so I’m not sure how I’m deflecting by asking you to quantify this theoretical cost that you bear.

If the cost is negative, then insurance would cost nothing and I don’t know why you would be complaining about being required to get insurance. But we both know it isn’t and that’s why you don’t want gun owners to have to buy insurance to cover the costs of their weapons because you want to take away my property to cover the real costs. It’s kind of like gun owners are like communists and expect the state to do everything for them.

 

[starshiptrooper]

My weapons are not costing anybody anything. The costs are imposed on society by the criminals. Make them pay, not me.

 

[Jig_Saw]

My weapons are not costing anybody anything. The costs are imposed on society by the criminals. Make them pay, not me.

Then the insurance cost would be minimal, which makes me wonder why everyone here is whining so much.