What can be done to stop gun violence

[vz71]

False equivalence.

Not at all.
You claimed there were no assault type weapons and that they used Flint lock muskets.

I cannot address ‘assault type weapons’ as that is a legal term arrived at based upon modern firearm standards.
But your statement that all they used were flint lock rifles is mistaken.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.

False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn’t bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: “If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal”. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

False equivalence arguments are often used in politics, where the minor flaws of one candidate may be compared to major flaws of another.

 

[Nihilo]

The question is, does the value of this use out-weigh the value of the lives lost to suicide? I think not.

I can’t imagine a world where banning handguns is prudent. They are too dangerous. A world where we can only keep and bear long guns is a fantasy, and if handguns are “banned,” then in close quarters especially, a handgun can “outgun” a long gun. And the right to bear arms is not less than the right to not be outgunned.

This virtue is an artificial virtue, since constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms is an arbitrary and artificial right.

I disagree.

The right is legally real, but it is still only made up by the founders.

I think the founders only recognized it. The right to bear arms, like all other innate, inborn, natural, basic, fundamental, inalienable, inherent, absolute human rights, exists whether or not laws recognize it.

Here’s what the right to life ensures: The right to use a gun for self defense if you have one handy. It does not ensure your right to buy one.

I think those are the same thing.

Back when the Constitution was written there were no assault type weapons.

And back then there were no internets either but the right to free speech means the lawful exercise of free speech on the internet too.

They used flint-lock musket rifles.

That was military standard issue for all the world’s troops.

Today’s military standard issue is selective fire rifles and selective fire carbines, along with semiautomatic pistols.

Few people back then owned a cannon.

But those who did own cannon, did own cannon. That is the whole point.

Anyone today can purchase an assault weapon. That is the whole point.

Anyone should be able to purchase an assault weapon, and carry it in our streets for all lawful purposes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The right is legally real, but it is still only made up by the founders.

I think the founders only recognized it. The right to bear arms, like all other innate, inborn, natural, basic, fundamental, inalienable, inherent, absolute human rights, exists whether or not laws recognize it.

Or, the founders were just wrong in thinking they were recognizing an inherent, innate, inborn, natural right. They were just a bunch of men who happened to make some pretty smart decisions on how to set up a nation. This notion is supported by the fact that the nation these men founded comprises today only 4% of the population the earth, yet most of the other 96% of the people on earth are living in nations where their founders (who were also smart men and founded nations that have lasted longer than ours) somehow did not recognize that inherent right.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

LeafByNiggle:

The right is legally real, but it is still only made up by the founders.

I think the founders only recognized it. The right to bear arms, like all other innate, inborn, natural, basic, fundamental, inalienable, inherent, absolute human rights, exists whether or not laws recognize it.

Or, the founders were just wrong in thinking they were recognizing an inherent, innate, inborn, natural right.

Well of course. And you know where I stand, and I know where you stand.

They were just a bunch of men who happened to make some pretty smart decisions on how to set up a nation. This notion is supported by the fact that the nation these men founded comprises today only 4% of the population the earth, yet most of the other 96% of the people on earth are living in nations where their founders (who were also smart men and founded nations that have lasted longer than ours) somehow did not recognize that inherent right.

Tap the brakes there on “nations that have lasted longer than ours,” since the US is the oldest non-monarchical classical liberal democracy on the earth. And even England has had the valuable opportunity to observe America, and to make adjustments to their government based on their observations of us.

Every other liberal democracy is younger than the US, and was founded with America already existing as a model and influence and inspiration. Every other liberal democracy is a variation upon the theme of American classical liberalism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

They were just a bunch of men who happened to make some pretty smart decisions on how to set up a nation. This notion is supported by the fact that the nation these men founded comprises today only 4% of the population the earth, yet most of the other 96% of the people on earth are living in nations where their founders (who were also smart men and founded nations that have lasted longer than ours) somehow did not recognize that inherent right.

Tap the brakes there on “nations that have lasted longer than ours,” since the US is the oldest non-monarchical classical liberal democracy on the earth…

On what grounds do you dismiss all the monarchical and all the non-classical liberal democracies? If you limit your consideration enough you will be down the US and US alone. My statement was correct as it stands. The point you deflected away from is that the recognition of an inherent, natural, etc. right to bear arms is pretty much unique to the US. That does not speak well of it being a universal truth that all should recognize. Don’t you find it the least bit concerning, for example, that the Catholic theology does not have a similar expression of a right to bear arms? If the right is so inherent to man and so essential that the US Constitution needed to spell it out, certainly Catholic teaching, which deals with natural human rights more extensively than any secular government would not overlook this important right as worthy of explicit mention. And don’t say “the right to self-defense” because that right does not say anything about a right a specific kind of weapon. It is only about what you may do if you do happen to have a weapon.

Every other liberal democracy is younger than the US, and was founded with America already existing as a model and influence and inspiration. Every other liberal democracy is a variation upon the theme of American classical liberalism.

Yet how many of those younger democracies adopted an equivalent to our 2nd amendment? They copied what they saw was good and did not copy what they did not think was good for them.

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Let’s take the OP’s question where no one wants to go, but must be addressed.
More importantly on a daily basis who’s shooting, never mind mass shooting.
What group of people, specifically. Take the guns from them and there won’t be a problem.
Look it up. The info is there and I’ll leave it
at that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you take guns away from everyone in their group, or only the ones who have actually shot someone? If the former, that is grossly unjust. If the latter, that is exactly what police department are trying to do right now. So how is your suggestion of any use?

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Take it away from all of them.
Unjust? Maybe. Solving the problem?Definitely.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not only is it unjust, it also shreds the Constitution.

 

[Sftyvlv1]

If that is the case. Than everyone who is suspect for even those smallest reason needs to be investigated, frisked and whatever else within the law that is allowable.
Including loopholes to get around the constitution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If that is the case. Than everyone who is suspect for even those smallest reason needs to be investigated, frisked and whatever else within the law that is allowable.
Including loopholes to get around the constitution.

Suggesting really unreasonable solutions does not mean there aren’t reasonable ones.

 

[1cthlctrth]

We should eliminate most “gun-free” zones. More than 95% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free” zones because the bad guys like soft targets.

 

[Nihilo]

We should eliminate most “gun-free” zones. More than 95% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free” zones because the bad guys like soft targets.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the well regulated militia shall be forbidden from being in certain places.

Doesn’t really sound right does it.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Once one of the richest countries in the world with a plethora of natural resources, Venezuela is now one of the poorest and at the bottom of the list for places to conduct business. With the backing of full-blown communist regimes, the slide toward socialism and the nationalization of entire industries by the government is directly to blame.
In 2006, former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez ran on an openly socialist platform, “won” and immediately started a government takeover of every private industry in the country. The economics were immediately changed for the worst, eventually collapsing into what we’re seeing today with extreme poverty, starvation, lack of basic medical supplies and more. Adding insult to injury, Chavez’s successor, Maduro, has been blocking desperately needed humanitarian aid from entering the country.
The second lesson is about the Venezuelan government’s 2012 decision to force citizens to turn in their firearms under the guise of combating crime.

Pavlich: Lessons from Venezuela | The Hill

 

[1cthlctrth]

Dr. Ben Carson: “The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”
For even the most amateur of historians, Carson’s statements are obviously, objectively true: Germany in the late 1930s did indeed have a strict gun-control regime, and by the mid-1940s the German death camp machine had vaporized millions upon millions of defenseless victims, all with very little resistance from the civilian population.
In addition to the disarmament that took place in the late 1930s, for about five years in the early-to-mid-1930s the Nazi Party had engaged in a massive nationwide seizure of weapons from political opponents. The Jews were predictably among the targeted groups.

Ben Carson Is Right About Nazi Gun Control

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Germany in the late 1930s did indeed have a strict gun-control regime, and by the mid-1940s the German death camp machine had vaporized millions upon millions of defenseless victims, all with very little resistance from the civilian population.

That’s because they had the support of the civilian population.

As for your argument, it is a fallacy.

Few German citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s.[2] The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws.[8] When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing firearm ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[5]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws systematically disarmed “unreliable” persons , especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for so-called “ordinary” German citizens.

The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We should eliminate most “gun-free” zones. More than 95% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free” zones because the bad guys like soft targets.

You could eliminate gun-free zones and it would not do anything, except possibly increase the incidents of accidental shootings in those zones from self-proclaimed “guardians” with no security training.

As for why bad guy “like” gun free zones, it is not because they are gun free. It is because they contain soft targets. Without the designation, those targets would still be soft and still preferred by bad guys. They know that the chances of some amateur “guardian” being on hand to stop them is virtually nil.

 

[1cthlctrth]

80% of crime guns come from 80% non-retail acquisition. Not one of the Aug2019 mass shootings would have been prevented by Universal background checks.
In addition 0% of mass shootings are from gun show sales.

 

[1cthlctrth]

In “gun-free” Chicago, for the weekend of August 2 to August 5, friday to monday: 55 shootings, 7 fatal. In 2019 “gun free zone” Chicago: 1,600 were shot with 300 fatalities - media not cover (racist?)
In “gun-free” Baltimore (where they like to reduce cops’ influence) in 2019: shootings were up 28% and up for the 5th straight year. More than 300 murders.