What can we do about the shootings?

[Economist]

Argue that one in front of a judge and see how far it gets you.

I have friends in the legal business, and it is considered a valid argument. Precisely because ONLY the letter of the law “counts”.

 

[bassmansteiny]

There are attacks from both sides. Just wanted to point that out.

 

[bassmansteiny]

For those asking for more gun control, I just wanted to point out we already do have many laws on the books. We just need to enforce them better, not add more. We need better mental health care in our country. While I totally support freedom of speech as adults we need to better monitor what our youth are watching on TV, social media and video games. It would also help if the media would stop trying to devide Americans along social, religious, ethnic and sensationalize traumatic/horrible events on the news. We need to realize we are all one family and are children of God. We need to start Loving one another.

I am also a proponent of more citizens going through self defense training and getting there conceal carry permit. The shooters could be stopped a lot sooner if there is a responsible armed citizen there to stop them.

 

[Economist]

The shooters could be stopped a lot sooner if there is a responsible armed citizen there to stop them.

Dayton OH. 32 seconds to kill the gunman. 9 dead, and 12(?) wounded. Any questions?

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

That’s manifestly false. Everybody feels fine when leos wield weapons. Even when they are strangers.

And meanwhile if people we know personally who are unarmed pose a credible threat to our life or limb, we don’t think that because they’re not armed that we must be imagining things.

Or at least, we shouldn’t.

I think I’m just being a bit slow here (again) because I have to think anyone who suggests what you’re saying is true is just pulling my leg.

There is no necessary relationship between reality and the way people feel and react.

Being as how the law is made by We the People, as in other constitutional republics, do you agree with me that it should be made according to reality, and not according to the way people feel and react, if ever these two things conflict with each other?

A person with a loaded weapon is not a threat, per se.

Thanks. Agreed.

Some people may see a person with a loaded weapon, interpret them as a protector and actually feel safer.
It is extremely unlikely that this will be the emotional reaction to a total stranger with no credentials carrying a high capacity firearm. People don’t “feel fine” about that.

If they’re objectively posing no credible threat to anybody, then this would be such a case where reality, and how people feel and react conflicts.

Nihilo:

There are no limits to rights, if classical liberalism is correct, and if it is incorrect, then we don’t have rights.

This, by the way, is internally inconsistent because it is untenable in the practical sense and therefore it is manifest nonsense.

Then demonstrate it as such. Your claim doesn’t appear “manifest” to me.

I don’t care if Thomas Jefferson himself believed it.

Thomas Jefferson is not the ‘patron saint’ of classical liberalism, but Abraham Lincoln is.

 

[PetraG]

Thomas Jefferson is not the ‘patron saint’ of classical liberalism, but Abraham Lincoln is.

Do you mean the same Abraham Lincoln who used “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" to suspend it all the way to Bangor, Maine? This was not a man who believed that there were no circumstances that warranted curbing personal rights. He was very practical.

 

[PetraG]

You’re certainly in good company though, numerically. I disagree with philosophy that approves of infringing fundamental human rights for any reason, because defending these rights is not only right and just, but is demonstrated to secure a stable society, and, I believe the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right.

Your right to life isn’t threatened by a stranger with a machine gun. Your right to life is threatened by anybody who intends to, or who credibly threatens to, rob you of your life, unarmed or heavily armed and anywhere in between. Those people don’t have a right to do that, and they should be confined according to due process, until and unless we trust that they won’t do that anymore.

You get me wrong. I’m not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment! I am only reading the writing on the wall.
We have more guns than people in this country; I think the possibility of gun control is a horse that has left the barn. I just continue to marvel that the only effect that bringing up the subject with Congress seems to have so far is to empty the shelves at the gun shops. Not a surprise, since eventually they probably will do something.

 

[PetraG]

We need better mental health care in our country.

I think we are most likely to have mental health markers that can be used to relieve people of their guns, a policy that will instead make people who own guns more hesitatant to seek mental health services than they already are.

The person most in danger when someone who has access to a gun becomes despondent or angry with life is the depressed person. Mass shootings are a small fraction of gun deaths; suicide is the number one cause. Yes, we need more and better mental health care.

 

[Peebo]

Hmmmm…the question is…“what can we do about the shootings”…gee…that’s a tough one…(thinks…rattles brain…ponders question)…wait!!!..I have the answer…we do nothing…as usual…phew…that was easy after all.

 

[PetraG]

Hmmmm…the question is…“what can we do about the shootings”…gee…that’s a tough one…(thinks…rattles brain…ponders question)…wait!!!..I have the answer…we do nothing…as usual…phew…that was easy after all.

Oh, we’ll do something. It may help or it may do more harm than good, but we’ll eventually “do something.”

 

[Peebo]

More guns perhaps??

 

[Odilon]

Would it be possible to stay away from using insults? (Cowardly? Despicable?) It is rather impolite and unhelpful.

I am sorry you feel insulted, but it is the only way I could describe such things as you propose to do. Yes cowardly because you prefer to basically amend the Constitution in an un-constitutional manner. If you feel so strongly about the matter, do your amending in the proper constitutional way through the proscribed amendment process.

As for despicable yes, such actions would also indeed be so. They could also be described as underhanded, unethical, unprincipled, crafty, cunning, sneaky, tricky, insidious, and finally treacherous. I hope I have made myself crystal clear about how I feel about your little scheme.

 

[PetraG]

More guns perhaps??

Every time they propose limiting what kind of guns can be sold, it is ka-ching ka-ching at the gun shops.

Honestly, though, does it really matter if there are 350 million or 450 million in private hands? The number is very high and the owners each tend to be very very attached to their personal cache. Like cat ladies with their cats, only maybe more so. Like the cat ladies, the vast majority of gun enthusiasts are very upstanding citizens in every other regard, and possibly above average. (Except the really weird ones. Eeek.) (And I can hear both groups say, "Every other regard? And what exactly do you mean by THAT?!?!) Like the cat ladies, you get between them and the objects of their affection at your peril.

 

[Odilon]

And transporting them would be impossible, due to the fact that ammo would be detected by the simplest metal detectors

You really want to turn us into a virtual police state with metal detectors in every police cruiser.

Those who qualify for legitimate uses, could buy the necessary ammo legally - strictly regulated, in limited quantities.

I see, so I would be limited in my ability to exercise one of my basic constitutional rights - how nice! “Sorry Mr. Smith, but you have used up your allotted supply of ammo for the month, please come back in two weeks when WE will allow you to buy some more”. Good grief, is that the kind of nation you want to live in?

Of course, I assume gun and ammo registration would be part and parcel of your little scheme too, right?

So tell me, once all you want is in effect and the government is controlling everything in that particular sphere, how will you feel when they start telling you what you can and cannot do in other areas of your life? Don’t say it can’t happen, because it surely can. I don’t trust any of those buggers in office (especially Democrats) and once power is consolidated under the cover of the law, anything could happen.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I see, you really want to turn us into a complete police state with metal detectors in every police cruiser.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Economist:

For metal trucks that mostly haul metal objects that aren’t ammunition. Drug sniffing dogs don’t work to stop the massive flow of drugs over the border but metal detectors will stop an illegal interstate ammunition trade?

 

[Odilon]

but metal detectors will stop an illegal interstate ammunition trade?

No, they won’t. The only thing that will happen is ammo will become another part of the black market. I mean seriously, does anyone believe that the criminal element who uses guns now will not be able to get all the ammo they want?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Some people stopped drinking during prohibition. Lol

In this case he just keeps arguing for methods of starting a civil war.

 

[Economist]

Yes cowardly because you prefer to basically amend the Constitution in an un-constitutional manner.

The constitution says nothing about having the “right” to unlimited ammo.

As for despicable yes, such actions would also indeed be so. They could also be described as underhanded, unethical, unprincipled, crafty, cunning, sneaky, tricky, insidious, and finally treacherous.

Wow, treacherous, too?

I see, so I would be limited in my ability to exercise one of my basic constitutional rights - how nice!

Well, your constitutional rights do not extend to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

“Sorry Mr. Smith, but you have used up your allotted supply of ammo for the month, please come back in two weeks when WE will allow you to buy some more”. Good grief, is that the kind of nation you want to live in?

Yes, I see nothing wrong with it. There are all sorts of limits on purchasing dangerous materials.

Of course, I assume gun and ammo registration would be part and parcel of your little scheme too, right?

Naturally.

 

[phil3]

Would it be possible to stay away from using insults? (Cowardly? Despicable?) It is rather impolite and unhelpful.

As long as you do the same?

Not so simple. Producing a few thousand bullets is not the same as manufacturing millions. Heroin and meth are very simple products. Manufacturing ammo in huge quantities is a different matter. It cannot be accomplished in an empty barn. And transporting them would be impossible, due to the fact that ammo would be detected by the simplest metal detectors.

And where will all these metal detectors be located? What is so interesting isn’t that it is impossible to do, is that you think it can be done. There would have to be hundreds of thousands of them setup with millions and millions of people to run them. I would think you would have to double the employement size of governmental employees to man them.

I can see it now, your are driving down the road and you have to pull into the government metal detector stations. The highly paid officers, starting pay $12.50) tells everyone to get out of the car. they frisk everyone including all children. then they take your car apart because it made of metal.

I cant go on I am laughing too hard

 

[Economist]

As long as you do the same?

Quote one insult I uttered. Or apologize.