Ho hum, another day, another mass shooting in the US.

[Augustus]

-Reducing the flow of drugs entering the country, mainly at the southern border.

I wonder why no one has tried to do that before.

They could also just tell people not to take drugs. Maybe put up some posters up in schools and run some adverts on TV.

Problem could be solved practically overnight.

 

[Enoch07]

I consider cops to be people. I'm not sure why you wouldn't.

Because cops are not innocent civilians enjoying their life and got shot by a maniac.

They are trained professionals that was charging into a drug den to seize narcotics from drug dealers who they knew before hand were armed and dangerous.

Now if you're done with the intellectual dishonesty we can move on.

 

[Enoch07]

Lovely list of 'to do's', you've got there.

I notice that you've totally ignored the fact that an '18yr long record' criminal could acuire lots of guns and masses of ammunition.

You'll never learn....... will never want to learn.

Until next time, then....

I didn't ignore it. You are.

I said:

-Cracking down on the black market.

Unless you're suggesting that a felon legally acquired his weapons and ammo? Where is your evidence he bought his weapons legally? Because without that evidence then to prove that the only way to obtain these weapons is illegally on the black market.

 

[Enoch07]

I wonder why no one has tried to do that before.

They could also just tell people not to take drugs. Maybe put up some posters up in schools and run some adverts on TV.

Problem could be solved practically overnight.

Securing the border will reduce the drug flow.

 

[Augustus]

Securing the border will reduce the drug flow.

Will make about as much difference as telling people to "just say no!"

 

[Rival]

Will make about as much difference as chicken box hashtags.

FTFY.

 

[Enoch07]

Will make about as much difference as telling people to "just say no!"

No because telling people to just say no requires them to voluntarily comply. This is almost futile.

Securing the border will reduce the flow because you are catching more people transporting. This is proven.

 

[Stanyon]

OK........ No problem here then, folks. Just move along.
Known criminal has arsenal of guns and ammo....... fairly reasonable!
No problem!

Another failure of the system, the DA said this guy shouldn't have been on the street in the first place. More gun control would not have prevented him from acquiring weapons, if he could get illegal narcotics it's not that much of a stretch to get guns illegally. In Mexico where guns are very restricte, there are towns where drug cartels openly patrol their areas with military grade weaponry mounted on the backs of pickups.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Until next time, then....

Don't worry, statistically likely to be another one any day now.

 

[Curious George]

If that's the only example of a person who shouldn't own a firearm for public safety reasons. Convicted felons are the only ones, right?

We also have something akin to time place manner restrictions in place but back to the free speech analogy, what type of comparable restrictions are you suggesting?

Again, the idea that opposing unlimited access to all guns for all people in all circumstances is somehow an opposition to human rights is a part of the culturally embedded absurdity that we must solve. I thought you said you wanted to fix our cultural violence problem?

That is an interesting statement. I have already noted felons so why are you talking about all people.

If two countries share the same problem (a), and yet one has an additional problem the other does not have (b), then obviously (a) is not the decisive factor causing (b).

Is it true you are then asserting that none of the other countries have gun violence?

Even if such an absurdity was true, your statement still doesn't hold true. There are far to many factors for such a neat comparison. I have already explained that the issue is not a simple one.

It doesn't, not even by the standards of American jurisprudence.

There are definitely things that can be done relating to guns with American jurisprudence, but it is often not the case that what is suggested is within federal authority. What specifically do you suggest?

Mental health care is extremely important and I support us making our system better. Yet a mentally ill person without a gun will not shoot anyone.

That is the problem you are so focused on shooting at people you forget there are other ways to cause harm. What lines do you suggest that will keep mentally ill people or people suffering from some sort of mental crisis from getting a gun?

Also accidental shootings, which occur daily. Also, shouldn't we be trying to prevent suicide?

That is a tougher question. I think people who want to decide not to live anymore have the right to make such a decision. That said better mental health funding, assessment, outreach and awareness is a great step to helping people in this regard. Moreover it is one that does not infringe on a fundamental right.

Let's add who?

Brazil, Mexico, Russia, India

Homicide is no big deal here guys, nothing to see! We're safer than Honduras!

Strawman.

The fact that you want to lower the bar to compare us to countries in the middle of a war or overrun by gang violence just demonstrates how far into denial we've come as a society.

Is that the case? Or is that your rationale for not including the countries I suggested.

There's no "play" involved. Did you read the linked sources? They provide reputable stats.

I think that is naive of you.

Agreed, walk and chew gum.

While not overstepping our authority.

If it won't keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, then it's not striking at the most obvious root.

Nah, the method of violence is not a root of violence.

That doesn't address any of the three points I raised.

More importantly, your three points do not address that.

Walk and chew gum.

Not in places where gum chewing is not allowed.

Restricting unlimited access to firearms is not a fundamental attack on human rights. This is one of the narratives that compose the cultural problem we have in the US.

Self defense is a fundamental human right. Guns are an effective and efficient tool for self defense. Restricting access to that tool without specific articulable cause is very much an attack on the fundamental right to self defense.

Your question was arbitrary. I gave you a recent meta-analysis of the effect of gun control legislation in multiple countries. You're welcome to search for more in the peer reviewed literature.

It was not arbitrary, it was a simple request of six figures for each country. I am pretty sure i know why it went unanswered.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because cops are not innocent civilians enjoying their life and got shot by a maniac.

They are trained professionals that was charging into a drug den to seize narcotics from drug dealers who they knew before hand were armed and dangerous.

Still people, though. And "four or more people shot in one incident" is a pretty common definition of "mass shooting."

Now if you're done with the intellectual dishonesty we can move on.

Ah, irony.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Securing the border will reduce the drug flow.

This is the same border that you say wouldn't stop gun smugglers if the US had strict gun control, right?

 

[Enoch07]

Still people, though. And "four or more people shot in one incident" is a pretty common definition of "mass shooting."


Ah, irony.

The irony is you saying its ironic.

Mass shooting - Wikipedia

"There is no widely accepted definition of the term “mass shooting”, although it is normally understood to exclude mass killings as a result of terrorist, authorised law-enforcement, or authorised military actions."

This was an case of authorized law-enforcement. The cops had a warrant to search for narcotics. The drug dealer fought back against the cops.

 

[Enoch07]

This is the same border that you say wouldn't stop gun smugglers if the US had strict gun control, right?

Banning citizens from having weapons won't stop weapons from being sold on the black market.

But yes securing the border will reduce the drugs, guns, and sex trafficking victims from south of the border.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The irony is you saying its ironic.

Mass shooting - Wikipedia

"There is no widely accepted definition of the term “mass shooting”, although it is normally understood to exclude mass killings as a result of terrorist, authorised law-enforcement, or authorised military actions."

This was an case of authorized law-enforcement. The cops had a warrant to search for narcotics. The drug dealer fought back against the cops.

And shot a mass of them in the process.

Edit: since you keep on saying that there's no widely accepted definition of "mass shooting," it seems strange that you want your favourite definition to be accepted by everyone.

 

[Enoch07]

And shot a mass of them in the process.

Edit: since you keep on saying that there's no widely accepted definition of "mass shooting," it seems strange that you want your favourite definition to be accepted by everyone.

Lame and boring. Come are me with a coherent argument.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because cops are not innocent civilians enjoying their life and got shot by a maniac.

They are trained professionals that was charging into a drug den to seize narcotics from drug dealers who they knew before hand were armed and dangerous.

Now if you're done with the intellectual dishonesty we can move on.

Organized crime and drug dealing is a whole different animal. The Socialist Democrats want to compare that with school shootings and the like pretending it's the same thing so they can propagandize the hell out of it.

 

[Left Coast]

We also have something akin to time place manner restrictions in place

Oh wait, so you support time place manner restrictions on gun ownership? Those are not fundamental attacks on human rights? Why don't you start by clarifying specifically which gun control measures you support and which you don't.

but back to the free speech analogy, what type of comparable restrictions are you suggesting?

Universal background checks, mental health screenings, licensing for a start.

That is an interesting statement. I have already noted felons so why are you talking about all people.

Do you actually believe that convicted felons are the only human beings who should not have access to a gun?

Is it true you are then asserting that none of the other countries have gun violence?

Their gun violence per capita is far lower.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

Even if such an absurdity was true, your statement still doesn't hold true. There are far to many factors for such a neat comparison. I have already explained that the issue is not a simple one.

Good to know, I'm going to remember this.

There are definitely things that can be done relating to guns with American jurisprudence, but it is often not the case that what is suggested is within federal authority. What specifically do you suggest?

Universal background checks, mental health screenings, licensing for a start.

That is the problem you are so focused on shooting at people you forget there are other ways to cause harm.

None that even remotely approach guns. See the FBI's own stats I already linked for you.

What lines do you suggest that will keep mentally ill people or people suffering from some sort of mental crisis from getting a gun?

Mental health screenings. There are also red flag laws that allow law enforcement to be contacted by friends and family if they note dangerous behavior to have a person's gun(s) temporarily removed by court order.

That is a tougher question. I think people who want to decide not to live anymore have the right to make such a decision. That said better mental health funding, assessment, outreach and awareness is a great step to helping people in this regard. Moreover it is one that does not infringe on a fundamental right.

Most people who attempt suicide end up regretting it. So while I agree in cases of terminal illness where a person seeks medically assisted suicide that should be allowed, that is not the reality of most suicides which are borne out of temporary and treatable desperation.

Brazil, Mexico, Russia, India

Strawman.

So hold on, if I'm strawmanning you, what exactly is your point here? There are countries more dangerous than us. Yes, obviously. So what?

I think that is naive of you.

I'm sorry, do you have more reputable sources than the FBI on homicide weapon of choice? So far you've made many claims with no demonstration.

Nah, the method of violence is not a root of violence.

Then why are guns so vastly preferred as the weapon of choice for homicide?

More importantly, your three points do not address that.

Address what, that mass shooters are some version of mentally ill? I fully acknowledge that. Do you acknowledge any of the three points I raised in response?

Self defense is a fundamental human right. Guns are an effective and efficient tool for self defense. Restricting access to that tool without specific articulable cause is very much an attack on the fundamental right to self defense.

The perception that we need a gun to defend ourselves is culturally embedded because guns are so widely available in our society and we have been indoctrinated to believe they are synonymous with freedom and safety. These are subjective cultural values, not objective truths of reality.

It was not arbitrary, it was a simple request of six figures for each country. I am pretty sure i know why it went unanswered.

Hold on, I remember someone telling me something what was it...

"There are far to many factors for such a neat comparison. I have already explained that the issue is not a simple one."

I gave you peer reviewed research indicating the efficacy of gun control. You are welcome to do some research yourself. Till then, your arbitrary demands for certain timeframes of evidence are not going to be taken as serious attempts to understand the issue.

 

[Curious George]

Oh wait, so you support time place manner restrictions on gun ownership? Those are not fundamental attacks on human rights? Why don't you start by clarifying specifically which gun control measures you support and which you don't.

I support relatively few "gun control" measures. This doesn't mean that I do not acknowledge regulating guns similar to the regulation of free speech is not going to be constitutional and therefore within the authority of the federal or state governments. Gun free zones would be an an example. Restricting the rights of felons or people engaged in committing a crime. Restricting the rights of someone "brandishing" or negligently firing a weapon all of these are well within the authority of the federal or state governments. Requiring background checks for the sale or transfer of a weapon.

Universal background checks, mental health screenings, licensing for a start.

Background checks are already required for FFL transfers. Mental health screening violates HIPAA and stigmatizes mental health issues. Licensing is tricky. It depends on what is required to obtain a license.

Do you actually believe that convicted felons are the only human beings who should not have access to a gun?

Hmm, I think some convicted felons are well within the scope of whom we can deny access to a gun.

You see who I think should or should not have access to a gun is different than who I think I have the right to deny access to a gun.

Their gun violence per capita is far lower.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

You said

"If two countries share the same problem (a), and yet one has an additional problem the other does not have"

I asked is it then your claim that these other countries do not have a problem with guns or gun violence? It is a yes or no question.

Good to know, I'm going to remember this.

Please do.

Universal background checks, mental health screenings, licensing for a start.

These will prevent people with mental issues from getting a gun? Or these will merely reduce the chances. By how much?

None that even remotely approach guns. See the FBI's own stats I already linked for you.

Yes, guns are efficient and effective tools. Some eople wanting to do harm will choose these if they are available. Some eople wanting to defend themselves will also.

Mental health screenings. There are also red flag laws that allow law enforcement to be contacted by friends and family if they note dangerous behavior to have a person's gun(s) temporarily removed by court order.

And this should be accompanied by reasonable and articulable suspicion.

Most people who attempt suicide end up regretting it. So while I agree in cases of terminal illness where a person seeks medically assisted suicide that should be allowed, that is not the reality of most suicides which are borne out of temporary and treatable desperation.

And I think we could make great strides by increasing funding, outreach, awareness, and accessibility.

So hold on, if I'm strawmanning you, what exactly is your point here? There are countries more dangerous than us. Yes, obviously. So what?

That cherry picking countries to get the desired result evades the issue of violence.

I'm sorry, do you have more reputable sources than the FBI on homicide weapon of choice? So far you've made many claims with no demonstration.

Are you thinking that I am disputing that where guns are available they are often selected? They are efficient and effective tools. They are a go to for many interested in harming others but many more interested in self defense.

Then why are guns so vastly preferred as the weapon of choice for homicide?

Because they are efficient and effective tools.

Address what, that mass shooters are some version of mentally ill? I fully acknowledge that. Do you acknowledge any of the three points I raised in response?

That the violence in our country isn't in part related to mental health? No.

The perception that we need a gun to defend ourselves is culturally embedded because guns are so widely available in our society and we have been indoctrinated to believe they are synonymous with freedom and safety. These are subjective cultural values, not objective truths of reality.

I don't think I need a gun to defend myself. I just accept that I don't have the right to deny another one of the most efficient and effective tool of defense. Especially not when their defense rests solely on their shoulders.

Hold on, I remember someone telling me something what was it...

"There are far to many factors for such a neat comparison. I have already explained that the issue is not a simple one."

Yes, that is good. You recognize that the data on other countries doesn't accurately reflect what would happen in the U.S.

I gave you peer reviewed research indicating the efficacy of gun control. You are welcome to do some research yourself. Till then, your arbitrary demands for certain timeframes of evidence are not going to be taken as serious attempts to understand the issue.

I have researched the issue plenty--extensively. I am sorry that you won't accept that gun control will not reach the roots of violence in our society. There is a reason why Australia still has a rape problem. There is a reason why the decreases that are seen cannot be determined as causal, and there is a reason why you still see gun violence, though slightly lower (but still statistically significant) in these countries that have enacted gun control measures. Those reasons are that the problem is multi-faceted and culturally embedded. If you want to make real strides you would join me in the pursuit of root issues, instead of chasing down a highly propagandized (on both sides) issue.

Basic facts to accept. Until there is an amendment to the constitution the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. The founders enumerated this right because it was related to the fundamental right of self defense. This was incorporated by the 14th and 15th amendments and also applies to state governments. If you want to rally behind gun control that is outside of the authority of our government then change the authority of our government first. Otherwise why not focus on what we can do?

 

[Stanyon]

Don't worry, statistically likely to be another one any day now.

Have you seen the guy's rap sheet? He was a career criminal.