Off-Topic Mass killings

[Ajcane8]

The 'intent' was for 'the people' to be able to fight a war, not hunt rabbits or shoot skeet. And 'well-regulated' in that time meant well-oiled, well-armed, well-kept etc... not 'well moderated by the state'.

I whole-heartedly agree with your last statement though.

We can argue the "intent" of men dead for two and a half centuries for another two and a half centuries. Besides, the people that drafted the document in question were prescient enough to realize that their intent (such that it was in the year of our lord 1788) might be meaningless 20, 50, 250 years later - hence writing into said the document the framework to amend that document.

That said, the document clearly states "...a well regulated militia..." When we have a million man+ standing army (and hundreds of thousands of reservists), how necessary is a militia?

Unless you think (for whatever reason) that one day that same million man army will be pointing its guns (tanks, drones, jets, submarines, helicopters...) at you - in which case, you'll have bigger problems to deal with than whether or not unfettered (or barely fettered) access to means of war is a fundamental "right" granted to each and every American.

 

[mirvin88]

I don’t have a side. I don’t have a gun, never owned one or even wanted one. If you’re speaking of voting I’ve never registered in my 43 years on earth. I normally roll with the Malcom X thinking “ fox and the wolf”. I will say the last couple years I do agree with one sides policies more. Just like I used to agree with more polices of the other side before that. I don’t treat it like a cult like most. At the end of the day they’re all about filling their pockets and playing off emotions.

I’m on record saying I’m just fine with stricter gun laws and background checks I just don’t think it’ll work. Then after it doesn't work we’ll move on to the next political dog and pony show for even stricter laws. Rinse repeat. Rather than looking at all the other issues going on causing youngsters to kill themselves and others at a crazy rate.

**** man, took every word out of my mouth. This is me exactly, right down to the voting and 'sides'.

 

[mirvin88]

Agreed, a gun is a tool. A tool designed for a specific function (namely, efficient killing of humans things). That said - how does one murder 10 grocery shoppers, or 18 school children or..., in 90 seconds, without ready access to means of war?

Sure, they could go the McVeigh route, fill a van with 100s of pounds of store-bought chemicals and detonate that van outside the school. But that type of act takes significant knowledge, resources, planning, will, motive, ideology... As opposed to - kid (deranged or not) wakes up one morning, kid grabs legally purchased gun, kid murders grandmother and proceeds to mow down a dozen or so random fourth graders.

Mental health issues or not, there are ways to, at the very least, curb this specific form of mass murder - see; every other "civilized" nation on the planet.

We're also third in the world per 100,000 population in mental illness prevalence and #1 in gun ownership. Unfortunately a deadly combo.

Our civilized nation includes the right to bear arms....good luck mirroring the other nations handling of guns. Maybe everyone should just turn them over like Australia and then be controlled as a police state whenever the government wants

 

[Suhrthing]

We can argue the "intent" of men dead for two and a half centuries for another two and a half centuries. Besides, the people that drafted the document in question were prescient enough to realize that their intent (such that it was in the year of our lord 1788) might be meaningless 20, 50, 250 years later - hence writing into said the document the framework to amend that document.

That said, the document clearly states "...a well regulated militia..." When we have a million man+ standing army (and hundreds of thousands of reservists), how necessary is a militia?

Unless you think (for whatever reason) that one day that same million man army will be pointing its guns (tanks, drones, jets, submarines, helicopters...) at you - in which case, you'll have bigger problems to deal with than whether or not unfettered (or barely fettered) access to means of war is a fundamental "right" granted to each and every American.

You're right. You want to ban guns? Call a convention of states and get it done.

The militia was to defend against tyranny - foreign and domestic. They did not support standing armies - but even if they deemed them necessary in todays time - they wouldn't have changed their minds on the 2A just because it would seem hopeless. A sitting POTUS threatening its subjects that they need nukes and f15's to 'take on' the government should ring alarms bells for everyone. Many a tyrannical government has fallen at the hands of poorly armed subjects.

 

[Dan E. Dangerously]

 

[Ajcane8]

We're also third in the world per 100,000 population in mental illness prevalence and #1 in gun ownership. Unfortunately a deadly combo.

Our civilized nation includes the right to bear arms....good luck mirroring the other nations handling of guns. Maybe everyone should just turn them over like Australia and then be controlled as a police state whenever the government wants

Maybe they should?

If that's your view, though, fair enough. I happen to think there are better and more practical solutions available beyond simply praying the problem away. If the only other solution (beyond thoughts and prayers) you can come up with is to make sure "good" armed guys are present any and everywhere that a "bad" armed guy might show up, aren't we living in a "police state" then?

Would you rather live in Melbourne or Mogadishu?

 

[BlastUla]

Already a illegal.

Tons of people have trauma but only a select group snap. I think it’s a bit of epigenetics where certain people have a genetic predisposition to go rogue when put under intense stress.

People love to look at individual cases that are extraordinary (mass killers are generally rare) and strive for broad solutions to manage the black swan events. If people really cared about human life they’d have cops focus on traffic safety which easily results in more deaths than mass shooters. Traffic saftey isn’t **** and doesn’t make the news tho.

I agree with your premise that behavior such as distracted driving have likely caused several fold more morbidity and mortality than unstable criminals with assault rifles.

I disagree that we (as a society) have ignored this problem because it is “not ****.” Driving is heavily regulated compared to gun ownership. Although the effectiveness of these regulation is debatable, there is plenty of data showing that seatbelts, air bags, speed limits, drunk driving regulations, and hands free calling requirements have saved lives. In Florida, I’ve even seen police creating random checkpoints to check all drivers for DUI infractions…

 

[ddann]

How about this. Instead of sending billions to Ukraine and further inflate this economy. How about investing some of that money for school security and mental health?

^You’re only saying this because you’re a Russian bot and a Putin stooge.

Am I doing it right?

 

[nobeastofburden]

Gun Deaths by Country 2023

worldpopulationreview.com

Oddly story says 2022, study from 2019.

 

[nobeastofburden]

I agree with your premise that behavior such as distracted driving have likely caused several fold more morbidity and mortality than unstable criminals with assault rifles.

I disagree that we (as a society) have ignored this problem because it is “not ****.” Driving is heavily regulated compared to gun ownership. Although the effectiveness of these regulation is debatable, there is plenty of data showing that seatbelts, air bags, speed limits, drunk driving regulations, and hands free calling requirements have saved lives. In Florida, I’ve even seen police creating random checkpoints to check all drivers for DUI infractions…

The difference here is, if someone kills someone in a DUI accident, everybody blames the person, not the alcohol or vehicle. You are comparing the regulations on guns to alcohol? LOL. So you think it is harder to obtain alcohol than a gun? Minors/criminals/mentally ill people etc. Firearm rights have saved countless lives too.

 

[Ajcane8]

You're right. You want to ban guns? Call a convention of states and get it done.

The militia was to defend against tyranny - foreign and domestic. They did not support standing armies - but even if they deemed them necessary in todays time - they wouldn't have changed their minds on the 2A just because it would seem hopeless. A sitting POTUS threatening its subjects that they need nukes and f15's to 'take on' the government should ring alarms bells for everyone. Many a tyrannical government has fallen at the hands of poorly armed subjects.

View attachment 187071

Maybe I will. LOL. Be careful what you wish for.

Still, I don't think you can definitively say what Madison or Jefferson would think about... anything. That's a useless exercise. Lets say, I believe, liberal as they were for their time, they would be able to realize that the specific words they wrote are not entirely/exactly applicable, today. Prove me wrong. In that same document, certain human beings were deemed chattel. Might their opinions, at least on that narrow topic, have changed if you used a time machine and brought them to 2022?

Define tyranny. And "domestic tyranny." Is it a "you know it when you see it" type of thing? Because, I am aware that there are some Americans (infinitesimal though that percent may be) ready to go to war against our government yesterday - I'm not, though. So I am going to need some clear lines of demarcation.

"Many a tyrannical government has fallen at the hands of poorly armed subjects." Ah, yes. Castro, the Viet Cong and Taliban, such enviable role models. Oh, wait, did I do that wrong? What about Robespierre?

And, I wouldn't exactly call this "A sitting POTUS threatening its subjects that they need nukes and f15's to 'take on' the government" a threat - more so than common sense based reasoning (current events in Ukraine, similar but not parallel, notwithstanding).

 

[nobeastofburden]

Maybe they should?

If that's your view, though, fair enough. I happen to think there are better and more practical solutions available beyond simply praying the problem away. If the only other solution (beyond thoughts and prayers) you can come up with is to make sure "good" armed guys are present any and everywhere that a "bad" armed guy might show up, aren't we living in a "police state" then?

Would you rather live in Melbourne or Mogadishu?

Yeah virtue signaling on the internet is much better. Would you rather live in the USA or Mogadishu? Or how about any of these countries

Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019​

1. El Salvador (36.78)
2. Venezuela (33.27)
3. Guatemala (29.06)
4. Colombia (26.36)
5. Brazil (21.93)
6. Bahamas (21.52)
7. Honduras (20.15)
8. U.S. Virgin Islands (19.40)
9. Puerto Rico (18.14)
10. Mexico (16.41)

 

[Suhrthing]

Maybe I will. LOL. Be careful what you wish for.

Still, I don't think you can definitively say what Madison or Jefferson would think about... anything. That's a useless exercise. Lets say, I believe, liberal as they were for their time, they would be able to realize that the specific words they wrote are not entirely/exactly applicable, today. Prove me wrong. In that same document, certain human beings were deemed chattel. Might their opinions, at least on that narrow topic, have changed if you used a time machine and brought them to 2022?

Define tyranny. And "domestic tyranny." Is it a "you know it when you see it" type of thing? Because, I am aware that there are some Americans (infinitesimal though that percent may be) ready to go to war against our government yesterday - I'm not, though. So I am going to need some clear lines of demarcation.

"Many a tyrannical government has fallen at the hands of poorly armed subjects." Ah, yes. Castro, the Viet Cong and Taliban, such enviable role models. Oh, wait, did I do that wrong? What about Robespierre?

And, I wouldn't exactly call this "A sitting POTUS threatening its subjects that they need nukes and f15's to 'take on' the government" a threat - more so than common sense based reasoning (current events in Ukraine, similar but not parallel, notwithstanding).

You can find their words in more places than the CONUS. There's not much need to infer what they meant.

 

[Empirical Cane]

We can argue the "intent" of men dead for two and a half centuries for another two and a half centuries. Besides, the people that drafted the document in question were prescient enough to realize that their intent (such that it was in the year of our lord 1788) might be meaningless 20, 50, 250 years later - hence writing into said the document the framework to amend that document.

That said, the document clearly states "...a well regulated militia..." When we have a million man+ standing army (and hundreds of thousands of reservists), how necessary is a militia?

Unless you think (for whatever reason) that one day that same million man army will be pointing its guns (tanks, drones, jets, submarines, helicopters...) at you - in which case, you'll have bigger problems to deal with than whether or not unfettered (or barely fettered) access to means of war is a fundamental "right" granted to each and every American.

We've covered this.

Post in thread 'Roe V Wade decision leaked prior to overturn' https://www.canesinsight.com/thread...-leaked-prior-to-overturn.177654/post-5873225

 

[Roncaneefc]

Yup, but if every gun disappeared tomorrow, the mentally ill would find another way, whether it's cars, trucks, knives, chemicals, or pressure cooker bombs.

Then why is it in places that restrict guns they haven't had multiple school pressure cooker bombings . I get what you're saying but given the choice between any other weapon and a gun, killers will choose guns. Easy to get and easy to use. Yes homicides wouldn't disappear if guns did. It's a lot harder to kill 19 with a knife

 

[mirvin88]

Maybe they should?

If that's your view, though, fair enough. I happen to think there are better and more practical solutions available beyond simply praying the problem away. If the only other solution (beyond thoughts and prayers) you can come up with is to make sure "good" armed guys are present any and everywhere that a "bad" armed guy might show up, aren't we living in a "police state" then?

Would you rather live in Melbourne or Mogadishu?

I've not said this at all and the answer is no.

"you can come up with is to make sure "good" armed guys are present any and everywhere that a "bad" armed guy might show up, aren't we living in a "police state" then?"

A police state involves the government, not citizens armed to defend against one another. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a police state in having the ability to form militia against a repressive government.

The Chinese sure could use this right about now.

Would you rather live in the United States or Australia? Not to sound crass but if your issue is with constitutional amendments there plenty of other countries to move to.

 

[Roncaneefc]

I think this is very naive.

Pressure cooker bombs? It naive to think that homicides wouldn't decrease if there were no guns.

 

[Roncaneefc]

And if we know for an absolute fact that gun laws are not the answer there why do they keep saying gun laws are the answer?

Other developed countries that don't have the same gun violence prove that gun control works. It's a fact.

 

[nobeastofburden]

Then why is it in places that restrict guns they haven't had multiple school pressure cooker bombings . I get what you're saying but given the choice between any other weapon and a gun, killers will choose guns. Easy to get and easy to use. Yes homicides wouldn't disappear if guns did. It's a lot harder to kill 19 with a knife

They don't grow up in countries where most of the populace hate the very country they live in. People are bred to hate here based on a lot of factors. Race/gender/system and on and on. People are raising angry little lynch mobs. Parents are emotionally triggered all the time, stands to reason many of their kids will grow up with that same aggression. I for one believe violence begets violence. We have a societal issue, not a gun issue.

 

[nobeastofburden]

I've not said this at all and the answer is no.

"you can come up with is to make sure "good" armed guys are present any and everywhere that a "bad" armed guy might show up, aren't we living in a "police state" then?"

A police state involves the government, not citizens armed to defend against one another. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a police state in having the ability to form militia against a repressive government.

The Chinese sure could use this right about now.

Would you rather live in the United States or Australia? Not to sound crass but if your issue is with constitutional amendments there plenty of other countries to move to.

I love Australia, that would have been a no brainer for me before Covid. Now, not so much. I wouldn't do Melbourne though.