Parkland School Shooting
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
sturg33
I
I mean this sincerely. If that is how you feel, why aren't you more interested in heavier regulations for alcohol - considering it is such a consistent factor in crime and death?
I think the bigger danger is to take rights away from good people in an overreaction to a rare event.
chop2chip
Well-known member
This isn’t about the “left”, speaking of distilling.
I am a right leaning, though moderate, conservative and I can draw the distinction between guns and trucks.
The hard line second amendment crowd seems like the only group that does not care to discuss gun control with any nuance.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I understand that perspective and believe that it generally has merit, and I will try to explain briefly why mine differs.
For all that it's relevant to the discussion, I would favor heavier regulations for booze...particularly as concerns DUI, but that's largely the province of state governments and is a big puzzle with a lot of moving pieces.
I think the fundamental difference here is the understanding of rights. You believe that heavier-handed regulation of firearms is an infringement on individual liberty, and for that reason alone, is necessarily a detriment to society. That's the gulf that you and I are never going to bridge. I believe that there are restrictions on individual liberties that, when carefully weighed, reflect the will of the people, honor the spirit of the rule of law, and benefit the common good. The law, broadly speaking, supports your larger point of view on gun ownership (the 2nd Amendment and the recent development upholding the individual right, which I believe was wrongly decided but is nonetheless the law) but it doesn't preclude mine, which is that Congress and the states have the ability to set terms and limits of same.
I do not think that the common good is served by a less-restrictive gun ownership regime. I don't understand what the positive societal benefit of relatively free and easy acquisition and ownership of, say, semiauto rifles and hi-capacity magazines is thought to be. Your contention is that it's an abstract question of rights and freedoms. I'm left puzzling as to the real-world consequences.
You've made a valid point as to the relative rareness of crimes and deaths involving this class of weapons, and I have both conceded them and made some suggestions steering the discussion to bigger-picture issues. I've also posed some questions about the wisdom of leaving the causes and means of rare tragedies unexamined simply because they are rare.
As a simply logical proposition, how would the Republic be harmed by a ban on a certain class of firearm? I mean, nuts and bolts here, what would be the detrimental effect to society? An abridgment of individual liberty, sure. But what is the actual harm?
sturg33
I
For those saying the nobody wants to take people's guns away... this road gets very slippery
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...ers-in-bill-inspired-by-trump/article/2650425
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...ers-in-bill-inspired-by-trump/article/2650425
sturg33
I
Yeah but you don't actively rail against booze like you do guns, so I find this sentiment disingenuous. And I'm not sure why state governments are needed for booze regulations but not guns?
OK... and I think we've done quite a bit of that already. We already have background checks, permits, bans on certain weapons, etc. But it's never enough. Need to go further. This is why you get so much resistance each time we have this discussion. The left just wants to take a little more... "common sense" after all, is something we can all agree on. But I think the onus is on you to prove how that would help solve the problem you're trying to solve, and thus far, I haven't see any data that would support the position.
I think the society benefit is people can protect themselves without the need to call the police and hope they can get there in time. these guns exist, and therefore, it's reasonable to want to protect against these weapons with similarly powerful weapons. You are confident that banning these weapons will keep them out of the hands of bad guys, I'm not. It doesn't work with drugs. Why will it work with guns?
And you're free to mock me if you wish, but the day the populace is no longer armed is the day the populace is no longer free.
I don't think they should be unexamined. In fact, I think they should be scrutinized heavily. That's not what the "guncontrolnow" group is doing, though. They are parading around teenagers to emotionally appeal to people's senses... they are not looking at data. They are not looking at things rationally. They are blaming groups (NRA) or people (Marco Rubio) more than they are blaming the killer himself.
And then, when someone like me calls this ridiculous, I hear the "can't believe you're mocking children who just survived a shooting" speech.
If we could have a legitimate debate on this, rather than "ITS THE NRA AND REPUBLICANS!!!!!!," we could probably get really productive in terms of progress to smart solutions that appropriately measured by the likelihood of these happening. I think you and I agree on the absurdity that we've spent and done to fight against terrorism, as you're more likely to get struck by lightning then die from a terrorist attack. Why can't we think this rationally when it comes to guns?
Honestly... if that was the red line that Dems would never ever ever ever ever do another gun grab, I'd probably say sure - go for it just so we can stop having this debate. But as I already said, it's never enough. With each shooting, there will be an emotional plea to pass more laws and regulations when we can objectively state it doesn't stop the problem. That's why I have a hard time getting behind these things. Take a look at the article I just posted? There are bills proposing gun confiscation.
Lastly - if I was sure no criminals could their hands on these guns... again - sign me up. But that's not going to happen. It will just create a new black market like we have with drugs.
I think we're better off as we are.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
It's not a question of needed vs. not needed, just that DUI regulations are pretty much solely the province of the states...I guess you could enact something that withholds federal highway money or something, but the point is it's a bit of apples and oranges, particularly because there isn't as much federal reach (i.e. an amendment to the Constitution) on those issue.
As for my interest in it...there are plenty of civil issues that I'm interested in or passionate about that I don't post about here.
There's data from countries with strict gun access measures. There's data that strongly correlates presence of guns in households with gun deaths, homicides, and DV homicides. It really depends on how expansive you're willing to be with what data you'll accept. For example, I see folks make the argument that a place with strict gun laws and a high rate of gun violence proves that the stricter laws are ineffective...but disregard the fact that surrounding communities have more lax gun laws and are used to funnel guns into the more restrictive areas. If you don't think that more uniform restrictions and extreme sanctions on illlegal possession would move the needle at all, I'm not sure what to tell you. I.E. if you make it so a person can't easily buy 5 guns in Indiana and sell them privately, with no background check, to someone in Chicago, etc.
If we can agree that relatively few crimes are committed with rifles, for example--and the data supports that conclusion--it would seem to fly in the face of that "arms race" argument.
You seem intent on drawing a parallel with drugs, but I'm not sure how valid that comparison is, given the realities of addiction.
Yeah, whatever. I think that's the weakest of the pro-gun positions.
You seem to have a significant blind spot if you think the issue should be scrutinized heavily. You know who doesn't want that? The NRA and their favored politicians. So, yeah, by my lights they're fair game in this conversation.
But we can't objectively state that it won't significantly impact the problem.
That would seem to indicate a belief that guns ARE, in fact, a problem. You seem to be simultaneously arguing that guns aren't the problem and that guns are the problem but there's no effective legal remedy for it.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...lay-in-parkland-school-shooting-response.html
Coward County Sheriffs ordered EMS not to go into the school. They were willing to run in unarmed when the cops werent willing to run in armed and with bullet proof vests. Their motto really is protect and serve.... protect and serve themselves.
Coward County Sheriffs ordered EMS not to go into the school. They were willing to run in unarmed when the cops werent willing to run in armed and with bullet proof vests. Their motto really is protect and serve.... protect and serve themselves.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article203903054.html
2 cops suspended 8 days for responding to the shooting.........
2 cops suspended 8 days for responding to the shooting.........
sturg33
I
Just saw this. I think it tells us something, but I don't know what. There is a not a clear positive correlation in either direction. I also need to see gun deaths moved to gun homicides so we're not counting suicides.
Lastly, I'd like to see it at a city glance. Not sure if that's available though. I'm working on some deeper research with a friend who works closely with the GOA
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://nypost.com/2018/03/09/disgraced-school-deputy-gets-caught-lying-about-florida-massacre/amp/
The coward of Broward County caught in a lie. I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone of such an honorable and noble profession would lie. It's unprecedented.
The coward of Broward County caught in a lie. I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone of such an honorable and noble profession would lie. It's unprecedented.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
If you click you will see an enlarged version. There is an upward sloping correlation. Of course there are outliers. Hawaii for example has lots of guns but very few homicides.
But correlation does not equal causation. I would say there are deep cultural factors that contribute both to high rates of gun ownership and high rates of homicide. So it would be more accurate to say those cultural factors "cause" the two to be correlated.
