First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[oxmixmudd]

As has been stated many times, the goal of gun control laws is not safety it is more government control period.

I disagree. People being able to go easily buy an ar15, modify it slightly, and kill scores of people with their own machine gun is not a 'nothing' issue. One of the chief constitutional responsibilities of the federal government is the general public welfare. And the reality is, it can be just a multi-shot rifle or pistol at this point.

Source: US Constitution

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

© Copyright Original Source

So they have a responsibility to do what can be done to keep events like the ones we are tending to see on an almost weekly basis from happening (another one today). The question is how effective can they be w/o running up against the 2nd amendment.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah - see. Reduce mass shootings. Different question. How to reduce mass shootings.

Well, actually that is relatively simple. Countries with reduced access or very limited public access to guns have very few mass shooting events. So one way would be to severely limit access to guns.

So what you really want to know is not what sorts of laws could reduce the number of mass shootings, but what sorts of laws could reduce the number of mass shootings without severely impacting ease of access to guns or requiring a modification or repeal of the 2nd amendment.

And there is where it gets difficult isn't it. What data is there that could show what might work when every effort to try to reduce the number of mass shootings by changing the laws is thwarted by the gun lobbies?

Nevertheless, some have made good efforts at doing just that. The NYT has a decent article that plots gun laws against public support and potential effectiveness as ranked by experts in criminology, public health, and law that have studied the issue in depth:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ould-help.html


Jim

Burning down that strawman I see. Too bad their suggestions exist already or are meaninglessly prattle made by people that clearly are not experts.

[oxmixmudd]

Burning down that strawman I see. Too bad their suggestions exist already or are meaninglessly prattle made by people that clearly are not experts.

You know, you can say lots of things to try to make it seem like there was some sort of failure on my part. But the reality is, you started off with a tautalogical statement that had not bearing on the discussion, and I didn't let you drag me down that specific rabbit hole. The only meaningful discussion is about what legislation can reduce or limit the carnage. I have offered up the sorts of legislation that can be done without compromising the 2nd amendment, that has had an effect where implemented, but which is fought tooth and nail by the gun lobbies. And the cold hard fact it, it may not be enough. There may not be a way in a society that devalues human life, that puts one's own needs above everyone elses, that pretends common decency is weakness, that mocks others just for the fun of it (sound like any people you know posting on this board?) to stop mass shooting without a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That may very well be the choice. We live with constantly increasing carnage year over year, month over month, or we recognize we are not a people worthy of having unfettered access to guns and we pull back from that. That times have changed and there is no way to have an unregulated potential militia as a protection against an invasion in an age of machine guns, tanks and atom bombs.


OTOH, those of you that are so concerned about your 'right' to own a gun that you are willing to fight any and all efforts to curb the carnage have the blood of those killed on your hands.


Jim

[Sparko]

Ah - see. Reduce mass shootings. Different question. How to reduce mass shootings.

Well, actually that is relatively simple. Countries with reduced access or very limited public access to guns have very few mass shooting events. So one way would be to severely limit access to guns.

But they don't prevent other types of killings. People just move to a different method: Knives, bombs, poison, etc. You need to change people not outlaw everything that can be used dangerously. You can't solve the problem by limiting people's freedoms. You need to change hearts and the only legitimate way to do that is through Christ and restoring a sense of value to human life to this society.

Kentucky Governor Matt Blevins talked about how this is a cultural problem not a gun problem and he makes some very good points:

[Roy]

You can call me names all you want, does not make it so.

My words don't make you a dishonest schmuck, but your lie-by-omission does.

[Littlejoe]

My words don't make you a dishonest schmuck, but your lie-by-omission does.

Name calling, the last bastion of the desperate to be relevant...

[Roy]

Who says that legal gun owners are the problem in the first place?

13 residents of Thousand Oaks, California, would say that if they were still able to. Tamara O'Neal, Samuel Jimenez and an unnamed pharmacist might too.

[oxmixmudd]

But they don't prevent other types of killings. People just move to a different method: Knives, bombs, poison, etc. You need to change people not outlaw everything that can be used dangerously. You can't solve the problem by limiting people's freedoms. You need to change hearts and the only legitimate way to do that is through Christ and restoring a sense of value to human life to this society.

Kentucky Governor Matt Blevins talked about how this is a cultural problem not a gun problem and he makes some very good points:

Ok, so in las vegas the fellow smashes the hotel window and starts ... throwing knives as fast and as far as he can ....

need I say more?


Jim

[Sparko]

13 residents of Thousand Oaks, California, would say that if they were still able to. Tamara O'Neal, Samuel Jimenez and an unnamed pharmacist might too.

So one person, who probably shouldn't have a gun because he was mentally ill proves that legal gun owners are the problem, when millions of legal gun owners don't go around shooting people?

I guess that means we should ban legal drivers on the road because someone did a hit and run and had a legal driver's license.

[Sparko]

Ok, so in las vegas the fellow smashes the hotel window and starts ... throwing knives as fast and as far as he can ....

need I say more?


Jim

He would have probably used bombs, Jim. Or driven a truck through the crowd.



Guns are harder to get in the UK... now we have this:



Will they ban assault hammers next?




---
PS great job ignoring most of my post. Did you even watch/listen to the video? Don't agree that Christ changing hearts is the answer? Hmm?

[lilpixieofterror]

You know, you can say lots of things to try to make it seem like there was some sort of failure on my part. But the reality is, you started off with a tautalogical statement that had not bearing on the discussion, and I didn't let you drag me down that specific rabbit hole. The only meaningful discussion is about what legislation can reduce or limit the carnage. I have offered up the sorts of legislation that can be done without compromising the 2nd amendment, that has had an effect where implemented, but which is fought tooth and nail by the gun lobbies. And the cold hard fact it, it may not be enough. There may not be a way in a society that devalues human life, that puts one's own needs above everyone elses, that pretends common decency is weakness, that mocks others just for the fun of it (sound like any people you know posting on this board?) to stop mass shooting without a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That may very well be the choice. We live with constantly increasing carnage year over year, month over month, or we recognize we are not a people worthy of having unfettered access to guns and we pull back from that. That times have changed and there is no way to have an unregulated potential militia as a protection against an invasion in an age of machine guns, tanks and atom bombs.


OTOH, those of you that are so concerned about your 'right' to own a gun that you are willing to fight any and all efforts to curb the carnage have the blood of those killed on your hands.


Jim

I didn’t, you read it that way because you are determined to read the worst in those you disagree with while ironically attacking Trump for doing the same thing. What I asked is to explain how gun control suggestions would have helped prevent shootings. You choose to read it as a ‘taunt’ because you want to believe the worst of your opponents. Second, no you haven’t because your suggestions don’t fit the reality. I can’t think of a mass shooter that used the supposed ‘gun show loophole’ to purchase a single weapon, this why I asked the question I asked. Likewise, treating people with mental illnesses as though they are common criminals that can snap and kill is horrible and contradicts the goal of increased mental healthcare. You can’t have increased care, treatment, and awareness of a group while treating them like common criminals Jim. The ‘assault rifle’ ban is just a ‘scary looking rifle ban’ that does little else than ban rifles based on what plastic parts are attached. See, just as I find out you want ‘action’ without understanding what these actions are where you let experts think for you vs seeing their ‘suggestions’ as little more than show that punishes the innocent, does little to nothing to solve problems, but ‘feels good’.So thus it’s liked.

Your final suggestion is really funny and shows a lack of awareness. Tanks and machine guns are century old weapons that can be defeated. Atom bombs destroy everything and are useless if your goal is to conquer. The past 70 years is chopped full of examples of technology advanced armies getting routed by people with guns. It should be obvious that your assertion is wrong.

[lilpixieofterror]

My words don't make you a dishonest schmuck, but your lie-by-omission does.

Irony at its finest.

[lilpixieofterror]

13 residents of Thousand Oaks, California, would say that if they were still able to. Tamara O'Neal, Samuel Jimenez and an unnamed pharmacist might too.

Emotions without logic. Let me play, perhaps if California wasn’t so determined to disarm legal citizens, more would be alive.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok, so in las vegas the fellow smashes the hotel window and starts ... throwing knives as fast and as far as he can ....

need I say more?


Jim

Just set up a few bombs to drive everyone to a kill zone and either drive a truck straight through or use more bombs.

[Sparko]

Emotions without logic. Let me play, perhaps if California wasn’t so determined to disarm legal citizens, more would be alive.

That too. If those off duty cops were allowed to carry guns this probably would have been stopped at the first shot.