What is wrong with people?

[Celerity]

That's just the thing though..when you are discussing a topic that is outlined in the constitution..you must discuss it in terms of the constitution and the process by which it may be changed, unlikely or not. Because it is a constitutional question, discussing it outside the constitution may be idealistic or a sidestep, in my own opinion. If you truly care what it should be, you must first understand what it is and how it can be changed.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the amendment in its entirety.

If you read that and ask the questions "what is my right?" and "what is necessary to the security of a free state?", I think the answers are quite obvious.

Most recent case I could find on the matter:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Yeah, and sorry I come off as haughty...I always have. Maybe I should use more modals, adverbs, and tag questions to soften my words.

But to be fair, I don't often choose to argue topics that I feel my position is not very defensible.

[egreir]

I have thick skin, don't worry. And if I sound combative it's just become I'm competitive lol

And I agree, it does answer those questions.

It says if you are not well regulated, these rights do not apply to you. They said you don't have to be part of a militia, but they did not say you did not have to be well trained and disciplined.

[Akoz]

I wanted to post something else too.

I work in the IT field and we "Fix" things and I was trained on the "Root Cause" path in where you find the foot cause and start there. What that means is, you drive the investigation to the “root” of the cause. You do this by driving the investigation until you can no longer drive it any further. The premises is, unless you drive the problem to the root and fix it there, the problem can occur again. So lets apply that principal to these horrible events that are happening in our world. Today, a young man of 27 years, apparently killed his mother and possibly others before entering the school where his mother taught at, and proceeded to kill and wound over 20 people, most of which were children. Obviously, this person had a very troubled mind. So the question at hand is, WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS TRADIDY? Is your answer to this question “the guns” ? Is it your assertion that if we get rid of the guns, this tragedy wouldn’t have happened? I would suggest to you that you are wrong. If we take the guns out of the equation, we are still left with the troubled mind. Lets just presume for a moment, that he had no access to guns. What do you think this sick, troubled mind would do? Would he just say “ oh well, I can’t get a gun, so I’ll just forget about my troubles” ? Not hardly. He will simply find another way. The point is, by getting rid of guns, we have not addressed the root cause of the problem, and it WILL happen again. The route cause is the sick, troubled mind. Yes, that’s a lot more complex problem to fix, but until we find a way to fix that, then we’re simply “white washing” the problem. So you would argue: but we don’t “need” automatic guns that shoot xxx number of bullets and we don’t need AR15’s. And I say to you: quit changing the subject, you’re NOT ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSE. I would suggest that you’re simply looking for a way to say “at least we did something”. You’re looking for something to make you feel better, to make you feel like we’re trying, but in reality, you’ve done nothing to solve the problem, and you have further encroached on the rights of honest, law abiding citizens. A fully automatic machine gun, a hand gun that can fire 15 bullets, a nuclear warhead , is harmless, in the hands of an honest, law abiding citizen,….. and the common automobile, a pocket knife or a can of gasoline can be a devastating weapon in the hands of a sick troubled mind. That my friends, is why you will continue to meet unrelenting opposition to your argument to “gun control”. Because it will do NOTHING to solve the root cause.

In closing, I will pray for the families of those innocent lives lost. I can fix a broken computer, but I can't fix a broken mind, so I will pray that we can come together and find a way to heal the sick troubled minds BEFORE they get to the point that they feel like this is the way out for them. For those of my friends who read these words and still feel like guns are still the problem, I still love you, and I will pray for you too. Mon coeur fait mal, mon coeur cet casse'.

[egreir]

And how many deaths have been reported because someone who was defending himself or others against a gun totting psychopathy "accidently" shot a innocent bystander have their been?

I don't know the total number, but there are plenty of accidental deaths involving improper use of firearms. Are they all occurring in school shooting standoffs? No. Regardless though, these people should not be allowed to have them if they are not well trained.

[Pali]

That's just the thing though..when you are discussing a topic that is outlined in the constitution..you must discuss it in terms of the constitution and the process by which it may be changed' date=' unlikely or not. Because it is a constitutional question, discussing it [b']outside the constitution may be idealistic or a sidestep, in my own opinion. If you truly care what it should be, you must first understand what it is and how it can be changed.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the amendment in its entirety.

If you read that and ask the questions "what is my right?" and "what is necessary to the security of a free state?", I think the answers are quite obvious.

Most recent case I could find on the matter:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Yeah, and sorry I come off as haughty...I always have. Maybe I should use more modals, adverbs, and tag questions to soften my words.

But to be fair, I don't often choose to argue topics that I feel my position is not very defensible.

I actually do agree that the 2nd protects individual gun ownership as well, and ideally should not be messed with. The point I'm going for is that whether our gun laws need to be changed is, while you're right from a legal and practical standpoint a Constitutional issue, a question that should be answered based on examination of our current situation without regard to what old laws say on the subject.

The other problem is that discussing the topic with people rather than trying to pass an amendment is exactly following what one should do when one knows they don't yet have the votes to pass an amendment.

[Akoz]

I don't know the total number' date=' but there are plenty of accidental deaths involving improper use of firearms. Are they all occurring in school shooting standoffs? No. Regardless though, these people should not be allowed to have them if they are not well trained.[/quote']

The states with the highest number of people with concealed hand gun licenses have the lowest crime rate.

quoted from an official in Florida. "The number of gun owners is up and crime is down," Hammer said. "Criminals commit crimes, but they aren't stupid. They don't want to get shot."

[Celerity]

I actually do agree that the 2nd protects individual gun ownership as well, and ideally should not be messed with. The point I'm going for is that whether our gun laws need to be changed is, while you're right from a legal and practical standpoint a Constitutional issue, a question that should be answered based on examination of our current situation without regard to what old laws say on the subject.

The other problem is that discussing the topic with people rather than trying to pass an amendment is exactly following what one should do when one knows they don't yet have the votes to pass an amendment.

Yep, now we are getting close to the same page. The question should be: Can we legally we regulate weapons? ...after that, you can ask: Should we legally regulate weapons?

I think people always debate/talk about the second when they need to focus on the first.

[Pali]

Yep, now we are getting close to the same page. The question should be: Can we legally we regulate weapons? ...after that, you can ask: Should we legally regulate weapons?

I think people always debate/talk about the second when they need to focus on the first.

Where I'm of mostly the reverse opinion - I think people tend to focus more on the former than the latter (at the least, I notice such more), and that the latter is more important. After all, if we decide we should legally regulate guns, whether we can or can't now is almost immaterial - because we can decide to change those laws that say we can't.

[Pali]

The states with the highest number of people with concealed hand gun licenses have the lowest crime rate.

quoted from an official in Florida. "The number of gun owners is up and crime is down," Hammer said. "Criminals commit crimes, but they aren't stupid. They don't want to get shot."

In fairness, correlation does not equate to causation. I could point to highly religious states having the higher divorce rates as evidence that religiosity causes divorce... But it'd be very flimsy evidence indeed, as it ignores all the other factors involved. Edit: I'm not saying it had no impact, only that we need to keep in mind that other variables may also be at play.

Which goes back to my earlier point - that these events are likely caused less by guns than other issues, though I think it a mistake to ignore how much easier it is to kill a lot of people quickly with guns than most other weapons.

[egreir]

Is anyone else jealous of Celerity having bread sticks and you don't?

[Mali]

I think the only response to this tragedy is sympathy for the families that have lost so much.

[egreir]

Leave it to Mali to ruin a good debate with somber truths

I could not imagine being in one of the parents' shoes tonight. RIP

[inscribed]

So, you're okay with concealed carry permits being required, a form of regulation, or you're not? I'm confused here, because if your preference would be that anyone should be able to have a gun, the second half of this paragraph falls apart - I agree that people who are willing to go through the legal process are more likely to get at least a measure of training, though you seem to treat this as a far more absolute generalization than I do, but without that regulation that requires real effort to legally carry the argument is void.

Now, there ar two things that I think are missing from this discussion so far. The first is an acknowledgment that ALL laws restrict freedoms, so to single any law out for that reason is, I think, unfair. The question is not whether a proposed law limits freedoms or not, but whether the overall societal benefit to restricting that freedom is worth the cost. Safer roads are worth the loss of freedom to drive drunk or as fast as you want. So the question here is not whether restricting guns is limiting a freedom or not - the question is whether it is worth doing despite that cost.

The second thing is that while many people focus on the individual circumstances of each event, I prefer to ask a broader question: why do we have a society that produces these tragedies at a higher rate than those found in other developed countries (assuming my info is right and we do), and what can we do as a society to lower their prevalence? This is a question of far more than gun laws, relating to our mental health systems, our educational systems, unemployment rates, etc.

So long as you support the existence of govt. in any form, you accept the notion that we as a society can agree to limit personal freedoms where necessary for the common good - because that is the purpose of govt. We already agree that it's okay to limit freedoms - the disagreement is simply which ones and why.

To be clear, I oppose any regulation governing firearm possession. However, that is not the world we currently live in. Arguing in favor of teachers being able to carry in the classroom is a far easier thing to achieve, especially considering the number of university campuses opening themselves up to on-campus carry. Just wait until 3D printing of guns becomes a fact of life. We have already seen a fully functional gun made with a 3D printer... even though it only lasted 6 shots before destroying itself. How do we possibly expect regulation to encompass that? It's time to deal with the reality of guns being part of our life. In the meantime, we can take it a step at a time... by allowing teachers and other staff to carry.

I also have to disagree with the statement that all laws restrict freedoms. Saying murder is illegal is not a restriction of freedom, since I never had that freedom to begin with. Could I physically pick up a weapon and kill someone? Sure. But that's different than it being a freedom. Essentially, laws made in accordance with the Non-aggression principle do not restrict freedoms.

I'm still going through the rest of these comments.

[inscribed]

I think the only response to this tragedy is sympathy for the families that have lost so much.

It is quite sad, but to say there is no other response isn't quite right. These shootings are becoming more and more popular in the US. As sad as this one was, another will occur. And then another. And those will be sad as well. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with, but unfortunately, the response we will likely see will only exacerbate the issue.

[egreir]

I agree with you, Inscribed, though I believe Mali is trying to convey a message more akin to that just hours after such a tragedy isn't the most appropriate time to start arguing about who or what is to blame, even though you're wrong about everything. But let's not discuss it right now

[inscribed]

Inscribed;

Let me preface by saying I agree with the concept of spirit of the right to carry weapons, but people today do not get weapons for those purposes. This creates a problem, because we've gone from 'protecting ourselves from overbearing government and outside invaders' to 'protecting ourselves from other psychos with guns.' People who buy guns unanimously claim that they buy it for protection. But protection from who? Other people with guns, naturally. And now that everyone's got guns, Imma get an AK, because that'll protect me better (and this isn't BS, I know people who stockpile stupid weapons like this, like we're stuck in a terrible re-enactment of Red Dawn). So to curb this national arms-race we have to put laws and rules in to place because, frankly, people need them to function properly in groups.

As humans in a large group we enter in to a social contract, wherein we accept the right of dominating forces to lead us and curtail some of those basic rights for the security and help from the community as a whole. And it needs to be this way, because people are people. Look at any situation of chaos (I would provide examples, but I have to get ready for work) and you'll see that we become irrational, violent, and easily lead by mob mentality. Laws prevent this and create a framework for our naturally confrontational species to live in harmony. So, point being, hoops are good. They're there for our protection, even if they are exceptionally frustrating.

Mentioning a social contract is a fail right away. I reject the notion, and want nothing to do with anyone's social contract. And since you cannot force me or anyone else to be part of your contract, you've faltered before you've even begun.

You cannot get guns out of circulation, and any regulation has zero effect on the people they're targeted at. All these things do is hamstring the honest citizens and put them in situations where they cannot protect themselves. Let me say this again. Laws have zero effect on preventing this. It's time to stop wishing for an ideal utopia and accept our society for what it is, and allow each other to do what's necessary to defend ourselves and those around us. Honestly, if everyone had a gun, regardless of how well they were trained to use it, we would have a near crime-free society. Like they saying goes.. "An armed society is a polite society."

[Pali]

To your first: that's what I thought, thanks for clarifying.

To the second: two things. First, wouldn't a law that deals with negligent rather than aggressive behavior still be freedom-restricting from your viewpoint, such as my earlier example of speed limits? Wouldn't gun control laws be in accordance with the principle, yet still freedom-restricting? Another honest request for clarification here. Second, just to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from, we were definitely using different contexts of the word freedom here - I was using it in more of an absolute, state of nature sense, whereas yours seems to me to have a bit more baggage with it such as an implied moral stance. Freedom I essentially view as being able to decide to act in a manner of your choosing (so long as you're not attempting to violate physics or ), so in a legal system absent anti-murder laws, one would have the freedom to murder.

Edit: all the above is in response to inscribed's first of his recent posts. And he's very right that getting guns out of circulation at this point is a practical impossibility - yet another reason I prefer to focus on the non-gun causes of these tragedies. Our mental health systems in huge parts of the country suck, for instance. However, I'm not sure that a well-armed society makes a polite one - the wild west or parts of various cities come to mind - but then again, Canada's well-armed too.

[egreir]

You summed up how I personally feel inscribed, so I won't go out of my way to try and make some counterpoints lol

No one wants to get shot. Give everyone the ability to do it and people will start playing nice.

[Akoz]

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose"

You should have freedom up until your actions spill into impeding the freedoms of another.

[egreir]

Well, likewise, I feel that certain people's freedom to carry guns around me should be out of the range of their ammunition.

Inscribed doesn't seem to like using real life examples and will tell you its liberal scare tactics, but that guy who discharged his weapon in the car and shot his child through the face....your father or mother or loved one could have been on the other side of that window getting into their car.

If you're an idiot and can't secure your weapon appropriately, I don't want you around me when you have it. I don't want to be walking down broadway and bump into someone and next thing you know their weapon discharges into my thigh.

[Akoz]

but your feelings should have nothing to do with their freedom.

[egreir]

It shouldn't, but it does. Freedoms carry responsibilities. Like you said, you're free to swing your fist, but it is your responsibility not to cross the line and let it hit me. You're free to carry your weapon, but it's your responsibility to know how to respect it and not injure/kill people.

I trust me. I do not trust you.

[inscribed]

Meanwhile, in an elementary school in Israel....

No one is going to mess with her or her class.

[egreir]

When she goes home later that night and finds her husband cheating on her in bed with another man and storms out to her sisters house to stay the night. The next day at work while her students are busy coloring by numbers the Gaza Strip she's checking facebook and sees her husband and that other guy flirting, she skipped her anti depressants this week and in a fit of rage blows her brains out in front of the class.

[inscribed]

Well, from my limited experience, Israeli women aren't so weak as to allow an unfaithful husband destroy their lives so completely as what you describe. It's a definite culture difference.

...not to derail this thread into another locked sexism thread.