Tragic (and tragically familiar) news out of Oregon this afternoon. A gunman opened fire on the campus of Umpqua Community College in Oregon. Initial reports are at least seven dead.
If you pray, pray for these people.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Local officials announced 10 dead. 7 others injured. Suspected shooter is being reported dead.
Edited.
So this one is going to be even worse looking back. The shooter went on "4chan" and talked about doing this yesterday/this morning, and people we're giving him tips and urging him on. It's a sad sad world.
Edit: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/560da551e4b0768127016099
It made me literally sick to see that. That's a disgusting thought.
A) I hope that just isn't true.
B) If it is true, I hope they charge every single person who gave him a tip or urge to do it as an accessory to the crime and throw the frigging book at them.
This. It's time to kick open the doors of anonymity on the internet and shine the fucking light of justice on these assholes. Fuck 4chan.
100% agree, there were people on there critiquing his "score" and saying how disappointed they were that he didn't reach double figures when the initial count came out. What in the hell is wrong with those people.
Are you serious
For the record, the exact same thing was revealed in the wake of the shooter at the Christiansburg mall. He had posted online about it and people urged him on and then laughed over it once it became news. I can't understand what kind of people there are that do this kind of thing.
It's true. Studies have found that the majority of mass shooters tell someone before they commit their crimes. Recently it's in social media formats.
jesus so freaking sad
This really isn't the time for gifs, IMHO, but a leg anyway for being true
Yeah I legged it too. This isn't insensitive, its just true.
I know what you mean, but it seemed to accurately depict the situation.
This is just absolutely horrible. I can't even....
CNN said this afternoon it's the 142nd school shooting since Sandy Hook.
We (Americans) need to take a serious look at ourselves and make changes.
Its the 45th shooting this year alone. I agree with you, but we won't look in the mirror on this one, just as we always (never) do. Obama said it best, the response to these tragedies has become routine, the reporting has become routine, etc. Waiting for the NRA response on how the nearly 1:1 ratio of guns to people just isn't enough.
I am going to stop there because this is a discussion entirely too political for this forum.
Cancelled out the downvote because I felt that it was unfair, as you didn't really express too much of an opinion. Without going into political detail, I think we can all agree that there are issues that need to be dealt with, as the number of these terrible occurrences is far greater than zero, the number it should be.
My only comment on gun laws is both sides need to sit together and make common sense laws. Responsible gun owners have no problem with reasonable laws.
Number one needs to be a nationwide database that can be checked by gun sellers prior to any sales. It needs to include mental and criminal people that are prevented from purchasing.
I'm a responsible gun owner, and I do have a problem with what someone else might find reasonable, because reasonable is by far a too subjective word.. Every side thinks they have a reasonable solution, that never sounds reasonable to the other sides
Not saying you don't have a point, but let's at least talk it out! Right now it isn't even on the table for discussion!
I like to think I am as well. I got a lot of strange looks at stepping out wearing the guns save lives sticker and the Background checks save lives stickers.
Forgetting about politics, there is another policy challenge here. A nationwide database with protected personal health information under HIPAA would one 1) give gun store owners access to protected personal health information 2) represents a gigantic target-able hack opportunity 3) has significant governance concerns in terms of reporting responsibility for mental health agencies, individual reporting, and data management. In the wake of a tragedy it is difficult to see unintended consequences, but a debate around the balance of public safety versus privacy rights and the presence of national databases being a disincentive for someone struggling to seek treatment is a serious one. Imagine being someone struggling with depression, and then knowing that if you seek treatment, you would be entered into a national database that, without 100 percent privacy and security assurances for that data (which is impossible), makes you susceptible to potential life changing negative consequences. Governance that allowed insurance companies access to that information could be used against you in premium determinations. If governance allows other businesses access, it could restrict job opportunities. Or, a hacker could gain that information and use it for blackmail. The sociology of mental health must be examined closely, and anything that serves as a barrier to those who need treatment from seeking it needs to be explored more in depth.
That is an unfortunate drawback to any type of database. But I think it should be at least discussed and potentially regulated for access. Make the database restricted to government employees alone, and allow gun owners to phone in to them and just check a name. The database doesn't have to say why they are prohibited just that they are.
It would have to be tied to more than a name. There are tons of people who cannot fly in this country because their name matches a name on the No Fly list. But I agree, HIPPA should not be an obstacle. The database would either return an OK or a No Gun Purchase Allowed result. No reason to need explanation for the merchants as to why the sale is prohibited. And people should be able to voluntarily add themselves to the database if they want. Ties into my comment below about it being too damn hard to get help if you're afraid you might do something like this. At the very least, in a moment of clarity, a person with a mental illness should be able to say, "Don't let me buy a gun."
The idea that we can't/shouldn't have a database because it provides a hack target is a non-starter. Everything is a hack target today.
Not that it is a hack target- there has to be some baseline to assure that privacy has a reasonable expectation of being presented. As for HIPAA "not being an obstacle," it isn't that cut and dry. There are 4th and 15th Amendment issues here that are not being weighed. There is significant judicial review concerning the balance between health privacy and the public good, and neither is absolute.
For example, in Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), a group of physicians joined patients in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a New York statute that required physicians to report to state authorities the identities of patients receiving Schedule II drugs (controlled substances). The physicians alleged that such information was protected by the doctor-patient confidentiality, while the patients alleged that such disclosure was an invasion of their constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court did not disagree with the lower court's finding that "the intimate nature of a patient's concern about his bodily ills and the medication he takes ... are protected by the constitutional right to privacy." However, the high court concluded (after balancing the state's interests) that "Requiring such disclosures to representatives of the State having responsibility for the health of the community, does not automatically amount to an impermissible invasion of privacy."
and yes- i copied that. my professional area of expertise is using health data for quality measurement and reimbursement so i leveraged a resource created by a colleague
FTFY
I'm highly disappointed, french. I come here to hear your opinion, man! :D
I think you raise a valid point, but the court case referenced pre-dates HIPAA by almost 20 years.
There IS a Federal database, but maybe it's time to re-vamp the rules, and make sure states are applying their laws related to it in a helpful way.
Are you this smart about EVERYTHING?
Great points, though it's established case law that the government (both state and federal) has the right to prohibit gun sales to some citizens, and also that mental health professionals have to report violent mental illness patients to the state, who are then prohibited from buying guns. So like 90% of what we're talking about doing is already legally established. The issue would be if the names on the list were made public. But so long as the reason for inclusion on the list is not provided, and especially if a person can be voluntarily added to the list, then the privacy concerns are actually pretty low.
I hope I was clear... I am not opposing a registry. I simply want it weighed in a manner that considers potential unintended consequences. Also, such a registry does currently exist. There are limitations to it's scope.
I think the point is well-taken that we should re-visit this, and make sure we're taking a pragmatic approach while protecting people's rights.
As several of these cases have shown someone who should have been prevented from a gun purchase weren't inhibited by it, it seems some changes are in order.
Government employees are just as susceptible to revealing confidential information as anyone else and they often have the added protection of being almost impossible to fire to make them more brazen in abusing access to privileged information/power and in many instances government organizations have Sovereign Immunity that prevents them from being held accountable for their indiscretions. I would much rather such a database be regulated by the law, but controlled by a private corporation that is able to fire bad employees more easily and can be held responsible through criminal charges, fines, etc.
I assumed by "government employees" he meant "government employees with clearance." If you think government employees with clearance can't be fired, you're quite wrong.
Please. Jamming it in the ear of federal employees, while extolling the virtues of the private sector, is just tired. And generally untrue. The amount of times a corporation takes responsibility and/or fires a 'bad employee' happens a lot less than you think. Certainly in the white-collar world.
Wow. I've never thought about it that way. Now it is more clear why people are against this type of background check. I have to believe there is a solution somewhere, but until this point I had never considered this point. Thanks for bringing it up.
The solution is anonymity on why a name was added to the list. No reason we can't just have a list that says "these people can't buy guns." List ex-cons, anyone with a mental illness, and any other reason a person couldn't legally purchase a firearm together, with no justification given. Those that maintain the database would have access to that info, not the merchants. Access to the database would be kept confidential under a multitude of laws. And have a way for someone to apply to be removed from the list. It's doable, it just requires a serious, grown-up, non-partisan discussion.
Currently how this works is:
A gun store or gun owner fills out a form regarding the purchaser and sends it online or on paper, along with a $2 fee to their local state police.
The police search a database for eligibility according to the laws in their state and various Federal agencies to check for legal violations which prevent eligibility.
The State police then report back a yea or no.
The State Police keep a record of things such as person requesting the search and serial #s etc.
The gun store or selling owner then has to keep a record of the sale with pertinent information in the case that the firearm is used in a crime or recovered in some other way.
this allows that there is then no record residing with the authorities of whom the current owner is.
Why is this important? Because any record, unless specifically and narrowly prohibited, maintained by governments, is public record and must be surrendered upon proper request.
So, what you get is news organizations whom are against private firearm ownership acquire and publish the list of firearm owners and their address and contact information.
This allows certain persons and groups to harass or use these lists to target homes with high dollar firearms for theft.
And yes, this had occurred, in particular in a high profile situation in NY.
There are states where private sellers aren't required to run a background check. Other than that, I think you're pretty much correct on the process.
Most states have no private person sale to private person sale requirements.
Could you imagine the nightmare that would be to enforce?
"Yeah, I checked his background. You can't prove I didn't."
As in most gun laws it would not be enforced. The prosecution rate for people who lie on the federal background check form is less than 10%.
The big problem with that process is that the state checks the criminal list, but generally not the mentally prohibited list. So unfortunately people that shouldn't be buying guns can squeak by that way. I believe that in some cases, out of state purchasers are not subject to the same scrutiny as in state (where more information is available).
I think private sellers should be able to use the process as well. Most people I know that sell guns as private sellers would rather run the check, but currently are told they cannot.
Private sellers may use the process and the fee is $2 in VA, I cannot speak to other states. The mental list is another manner but, even this requirement has been abused by officials.
I do not know the states you are talking about and whom tells them they cannot.
the problem with requiring it has to do with estates when the firearms are inherited.
Some states have seen this as an opportunity to confiscate the firearms if a background check is not completed within a period of time. A case occurred a 2-3 years ago when an individual that was inheriting the firearms was deployed Army and was not within the U.S. to fill out the proper forms and the police forced entry into his house and confiscated the arms.
This type of poor performance by officials has kept god conscience agreements from being discussed.
As someone who formerly worked in a gun shop, and as such is familiar with the purchase process in Virginia and North Carolina, not mention a grad of '09...I feel like I could help provide alot of useful information this discussion.
"Number one needs to be a nationwide database that can be checked by gun sellers prior to any sales. It needs to include mental and criminal people that are prevented from purchasing."
-Not only does this database exist, it is maintained by the FBI, uses SS#s to catalog entries, and is only accessible by Law Enforcement Agencies.
In Virginia, in order to purchase a firearm through a non-private transaction (grey or black markets), an individual has to pass a background check, performed by the State Police, which looks at the FBI database, mental health records, and court records. People who have been committed to mental health institution, voluntarily or involuntarily, or have been diagnosed with a mental health condition requiring anti-depressants are banned from purchase. People who have committed a crime of a violent nature or a felony are also banned. People with a restraining order are banned, and attempting to purchase a gun or obtain a carry permit results in a very fast visit from the State Troopers.
In short, everything you appear to be arguing for as "reasonable restrictions" does in fact already have legal code to enforce it, and is actively enforced (I have seen nice people who didn't know they had a restraining order arrested in person).
What you have a problem with then, is the activity of grey and black markets, or "illegal" activities. Obviously, since those market actions are already illegal, making them more illegal isn't going to help, especially when the punishments are already very severe, since illegal traffic of firearm(s) is considered a "terrorist activity."
Where does VA stand on the spectrum of gun securityHow strict are VA's gun laws (relative to other states)?well...define "gun security" cause I have no idea what you're asking.
updated. Was asking how strict VA's gun laws are compared to other states.
Average. You've got this large group (like 40? if I remember right...) that has basically the same laws. A couple outliers with basically no restrictions other than the federally mandated class 3 stuff, and states like Michigan with slightly tougher laws (mostly border-line unreasonable time-lines for beureaucratic navigation)...and finally, at the top, California/Massachusetts/New York who basically act they're Waterboy's mama and, "Guns are Devil."
The Brady Campaign (pro gun control) rated VA as a D and the 20th best state overall in 2013 and a Guns and Ammo rated VA as the 24th most gun owner friendly state in 2015.
So in general VA is seen as a middle of the road state by both pro gun freedom and pro gun control advocates. The Brady campaign only rated 17 states as having a C- or better for gun control laws and 26 states received an F grade from them. Gun freedom groups tend to view VA as somewhat restrictive, but overall about average on the restrictiveness of gun laws.
If you want to express an opinion, please do not make it vague. I assume, based on my perception of your tone, that you are suggesting we should "ban guns" "institute mental health checks" etc.
My only response is that, according to the FBI statistics, since the 60's, mass shootings (3 or more victims, in rapid succession) happen in "gun-free" zones over 90% of the time. That's not coincidence.
Gun free zones are meaningless if there is no way to enforce it, like NCAA regulations. But that's just a red herring in this situation. The real root cause is the ease at which guns can be purchased or otherwise obtained in this country.
I disagree. The real root cause is that assholes consciously choose to commit heinous crimes. Guns are not the problem. Assholes are.
There are assholes everywhere. Why are we the only country that has this addiction to mass shootings? What was the stat that I saw yesterday, that nationwide we've had more mass shootings this year than days? How is that acceptable, and why are we continuing to make excuses for it?
How is this acceptable?
No one said it was acceptable, and I certainly wasn't making an excuse. But these acts aren't committed by guns. They're committed by people. Yet for some reason, the inanimate object rather than the sentient being using it tends to get the focus in the aftermath. It's not as simple as "guns are bad." But that's an easy tagline and much easier to get people to rally around than actually addressing the far more complex human element. Certainly guns are not the root cause of anything. They're an important element, yes, and it's something that needs to be discussed and addressed (which is largely impossible because of the gun lobby), but it's rather shallow to think that violent crime would suddenly disappear if guns did. As for your statistics, I think most people realize you can twist and compare numbers to say whatever you want them to say, which is exactly the point of the graph you showed.
Violent crime wouldn't disappear, but it would sharply decline. Guns are an easy, convenient, and simple to obtain on an impulse method to dish out quick and fatal damage on a large scale. Of course, violent crime would still exist, but the numbers of victims would decline, and that's a good thing.
Right now, guns are far too easy to obtain. Until you make it exceedingly difficult to get your hands on a functioning firearm, these kinds of crimes will continue. Its absurd that in many states, you have to go to a state run agency to buy liquor, but you can pick up a gun at your local Walmart.
The diagram above compares things that have nothing to do with one another. It could also super-impose the number of traffic deaths and motor-scooter incidents, along with sexual assaults. It would be just as meaningful, as those things also aren't related.
The blanket statement that "guns are too easy to obtain" seems a bit too easy to say. A liquor store doesn't need to check someone's name against a database to see if they can buy booze, so it is actually harder to get a gun than to purchase liquor.
Gun ownership is a constitutionally-protected right. What criteria would you use to determine eligibility for a gun? Who gets to determine gun ownership? You? Me? Propose a solution.
I think it's sensible to look at mental health issues, as it's amazing how many people involved in mass-shootings have a history of problems. Oddly, those who are against ALL gun ownership also seem to be the same people who want the most stringent controls on mental health records.
I do think we need to tread carefully when we talk about checking mental health records and keeping things in databases, but it seems that with some more effort we could find a practical solution here that protects both the individual and our society.
The problem with this argument, is the relative decrease in other violent crime types compared to other western countries. In short, they use knives, baseball bats, etc. when guns are not acceptable.
Comparing murder rates with gun-ownership rates.- (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shoot...)
As gun-ownership climbs, gun-violence continues to decline, more and more it is concentrated into gun-free zone massacres. MORE LEGAL GUNS = LESS GUN VIOLENCE (and violence in general)- (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/)
Because this such a political issue, and because polticians and the government stand to gain so much from fewer guns, there is a lot of bad statistical analysis out there. The reality? Guns in the hands of normal people decrease the rates of gun-violence, and violence in general, when corrected for population growth. Pretending that the US population is stable, or decreasing, you can force the numbers to appear to support the false assertions of increased crime, but that does not change the fact, statistically proven, that such assertions are false.
One last thing, don't believe the gun-rights activists who are idiots either, Reductio ad Hitlerum is not an argument. -(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory)
It's a question of scope. If forced to choose, would you rather have a paranoid schizophrenic running around with an M-80 or a thermonuclear device?
There's always gonna be people who kill people just for shiggles. There's plenty of evil in the world. I'd rather have a madman go postal with a hunting knife than a semiautomatic rifle, every time.
And just to be clear, I'm totally cool with responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns. The discussion has to be keeping them out of the hands of people who plan shit like this.
The million-dollar question is "How do you do that?"
"The discussion has to be keeping them out of the hands of people who plan shit like this."
I don't think so. Are we really going to pretend that crime, or more specifically, violence towards others, can be completely removed as an issue? I thought not. Understanding that, we can reasonably say that attempting to remove their means by removing the weapon may not be the most effective one. The data is clear. They pick gun-free zones. Why? So no-one shoots back, why else do they all seem to commit suicide as soon as the police arrive?
My answer to the problem? Eliminate their targeting zones. Eliminate the "opportunity" in police terminology. We can't affect motive, we can only reasonably affect means as much as we already have, but we can affect opportunity. Deny the opportunity by eliminating gun-free zones, and actively encouraging normal people to carry, concealed or otherwise. Actively encourage people to yield their weapons and get help if they're having problems, and eliminate the stigma associated with mental health, shift it to the cowardice being shown by refusing to seek help.
I think you're talking past my post. I predicated my statement on the acknowledgement that there will always be people who kill just to kill. No gun laws will ever fix that.
To an extent, I agree with your solution, with one caveat. Since you are basing the solution on a well-armed, well-trained citizenry, (among other factors, such as the embrace of mental health services) would you then also support a conscription into an actual standing militia, akin to what Switzerland does? Have firearms issued directly from the government, military training provided free of charge, mandatory period target practice, etc? The Swiss model is the most tenable option in my mind for a "peace and social order through an armed populace" approach.
NO. Would I support mandatory training? Absolutely. As a person with a strong sense of morality however, I cannot condone enslaving people.
I want to tag in on this- my one problem with proponents of the 2nd amendment in the general sense is that they always seem to include the "right to bear arms" part, and forget the entirety of the actual amendment. Context is an important thing- and the actual 2nd amendment reads:
My stance is this: a "well regulated Militia" does not equal: buy any gun you want so long as you pass a background check. If ownership of a gun included training for proper use, care, and other training (e.g., militia training) then I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem. I don't believe you have the right to own a gun without proper training in use (and avoiding the use <- an important skill) of said gun.
OK. We're at that point where if I continued this discussion, the mods would most likely get involved (respect for the intellectual capabilities and ability of this community to un-emotionally debate politically and personally charged topics not withstanding), as the debate would most likely require an examination of morality and the personal preferences of how to apply said morality (both of which, we would most likely disagree on).
I don't really see why, I think we both support mandatory training (which was the point I was trying to get across).
RocketHokie13: 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.
My stance is this: a "well regulated Militia" does not equal: buy any gun you want so long as you pass a background check.
--------------
The version ratified by the states is this:
"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."
You're right, "A well regulated militia" doesn't say much, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is more the complicated part that requires interpretation in changing times.
This has been debated by Constitutional scholars, and I'm certain that it will continue to be debated under modern perspectives.
Are you going to propose mandatory training for people who ALREADY have guns?
Also, is training what these mass-shooters are lacking?
Or maybe we just shouldn't let lonely people have guns. Or anti-religious people. Or religious people. It gets confusing.
It's truly a thorny issue when you get right down to it.
Agree it is a thorny issue. As for mandatory training for people "who ALREADY have guns", I have been running boats since I was in my teens, fifty years ago. I have owned a boat almost all of my adult life. By next year, I will have been forced to undergo several hours of training by an approved instructor, at my expense if I cannot get to a free course, in order to continue to legally operate a motorboat. Does it chafe? Yep. Will I do it? Yep.
I only need 9 letters to counter your stance: DC v Heller. The court has spoken on what the 2nd Amendment means, and it includes an individual right.
The meaning or the term "well regulated militia" has changed.
It does not mean lots of regualtions, it means more like, well practiced shots.
The best way to do this is to increase firearm ownership and strengthen organizations such as the civilian marksmanship cops and the NRA.
I might mention that the meaning of "arms" has changed even more dramatically, though.
But "right to keep and bear" has not.
THOMAS JEFFERSON
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
Does that sound like someone who wanted only the militia to have weapons? The writings of these men make it clear that the intent were for the people to be armed if they choose to be . The beauty of the second amendment is that I may want 10 guns and you may not want any and we both can exercise our wishes to determine what security we feel we and our family needs or wants. The second amendment has been interpreted correctly many times because the intent were for the citizens to be armed to keep the government in check if need be. The British tried to seize the ball and powder so that the colonist could not resist unsuccessfully ,we had a revolution that led to the USA and the constitution . They left us the ability to amend the constitution but gun control does not have support among the people . Every one of the congressman swear to uphold that law when taking the seat . I would ask for volunteers among the faculty for conceal and carry and rotate that in the school ,so that you would have 10 or so armed adults at all times but would not know who were at any given time . The gun free zone is a direct unconstitutional ban of a person being able to exercise the right to protect ones self . We may get 5 justices to interpret the constitution different than what it has over the last 200 plus years but the intent of the 2nd amendment is the right of the citizen to bear arms shall not be infringed is clear . I post this now because the constitution is the Law of the land and it includes the restriction of the government to infringe on that right . If the people support gun restrictions you will have candidates that will run on appeal the second amendment platform but you don't have that . You do have police in states that are restricted CC that call in the plates of out of state vehicles and it will show that they have a conceal carry, they will pull them because of that. I will leave you with a couple other Jefferson quotes .
Any man who gives up liberty for security shall have neither ."Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson.
Well said!
sorry, but you have factually mistaken both of these quotes.
Quote 1: Is NOT a Jefferson quote. That is from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments. Jefferson included the quote in his book: Legal Commonplace Book. Jefferson included it NOT to speak about the right to bear arms, but to use an example of the wariness of giving up something for the common good. The point is not whether or not arms should be controlled, the point is that any law must be fully weighed before instituting because what you give up must be truly worthy. It's a retelling of natural law in context to government.
Quote 2: Is written in regard to historical forms of government. The context of the quote is in reference to Locke stating in his Second Treatise that up until the formation of a Commonwealth of Social Consent there has never been a form of government that has not been perverted by power, or at least susceptible to perversion because it is governed by the few. They are both referencing history to illustrate that a formation of a Commonwealth that is governed of the people with the consent of everyone is the only way such power can maintain an individual's liberty.
Here is the quote from Locke's Second Treatise to which Jefferson is referring to:
Both men agree that a government of the people, in which the people have the power and right to control that which controls them is the provision of liberty. Yet, up until the American manifestation it had not come to being.
You...have an odd definition of slavery.
I'm assuming he is defining it as forcing someone to perform a task or service against their will, which would include conscription into the nations armed forces.
I think what he was saying is that he would support requiring training of those who want to own and/or carry a gun, but wouldn't be in favor requiring everyone to serve in the military. Its similar to how I'm in favor of allowing employees of schools and colleges to carry concealed weapons at work, and would gladly go through a training program to do so if it were an option at the college I work at, but I wouldn't be in favor of requiring any employees to do so.
Yeah, I'm not even saying he's wrong. It's just close to the polar opposite of my own viewpoint. I see compulsory military service as a civic duty, even if I'm a citizen of a country that doesn't require it.
Shouldn't we make an effort to keep guns away from people then?
Not in a broad sense, no. But tighter enforcement of existing laws regarding those not allowed to possess guns, working to staunch the flow of black market guns, and penalizing those who allow access to people who cannot legally possess guns would be a good idea.
In 2007 there were more deaths by terrorism right on the VT campus than what is shown in this chart nationwide. That can't be categorized as gun or terrorism, it's both. The chart is not credible in my opinion.
We are not.
First get database not designed to look as if criminal activity using firearms was unusually high.
Then compare that to other countries on a per capita basis.
We don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health/culture problem. If someone eats too much food you don't blame the spoon, you blame the person. If someone is DUI and kills someone, you don't blame the car, you blame the person.
I firmly disagree. I believe we do have a gun problem in this country. The raw, unpoliticized data on gun violence in what we think of as the most civilized country on earth says we do. We have a lot of other problems that exacerbate this gun problem. We also have dissenting views about what to do about it and to my way of thinking, we haven't come up with anything close to a solution. Either side. And, for the record, I own three firearms, been hunting for 53 years. Doesn't matter, though. With 300,000,000 guns already in play, the horse is out of the barn. I personally see no solution that doesn't begin with a challenge in court that reinstates the "militia" qualifier in the constitution, but again, I don't see that happening in today's political climate. While some here will see my post as a call for gun control, and others may see it as giving up and giving in to the problem, please, don't assume you know how I feel about this matter, because I don't know how I feel about it myself. As for the car/DUI thing, the stock answer to that stock bit of blather is that at least we are trained and licensed to drive a car, and most folks don't go out looking to kill and be killed by wrecking said car for maximum casualty count. Someone else has already said that the problem isn't guns, it is assholes, but I can say that the problem is assholes with guns, a totally different statement. Solutions, though? You won't find them on the internet.
You should have read ALL the comments before replying...now, you don't look so smart. All of your points, objections, and opinions have already been addressed.
I did, in fact, read all of the comments before I replied, just went back and weighed in with MY opinion. I didn't post to look smart, just to have MY say. Don't like it? Give me a downvote if you like, but just because someone posts what they think is the definitive rebuttal or authoritative opinion doesn't delete my decision to express it my way. I see this as an overtly political discussion with no solution possible to solve the problem of gun violence, so why bother to discuss it at all if we all cannot have a say?
My point with the DUI/car example was simply that the liberals out there who immediately jump in and blame the GUN (an inanimate object) is like blaming the car in the case of a killed pedestrian/driver due to a DUI; no rational person would go that direction.
In all honesty, the elimination of "gun-free-zones" could go a long ways in soothing this problem. Hear me out. When a nutcase like the one in Oregon (or in 07, or the NRCC shooting just a few years ago) does this sort of thing, where do they go? Gun free zones. Because they KNOW they will be "King-Of-The-Hill" for a great amount of time. If you eliminate these zones by having persons who are RESPONSIBLE buy permits to carry in these zones, I believe the problem is greatly solved. Do you hear of mass shootings in places where carrying is permitted? Not usually.
As I stated above, I believe we have a mental health/culture problem, and I think we could go a LONG way in making sure people who are known to be mentally unstable are unable to purchase guns. Just my $0.02
Remind me, are cars designed to transport people quickly or to injure/kill things?
That analogy is about as tired as it gets. Causing damage to another living thing is the reason a gun exists. I don't mean that to say it's a bad thing, but let's not use these ridiculous analogies if we are attempting to have an intelligent conversation on the subject
A car is designed to be as safe as possible so that it can protect you and your family in the case of an accident. Most people will say that a gun's principal reason for existence is for protection and safety. It's not quite as different as you say.
Edit. Point being that 99 percent of guns are bought with no intention of killing anything, but to be available should the unthinkable occur.
But that protection and safety is created through a gun's power of quickly doing significant harm to another living thing. The intent may be protection and safety, the purpose of a gun is not.
The analogy isn't really all that ridiculous. The whole point of using that analogy is that BOTH items and inanimate objects. They can do NO harm when not being used by a human (with an exception in the case of a car rolling down a hill when it's supposed to be in park...but that's beside the point). If I set my Ruger hunting rifle on my front porch with a round in the chamber, and safety off, it cannot and will not hurt anyone. Even though it has AMPLE opportunity to do so (the mailman, kids playing in neighborhood, people going about their business). Again, my point is that there are numerous examples of people who are saying that "Guns are bad we must BAN them all!!!" even though the gun isn't at fault, the nutcase holding it is.
And to your point about the gun being designed to kill. To a point you are right, but I agree with vtcivengr's comment below:
I own my guns as a means of protection and and safety SHOULD the unthinkable occur, and as a tool to obtain food (deer hunting). Again, guns are NOT the problem, the Swiss have enough guns to last them, their children and their great-great grandchildren til Kingdom come. And yet they don't have all these cases of mass murder....hmmmmm, culture/mental health problem anyone?
Downvoted because of your use of "liberals."
I'd self-identify as "liberal/progressive." I support gun rights.
I'm friends with lots of cops and military. Most of them lean far to the right. Almost all of them support stricter gun control measures. Often far stricter than I could ever get onboard with.
This isn't a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. Please don't try to turn it into one.
As for everything else in your post, I think you state an articulate position. There's no need to bring politics or political affiliation into it.
Excuse me, but a vast majority of "liberals" are against guns. I'm not nor did I ever say that all liberals are against guns, or all conservatives are for guns. It wasn't meant to be offensive, it wasn't meant to hurt or label anyone, it was a fair assessment. I'm not making it into a "liberal vs. conservative" problem. You took that one sentence out of context. Please don't take my one sentence about liberal/conservative the wrong way. I am in no way trying to be offensive.
If you agree with this statement, they why aren't gun owners/enthusiast making an effort to battle mental health?
Why should they be the only ones?
The real question is, "If people care so much about this as an issue, why not pursue common ground?"
Seems odd to me that politicians always seem to be pursuing the wedge issues, and not the common areas of agreement.
Absolutely right. Mental Health is something everyone should be very concerned with it. Not just for safety reason, but for the fact that everyone likely knows someone who has been depressed or mentally unhealthy at some point in their life. John Oliver did a great piece (without political bias) on this Sunday night.
I'm in complete agreement with vtkey above. Why should people for gun rights be the only one's to pursue the mental health angle? This is everyone's issue, not just one side or another. Banning guns is NOT the answer, neither is doing nothing. Both sides need to meet in the middle and find some common ground (which probably won't happen, because politicians...)
How did we get to this
People don't care about people anymore.
Once that happens, there's nowhere to go but down.
I agree. There used to be more a spirit of community and family than currently exists. Likewise, there used to be a sense of respect for other people, and a sense of pride by which people held themselves up to a standard of behavior that went deeper than "what I can get away with". For me, a big part of that are the values taught at home, or at church.
Perhaps more focus on empathy and coping when kids are small?
My prayers go out to these people and their families, as well as this country. I won't get political but I pray that our country finds a way to stop this.
When absolutely nothing changed after Sandy Hook, the gun control debate was over. The NRA and gun lobby won the war at that point.
I can't imagine a worse situation than that. It wasn't an adult shooting college aged adults, it wasn't a high school kid shooting his classmates. It was a grown man gunning down small children at school. When that happens and nothing is done to change the laws in order to prevent it occurring again, then it's all settled.
Could not agree more. What I said after the Roanoke shooting to someone was "Once we decided it was okay to slaughter little kids, we made our choice as a nation."
We never decided that, and if you have a solution, we're all ears.
It has to consider the range of perspectives on the issue, though.
We didn't? Afraid I don't agree. What major initiative, of any kind, was even started after Sandy Hook?
.....
Exactly.
I have a solution, but no one would be all ears, since it's pretty clear this board is very Virginia-ny about the subject; all "pry my guns from my cold, dead hands" and all that. My choice: I'd ban most of the fucking things outright, myself, but it's the one part of my political make-up that's completely Birkenstocky.
Australia - a place I lived and loved - had a mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996, with 35 dead. The PM, John Howard - conservative as conservative can be - introduced new strict gun laws, and they passed. And guess what? Not too many - if any at all - mass killings since. And remember, it's a country where virtually any animal or weather can kill you AND it's the country of "That's not a knoife ..... " from the movie. (I'm old; you young folks can look it up.)
And they have managed to survive the last 20 or so years with a tyrannical takeover by the government, rounding people up, blah-de-blah.... [The animals and the heat can still kill you within seconds, though.]
Again, not overly popular here, though.
Edited to add: So, we're now downvoting for disagreements of opinions? Just checking.
Well, it is a virginia tech site, so there's that
Fair point.
(But I'm betting you knew exactly what I meant there.)
Yes, but I found it condescending and chose to ignore it for the sake of the community here
Well, what would be better to say? Southern? Rural? Is there not a correlation one can make to geographic location? I thought that had been shown before. And if nothing else, Virginia is a fairly pro-ownership state, NoVa aside. (Even factoring NoVa in, I'm pretty sure it still correlates.)
Well, what would be better to say?
Probably nothing. You don't need a geographic reference.
If you have an argument to make, you can make it without a negative generalization about all Virginians, or all Americans. Or anyone.
Okay. Consider it retracted. I knew it was a generalization, but didn't intend to make it sound so negative. (However, a sizable portion of the populace has that stance, and to pretend otherwise is a mistake.)
I will submit, though, that your initial request to consider the range of perspectives to be kind of a trap, since the solution of 'large scale bans' wasn't received with 'all ears,' as stated.
It's not a trap to consider other people's positions.
The trap is in assuming that nobody else is capable of doing that.
Actually Virginia is on the lower end of gun ownership %
source
source
And as a point of FACT, 2. That's the grand total of American mass shootings (4 or more killings not connected to some other crime) in gun-allowed zones since 1950. Yes you read that right, in places where guns are generally allowed to be possessed by the citizenry, since 1950, in America, TWO. (http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloomb...)
So what do we do, just equip everyone with guns? Schools? Hospitals? Assisted living communities?
Mutually assured destruction doesn't seem like the best solution out there. As other have pointed out, we're the only 1st world country with this problem, and other countries don't equip every man woman and child, so there has to be other ways. Its worth having that discussion.
[Please note, despite how it might read, none of this post should be read as 'sarcastica,' or anything like that: my questions are actual questions, and statements are just that - statements.]
Okay. So, can you please elaborate on the point you're making?
Does that mean, then, that you propose a measure that strikes down any and all laws that prohibit weaponry at schools? And airports? Or malls, or wherever they're currently prohibited? Does that make you feel better or safer, with MORE weapons around? And that it's a good idea to have guns at schools?
And what's your take on places like B-dubs, that has a specific "no guns on the premises" rule? Are you one of those calling for a boycott, since they infringe on the 2nd Amendment? (They don't, really, since the 2nd Amendment is for government infringement - if a business makes a choice, it's not unconstitutional. But that's what one sees in the comment sections of different articles, so I thought I would head that off.) And do you believe that having more gun-allowed zones will help - in other words, someone packing will stop, or cut short, a mass shooting incident?
But I guess my rebuttal is: yep, laws prohibiting carry at different places don't work so well - if one is bent on murder, they're not worried about the potential ticket they'd get for having a gun at a school. So, if we eliminate the weapons, full stop, then we don't have to worry so much about where they're carried, or the access of the mentally ill, or all of the other stuff. (Sort of like drug use - we worry too much about the possession of the material, and not enough about interdicting the material itself.) Other parts of the world don't have this problem, because they just don't have the virtually instant-access to weaponry.
Again, not a popular position, but I was asked for a solution. I expect more downvotes like last time, even though I thought disagreeing with an opinion wasn't supposed to garner downvotes, but I can't control click-choices.
(ObligatoryCommentToBringItBackAround: Go Hokies!)
I'm saying the relationship between "Gun-Free" zones, and mass shootings is not a coincidence. I'm saying that it is immoral to attack the rights of normal people in the hope of subduing the criminals, especially since we already know those criminal will ignore the law. I'm saying that if you are serious about stopping or seriously limiting mass-shootings, then you had best be serious about applying logic to the problem instead of emotion. Statistics bear our the fact that there is link between gun-free zones and mass-shootings. We can't morally affect the means, since doing so would injure the rights of normal people. We can't reasonably affect the motive, I'm not sure how this could be any more self-evident, so I'll assume you agree. We can affect the opportunity...we can remove the opportunity to massacre people without their being able to respond immediately.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
They are welcome to have that rule, that is their right. Some people won't care, some will. If the number of people who care begins to affect their bottom line, I bet they don't care about keeping that rule. Yes. Are you really suggesting otherwise? (http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass... http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-w... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/20/uber...) <--Pick one.
Gun violence is what you are proposing to reduce, but it is worth noting that, in Russia, amongst other European countries, where guns are banned, the murder rate is HIGHER than the US. They just use knives or baseball bats. (www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf) Or if you prefer the easier to read newspaper format- (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-...)
As for your comments on drug use, do you or do you not drink coffee and soda? Tylenol and advil? The answer to drug use was quite literally demonstrated in Portugal. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/)
If they downvote you, I can assure you it isn't because they disagree with your opinion, but rather because your opinion is an emotionally charged, misinformed, reasoning-skills-lacking statement of blatantly false ideals. We expect better of Virginia Tech...we lived through it. We are Virginia Tech. And we won't accept hysteria as sound reasoning.
This does not, however, bear out the fact that if everyone has guns no one would shoot each other. It merely says that given the choice, they will choose a gun-free zone. So yes, if we arm everyone than people will not shoot up gun-free zones, but only because they don't exist, not because these people would stop doing it. If you're going to argue that logic and rational thought do not apply to these people who commit these acts, than you cannot also give the argument that logic and rational thought will deter them once everyone has guns. As for the concept of people in a gun-allowed zone 'bringing them down quickly', well, I just hope everyone with a gun is trained to do so.
Again, if you want to do this, than those people who respond should be trained in how to respond. Just giving everyone a gun and saying "shoot someone if he's pointing a gun at you" seems like a recipe for disaster.
While I agree that some of his statements went to far, I will point out that people can and will have different opinions than yourself, and this does not make their ideals "blatantly false".
Misinformed? Lacks reasoning skills? And ... for the hat trick, "blatantly false"?
Wow.
So, you disagree with me. I get it. Your stance is that we should double down on ownership and lose the gun-fee zones. I believe that's incredibly defeatist. We disagree.
You believe my downvotes are for one thing. I believe they come from a (general) response from owners, who get VERY angry when restrictions are brought, nevermind outright bans. We disagree.
I actually typed more, but since you spent your paragraph calling me a UVa grad, there's really no point in responding.
(Other than: I'm honestly not sure why you referred to over-the-counter meds, when my references were to "war on drugs" related events.)
ObligatoryHokieReference: Does ANYone know how to block a DL around here?
I want to point out that the Harvard "study" by Kates and Mausers has been broken apart many times over. You shouldn't use it as support to your opinion. There are many people that have tore it apart but here's one from Harvard.
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/06/Kates...
I think it's worthy of debate, but just because there is debate doesn't make it into a "study" instead of a study.
I'll just chalk that up to the fact that there is debate on the subject.
It's clear that violence exists with or without guns.
I'm not taking a position here. Rather pointing out that this is not something that should be used.
The problem with it is that it looks only at single variable information to prove a multi-variable issue.
For example, to use Russia as a point about gun ownership in relation to USA by looking only at gun control measures discounts all the socio-economic factors in Russia that contribute to violent crimes. In fact, poverty is globally linked to murder, by gun or not, and Russia's poverty has been climbing. Interestingly, last year Russia eased gun control laws to allow certain licensed people to carry guns for self defense.
The poverty rate in the other countries this study rates as higher than USA despite gun laws almost all have similar issues with poverty per capita. All but Luxembourg which is crazy. Luxembourg right? Rich, civilized western European country. Those guys are crazy over there!... except, they aren't. That number was falsely reported and has been incorrectly used over and over again.
Look, I am all for using supportive evidence, but that evidence should by actually good, correct evidence. Shouldn't it?
This isn't it.
I agree. I think we should look critically at the studies (on both sides).
Both sides of this debate, as in most politics these days, seem to fall prey to shortcuts for effect, and cherry-picking data.
It's pretty clear that it's a complex issue, and that correlations/causation need to be looked at carefully.
Interesting. Google search, since I couldn't find the study I wanted to. Still haven't found a study comparing homicide/suicide/violence rates and the relationship to weapons and their availability.
You got upvotes from me to help counter. it is a controversial issue and I am not sure there is a right or wrong.
He got upvotes from me earlier...to counter. But it doesn't matter...we suck.
I'm reminded of this comedian. I think part of this stand up has made the rounds after the Oregon shootings.
This presents, what I think, to be a very good view on what's going on in this country.
NSFW kinda, because of language.
So are we going to throw the guidelines out the window and talk that other hot topic that begins with an A and ends with N?
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic or don't get that he's talking about the Sandy Hook shooting.
I get it, but I won't elaborate my point, this isn't the place.
I think he gets it. He's just pointing out that the discussion is close to the line of political discourse.
FWIW, I'm keeping a close eye here. I don't think this is the type of topic we should normally talk about, but given our collective experiences as Hokies I think we are sensitive to these issues and can talk intelligently about them. I thank everyone thus far for a level-headed, fact- and experience-based discussion. I have my own thoughts but will withhold them from this forum. Anyone that wants to have a discussion over a beer, I'm game. But not here.
I'm hoping I won't have to pull out any -10's or disapproval GIFs (I have a collection).
Hoarder!
That might haunt my dreams. Yikes.
FWIW (and I'm not the mod) I take responsibility for posting the original thread (though a gun rights discussion was hardly my intent) but I have to say, I'm kind of amazed at how civil and apolitical this discourse is at the moment. I can't think of another website where there are obviously people of differing views as there are in this thread, who have managed to have this discussion without a single insult being hurled.
Challenge Accepted!
But seriously though... Threads like this are such a breath of fresh air compared to.... well.... just about everywhere else on the internet
Indeed. I have had extraordinarily interesting and informative discussions here on TKP, on current topics in the NCCA, sports, and even constitutional law. When I hadn't checked the thread for a while and saw there were something like 30+ new comments in a relatively short amount of time, I thought to myself "well, this is either really good or really bad." Glad it was the former. I should have expected no less from this community.
Personal, relatable experiences, deep pain...we've all felt it enough to not be disrespectful.
This is simply not true.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/daily_videos/how-have-gun-laws-changed...
"Connecticut toughened existing gun laws, mandating background checks for all gun and ammunition sales and limited sales to people who are mentally ill. It also outlawed over 100 types of assault weapons, including the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that Lanza used at Sandy Hook and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds."
In addition, many other states across the country have passed more than 100 new gun bills, as well as increased their mental health spending.
Our mental health system as a country blows. We are pushed to never talk about mental issues especially as males. I myself have gone through bouts of depression. When I was going through treatment I was told I shouldn't, as a male, bring it up to other people, friends, etc. My doctor said I could possibly discuss it with my immediate family.
Asking for help is a sign of weakness and a hit to the ego. Why is it that mass shooters are almost always males? Do you think it could be because of some of the differences in how females are raised as opposed to males?
If my family had not been so amazing at teaching me how to love and letting me know how much they loved me I probably could have gone down a very bad path in depression. The 2 extremes I see from depression are usually suicide or attempting to hurt others.
When I was younger I was an extremely kind, trusting person. Many often took advantage of that and I was bullied a great deal. I was told I was gay starting around 2nd grade in school and that carried over all the way to high school. The name calling probably started from my lack of trying to be overly masculine to assert dominance. My name is Adrian and many were quick to say that it was a girls name. I found myself wanting to actually be nice to people as opposed to bullying. The only ones I was ever tough on were my siblings and the only kids who ever brought out aggression from me were those who messed with my siblings.
I think because of my personality I blamed myself at times and went on to see myself as worthless at times. The anger was directed at myself. It very well could have been turned on others if I didnt have certain character traits. I remember an instance in high school where a bully was just laying into me for a the whole period of lunch and someone made the comment that "maybe you should stop. he could end up getting angry one day and shooting up the school."
All it takes is one day where it just flips a switch. One day where someone finds that tomorrow is finally going to be the day where they take their life. Or it could be the day where they finally want to just shut everyone up.....
In so many ways I was lucky. I was raised by an amazing family. I have a girlfriend who helped me through one of my darkest bouts of depression 4 years ago. I had an awesome support system. I am not saying how it was done for me is the end all be all. Knowing where I came from I can see where a mentally unstable person can have a switch flipped and a torrent of anger overcomes them or even worse they simply stop caring and just want people to hurt physically like they have mentally.
Thank you so, so much for sharing this. You are absolutely correct, the state of mental health services in America isn't just sad, it's dangerous. There is nothing embarrassing about having a mental health issue any more than there's anything embarrassing about having cancer. But unfortunately not enough people understand this.
I'm so glad you had the support system in place to work through your darkness. People in that place need support. Not judgment, not pity, not being told to suck it up. I'm glad you had that. I wish more people did.
Yes, thank you for sharing this. A buddy of mine is going through something tough right now and he's nearly unwilling to share how he's doing, as if it were some reflection of his ability to handle an extremely difficult situation on his own.
The reality is that all of us go through tough times (brought on by external or internal factors, or a combination of the two), but we're all just people trying to do the best we can with the resources we've learned and those we have to lean on.
If you ever need someone to reach out to, ask Joe for my email, and I'd be happy to lend an ear.
I remember my turning point. I was getting stuck in my thoughts again. I would usually push people away. There were times I even told people I would be pushing them away and they of course said I could not do it to them. I really said some of the most terrible things to people just because in my depressed state I felt it was better that they hated me and got away from me. I was starting to have suicidal thoughts constantly, but I didnt want to hurt everyone around me and I was really scared of following through with it.
This particular low point was probably the closest I had ever come to actually feeling the urge to kill myself. I remember thinking I would just take any medication I could get my hands on. I realized how stupid it was though because I kept wondering if anyone would find me if I did took it all. It was there I knew that I didnt want to die. I just wanted someone. I called my girlfriend and told her how I was feeling and that I was afraid that this time I may get enough "courage" to finally end my own life. It boggles my mind how in the state I was in that I could see suicide as me being brave. My girlfriend rushed over and just stayed with me throughout the night.
The hardest part throughout everything was being willing to just ask for someone to be there. It took me years to allow someone into that part of me. There were plenty willing to help but it really wasnt until I just got tired of it that I changed. I wish you luck with your buddy.
I've read everything you've posted, and while I won't share my past, (it's the past, I put it behind me too long ago to dredge up that pain), I would like to say, that as someone who has felt like you apparently did, if for different reasons and circumstances, I am grateful to you for sharing, and hopefully letting others know how hard it can be, especially when it's just you. I would also like to say, I am proud of you. Very few people ever really answer the question, "Do I want to live?" and even fewer have the courage to face it when life feels like a dumpster-fire, rolling down Mt. Everest, with everyone in the world watching, betting on how big of splat you'll make. Bravo sir.
I think that's a great point, but does anyone have any suggestions on fixes?
Having a loving family, values, empathy, and coping skills would seem to be the answer, but how do you provide that on a universal basis? I know some are helped with medication and therapy.
To start, psychiatric services should be as accessible on any other service on health insurance plans. There should never be a requirement to get a referral to see a psychiatrist. This should be federally mandated.
Furthermore, beyond the psychiatric services, which frequently focus on finding the proper psychoactive medication for treatment, counseling services through a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) should also be covered by all insurance plans.
Both of the above should be provided at low to no cost to low income patients, in the same vein as free clinics.
Right now, the number one "treatment" option for the mentally ill is prison. There is no system in place to attempt to rehabilitate the criminally insane, and worse yet, there is no system in place to intercept people who are prone to violent acts before they strike.
Right now if a man were to walk into a police station and say, "I'm having these terrible thoughts and urges to harm people on a mass scale, and I'm afraid I'm going to act on them," the most that could happen is a 72 hour medical observation. After that, if the person wants to remain in restrictive, in-patient treatment to safeguard themselves, they will be charged for it as a medical service. This type of service is covered by almost no insurance plans, and can skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands of dollars within a few months. Assuming, that is, that the person can find a facility in the cash-strapped, threadbare mental health system in this country with the space and resources to accept them.
We currently have an entirely reactionary response to the types of disorders that lead to these events. That has to change if we are to survive as a nation. This cannot continue.
That gets into the discussion of health care in general.
Why would mental health be handled differently from any other health problem? If you're deemed a danger to society, I think they DO hold you until they can get you into a mental health facility. Most specialists require a referral on a lot of health plans.
We spend way too much of our health care dollars on supporting interconnected health care monopolies (doctors, lawyers, hospitals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies) than we should. We had an opportunity to fix that, but we used that opportunity for the politically-beneficial "universal access" instead of actually addressing healthcare costs, which nobody in the health care industry seems to want.
No competition and no regulation of costs = higher health care costs, and bad allocation of health care resources into the more profitable, not the most beneficial.
And I think that sentence is indicative of the perception problem. A psychiatrist shouldn't be considered a specialist. A psychiatrist is really more of a "general practitioner of the mind," if you will. It's a medical doctor who approaches primarily mental symptoms. Yes it requires more schooling that an actual GP doctor, but that's in large part because medical science has a strange body/mind duality to it, so that a basic medical school education won't provide a doctor with the foundation he/she will need to address mental health issues.
Ad for the rest of your post, you and I are of like mind, I believe, but that is a much broader, much deeper conversation, and I don't think this is the proper forum.
This hit a little too close to home.
It took me quite some time for me to get comfortable enough with myself to reflect on my past. It took even longer to get the courage to share it with others.
Your courage is to be commended. Thank you for sharing. To discuss such a situation with those close to you must have been difficult enough, but to share it with a bunch of strangers on the Internet takes some major Hokie stones. Be well, friend.
Dude, thank you. And I can similarly relate (though not as much for depression, more for very slightly autistic and asberger syndrome). That took balls. For me it was from 4th grade through HS. Bunch of shitholes. Fuck 'em. Don't need 'em in my life. Took giant balls for you to divulge that. You are truly mighty.
Can we talk about this Chris mintz guy...lets look at some positives the dude saved some lives charged the gunman and got shot 7 times and is going to recover. What a hero
I read the article on Chris Mintz.
I thought, "There is Umpqua's Liviu Librescu." I'm very glad Mr. Mintz survived. I hope he can work through the trauma of what he experienced.
Since no one has linked it, the wikipedia to Librescu. Everyone should know this man's story. He was a respected researcher and literally gave his life for his students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Librescu
Another tragedy. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families.
Re. the inevitable demands that something be done, in the face of statistics that had violent crime dropping all they way up until very recently, I will only say that I do my utmost within the bounds of the constitution to protect me and mine, and would request that those that demand new laws perhaps consider what may have changed in recent history that has detached people from a sense of community and personal responsibility and most importantly, self-worth. People with a legitimate sense of worth, rather than the warped egos of these types of shooters, are not likely to find themselves in positions that the only way they can prove their worth is by destroying other people's lives.
Everyone has a sense for what the ideal society would be like, and a great many demand change to achieve that society. The law of unintended consequences seems to trump man-made laws on damned near every single piece of legislation and increasingly, every non-legislated piece of bureaucratic regulation we receive from our government that exists with the imprimatur they "DO SOMETHING" every time the news cycle turns.
Doing something invariably ends up meaning doing anything, when ironically, doing nothing other than enforcing the constitution and the laws already on the books is a far less damaging prospect.
Another thing that is certainly relevant is how the media covers these types of events. The killer gets plastered all over TV news coverage. Their name and face and life and ideas get broadcast to everyone. Essentially, its a means for the perpetrators to have a bully pulpit or to gain notoriety. Many times they die in the act, but they know their name will live on. This should be changed. Don't show their face on TV. Don't repeat their name. Don't give them the gratification of being known.
I agree with this. I don't think media outlets should post his image or name.
Assign him a number, which is what he is. If your biggest accomplishment is a mass shooting, then you really haven't accomplished anything, or made a point.
Could not agree more. Loved that the sheriff refused to release his name during his press conference...
Which of course didn't matter because all of the large media sources played the clip of the sheriff saying that and then immediately published the ID of the shooter.
Sadly though, I think this would be next to impossible in this age of cell phone cameras, twitter, blogs and instantaneous information. Their names would get out at some point, and there are enough trash media outlets out there who would jump on that info as soon as it did even if the national media respected such rules.
Oh I know it would. Because it would require a modicum of self-control and personal responsibility, which seems in short supply these days.
My 2 cents:
You are soul-less if you aren't sickened by this happening... again.
Since Columbine, my wife and I have paid close attention to the facts of each shooter's life. There are common threads (not the same in every case, but close). Very few monsters are born. They are mostly made. 1) Broken and/or dysfunctional home 2) Socially disaffected 3) Mental illness 4) Wanting their worthless and miserable lives to find significance in the circumstances of their death.
Who was it who stopped this guy? A man with a gun. That CC was a "gun-free zone" - which is another term for "killing field". These shooters don't choose places where 8 people are going to pull out guns and shoot them from every angle. They need time to do what they intend to do, and if they are the only one armed, that gives them the only thing they need to accomplish their mission. So, schools, churches, and businesses without armed security or regular persons who conceal and carry are going to be the chosen locations for mass murder.
The Ohio legislature addressed this problem after Columbine. They passed a law that it was illegal for any person (other than law enforcement) to bring a gun onto school property. As part of the law, a sign had to be posted at every entrance of a school that said, "It is unlawful for anyone to bring a firearm onto school premises." The lawmakers all patted themselves on the back and congratulated themselves for "doing something", and declared they had made schools safe. Actually, they did the opposite - as government solutions often do. If someone is intent on mass murder, they will not be concerned with breaking that law or ignoring that sign. By definition, the only people who would obey that law would be those who have no desire to break the law in the first place and would never want to murder anyone. The sign is the worst part. It should have read: "If you want to come in here and kill a whole bunch of children, no one in this school is going to stop you with a gun." Eventually they came to realize how stupid their law was, and now those signs are gone, and trained teachers and staff are permitted to conceal and carry - and now Ohio school children are actually safer in those schools that have chosen to take advantage of this law. Nothing and no law can probably stop a determined shooter totally, but at least now Ohio has a deterrent for someone to target a school as opposed to an invitation.
President Obama's worldview causes him to see guns as the core of the problem, and so that makes him want to restrict their sale and use. I believe the core problem is human nature - and it is hard to legislate against the darker aspects of what humans are capable of. We can set boundaries, and punish after the fact, but if the goal is to "stop these incidents", as far as I know, congress cannot force parents to love each other or love and discipline their children, can't force people to accept others, can't outlaw mental illness, and can't prevent someone from wanting to go out with a murderous bang.
But if you want to prevent these events to any degree from a policy standpoint:
1) Have armed security or allow responsible gun owners to conceal and carry
2) Encourage healthy two-parent homes
3) Train teachers and others to recognize social disaffection and intervene
4) Improve the mental health system
5) Do not speak/write the names, or give any recognition to, these shooters
FWIW
Again, other countries don't ever have these problems, and yet don't equip everyone with weapons. I don't like the concept of mutually assured destruction whether it's nuclear weapons or guns. Is it that they have better healthcare options, so these people get the help they need before they go off the deep end, or is it that they don't have the resources to obtain what they would need to make such a tradegy?
Sure, the heart of the matter is some sad, twisted person decides he's going to kill people today, but the simple fact is that if you've decided to kill a bunch of people, a gun makes it very easy to do so. And I also believe that if you're so twisted and hopeless to decide you simply want to kill as many people as possible, you don't care whether you get killed or not. Hence why so often these people commit suicide anyway. Sure, they may go for what they think is an easier area, but I doubt they'd say, "oh, I'll be killed if I do it there." Mass shooters rarely live regardless of where they choose to do the deed.
Edit: I will also say this, the concept of arming everyone also seems lacking when you think about it from a realistic (I.e., not daydreaming about being a hollywood hero saving the day) position.
Say there's five guys at a fast food place. They all are legally carrying firearms. Three other people are there, but are unarmed. Some maniac who wants to kill people shows up wielding a gun. The five armed people, wanting to defend themselves and the others, pull out their guns. Now you have six people with guns pointed in a fast food restaurant. In a perfect world, the five have the coordination and calm under fire of a SWAT team, and they quickly take down the sixth man, the maniac who started this.
However, I think it would be far more likely that when the police show up, you would have as many as six people with a gun, shooting at another person. How do the police know who is the threat? Are the three unarmed people safer because there's a six man war going on? Can you say that no one would get caught in the crossfire, or by a poorly aimed shot?
It sounds like a fine idea under the assumption that every legal gun owner is one cool, calm, precise soldier under life threatening circumstances, but that's a big assumption.
The base reason we have the 2nd Amendment is as a deterrent against tyrannical government. No doubt, a criminal can do a lot of damage with a gun. So, let's get rid of the guns, right? It's so simple and logical. It is also impractical because if you pass a law that all guns have to be turned in, many will not comply (I won't), and no one who intends murder will. So, you will have to have confiscation by government authorities - which requires a less free and more authoritarian state - a tyrannical state, if you will, which is the reason our founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment in the first place!
There always have been, and always will be, murders and mass murders. It is true that modern guns make killing more efficient. However, trading uniquely American freedoms for the sake of "doing something" - that won't stop murderers from having guns anyway strikes me as inane.
The truth is we had less of these incidents when we had more stable families, firmer moral values, and, therefore, less children embracing anarchy. These shooters are sick in their hearts and souls - and Congress doesn't have a remedy for that. A gun in the hand of a person who loves their neighbor is no danger to anyone. It is only a gun in the hand of a hateful, bitter, angry, etc. person that causes the problem. A gun is a tool that can be used for good or evil, but the heart of the person using it determines the result. Banning the tool without addressing the heart and mind issues will not work - ever. No chance. But it will make Americans less free and our government more dangerous to individual citizens.
Sorry, but I hate the criminal argument.
Many of these sick, twisted people aren't actually criminals until they walk into the building and start shooting. Sure, people will always break laws, but why does that mean we should just make it easier for them to do so?
Some people will rob a convenience store, even though it's against the law. Sbould they just stop putting their money in safes then, since it will happen anyway?
Anarchy isn't the problem. The problem is the contradictory moral code that is taught with socialism and government classes in high-schools all across America. To make a good citizen, you have to make a bad person. Why else would the police profession attract so many "bad apples"? I would be happy to have this discussion somewhere else, but I'm going to avoid going into more detail, since I feel we're dangerously close to the, "needs to be moderated out line." Anarcho-capitalism.
RocketHokie13 Again, other countries don't ever have these problems
That simply isn't true.
Is it that they have better healthcare options, so these people get the help they need before they go off the deep end
Also not true.
China has very tight gun control laws and has experienced many mass stabbings, many of them as or more deadly than shootings occurring in US:
29 dead, 130 wounded in mass stabbing at Chinese train station
7 children, 2 adults killed by landlord with cleaver at Chinese kindergarten
Politifact also looked at the similar claim President Obama had made recently ago about mass shootings not happening in other places with the same frequency it does in America and found that it was mostly false.
You're assuming an unrealistically fast police response time. Unless the police just happen to be sitting in the parking lot and run in when they hear the first shots fired, it's likely to be at least several minutes before they arrive at the restaurant. By the time they arrive any firing of weapons will likely have already stopped and any of the 5 legally carrying firearms who haven't been killed or seriously wounded will likely have already re-holstered their weapons.
First of all- I don't particularly want the United States to be equal to China. I don't think that's a very good goal to compare ourselves to.
Second, did you actually read that article? It compared "fatalities per mass shooting" over the last decade or so, not the actual occurrence of mass shootings. As a direct quote:
So there were three countries that had a higher value of "mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people" <- still not a very good record. However, the research clearly says that over a decade of study, 10 countries had a total of 23 mass shootings. TEN COUNTRIES COMBINED. Over the same time, there were 133 in the United States.
Both statements here are correct- that the United States is fourth out of ten in your likelihood of being killed in a mass shooting, but it is by far away first when in comes to the occurrence of mass shootings. I don't think that's anything to be proud of, nor do I think that's something we should just cover our eyes and ears and ignore rather than try and work towards improving those numbers.
As for the police comment, frankly I wouldn't even be worried about who had guns pulled when the police arrived, I'd be worried about having six people in a restaurant with guns drawn, quite possibly none of whom have been trained on how to deal with such a situation (yes, maybe they could be veterans, but that's not required to be a legal gun owner). It just seems so foolish to me how the argument for open carry is that everyone with a gun is instantly some combination of James Bond and a US special forces operative, able to instantly take down any threat in a single shot, with no risk at all to those around them. I just don't believe that.
Have you seen the statistics on police officer shots? 80+% misses. The avereage among concealed carry permitees? 60%. I'm looking for the papaer, if I find it, will edit it in.
I don't think either of those numbers are very encouraging, to be honest.
Ok, I can't find the paper that I read on it, but I did an article on PoliceOne...would that other citations suffice?
"According to the LAC data, when only one officer fired during an encounter, the average hit ratio was 51 percent. When an additional officer got involved in shooting, hits dropped dramatically, to 23 percent. With more than 2 officers shooting, the average hit ratio was only 9 percent - "a whopping 82 percent declination," Aveni points out." -Yeah, more than 2 officers involved, 9%. (http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/117909-Study-reveals...)
"For the data that we have, police appear to be three times as likely to commit murder as a concealed carry permit holder." (http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/police-officers-likely-to-murder-than-co...)
Police are also ineffective fyi..."...civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police." (http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/competen.html)
I can't find data on the accuracy of CCW or Open-carrying civilians. I can find an obscure study on mass shootings (http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/) This guy did a 100 shooting sampling, and got 2.33 people killed in mass-shooting incidents (to be) before stopped by a civilian, and 14.29 stopped by police.
Also of note, a vet admitted he didn't stop the shooting because the police and swat probably would've shot him (believing him the shooter)....(http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/armed-vet-destroys-gun-nuts-argument-on-...)
All fair data points to consider. But my stance remains, and in fact with that report on police accuracy with multiple police shooting, I think it's a fair assumption that a similar trend would occur in random citizens.
I still dont find that encouraging. At the end of the day, both sides of the argument need to sit down and say, "if we cant keep people from going off the deep end, whats the best and safest way to prevent them from doing harm when it happens?".
To me, i think part of that needs to be making sure that guns are not readily available to those who would abuse them.
You prefer restricting the means, I get it. How? It's already the case that all "white-market" activity goes through background and court-records checks. I can't speak to other states, but in VA you go through mental-health records check as well. Make more guns illegal? That just makes the available guns more homogeneous and less-lethal (see CA and NY magazine restrictions). You want lethality in a defensive weapon of last resort. Forgive me, but I'm not seeing a viable solution being offered, just more dreams and hopes...very...political of you sir.
I don't want us to be like China either, I just wanted to point out that other countries do indeed have the same problems, even when you only look at more developed ones. And even in countries that have very strict gun control, people who decide to hurt a lot of people still find ways to do so.
I certainly don't believe that, in your example it was 5 otherwise peaceful concealed carriers in a fast food restaurant. Fast food restaurants aren't typically very large so I wouldn't expect the distance to be much more than 20-25 feet and possibly much closer. (as a point of reference the shooting portion of the Texas CCW test requires hitting a target silhouette and 21, 30, and 45 feet). I would expect at least one or two of five to be able to hit a target 20-25 feet away Also add in that studies have shown that over 75% of defensive gun uses don't even involve the gun being fired, simply brandishing a weapon defensively is often enough to cause someone to back off. The most cited example is this study from 1995 from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In Table 3 on page 185, there is a section labeled "What the Defender Did with the Gun." Only 49.8% of the instances involved the gun being even being pointed at the offender, the gun was only fired in 23.9% of the cases when warning shots were included, and only 15.6% when they were actually trying to hit the offender.
comparing China and USA is not apples to apples. For starters, the very way people are policed is polar opposite. One being proactive (USA) and the other being retroactive (China). Secondly, there are too many differences in the countries to compare to show that mass stabbings in China are similar to mass shootings in USA. Many of those mass stabbings took quite a while. With a patrolling type force they could have been prevented or minimized greatly, which is why you see armed police in train stations and airports now.
Typically the mass stabbings you see in China are either politically, socio-economically or mental health related instances. If you would speak to crime experts here as I have most, I feel, would point out that gun control was not just a healthy step but a necessary one. Not too long ago you could find areas with guns very readily, for example on the Vietnam border. There was, and continues to be, A LOT of smuggling in that area and people down in the neighboring provinces had guns. I know many people there that owned guns. 100% of them have told me that violence, danger, crime, etc were all much higher then than now with gun controls.
Once I was in a cab, and the driver asked where I was from, I said USA. We spoke for a while and he asked if it were true that everyone in USA has guns. I said no, but many do. He then said, it was very fortunate that people in China didn't have guns. So I asked why? And then, this cabbie very astutely said: "people in China would not be responsible enough for such weapons. We cannot control our emotions. owning something that can kill so easily shouldn't be something we should be allowed to have until we can."
Anyone that has seen fights in China know what this guy is talking about.
Typically the mass stabbings you see in China are either politically, socio-economically or mental health related instances.
So pretty much like mass killings everywhere else? Most mass killings are designed by the perpetrator to protest some perceived injustice.
I don't think anyone was trying to compare China and the USA. [EDIT: I guess some people were, but] I think the point is that mass-killings can happen even without guns, where it be with knives, bombs, or some other method. The instruments used are just tools.
Granted, some are more effective than others, and availability is a key factor.
yeah, that was unspecific. My point being that China's mass stabbings largely could be prevented or mitigated with a police force that is proactive rather than retroactive.
So comparing them directly to say that things can happen anywhere is not the same.
And that the vast majority of people, government, scholar and average Zhou feels gun control is necessary and welcome.
And that the vast majority of people, government, scholar and average Zhou feels gun control is necessary and welcome.
I think this headline captures my thoughts on this:
Support for gun control isn't dead, new poll shows. It just matters how you frame the question
My first time abroad this past summer, was asked this question a lot. It's amazing how bizarre citizens of other countries find our gun laws.
Yea, freedom is a novel concept.
I have visited many places around the world and have friends from all over and I can tell you it's quite the opposite of what you just said. They don't see gun ownership as freedom. They see gun controls as freedom, as in freedom from gun violence.
I'm not saying either is right. It's just different ways of life and living, but most places with gun control sees USA as a country that is less civilized than theirs.
Personally, I have never owned a gun, but I grew up with them. Shot them. Hunted with them. Love to go clay pigeon shooting. But hate the fact that anyone (general sense, not you specifically) could say that there is no problem with guns after so many school shootings. There is a problem. Yes, people kill people, but people kill with guns too easily that are too easily acquired.
My brother is a principal at a high school and is issued a bullet proof vest. My high school has had threats of shootings and my college went through the worst shooting in college history. That's crazy to me. It wasn't like that when I was growing up. Something has changed.
yes there are stabbings in China, but it's not the same. I feel safe with my daughter at the schools here because they don't need armed guards, metal detectors or bullet proof vests. And that saddens me. Why do I need my daughter to be in China going to school to feel safe for her?
I just took my family to Disneyland/Los Angeles and the first 3 nights there were 10 shootings with 3 fatalities on the news. I was only there for 10 days. That's senseless.
I can walk out my door and in a city of 24 Million people I feel generally safe walking down any street in any part of the city no matter what time day or night as a foreigner. Yet I can tell you entire sections of Reno, a city of a quarter million, you will get shot at if you go there. That's embarrassing.
So yeah, people can kill people with knives, or whatever. They are all just tools, but they are not equal tools. If someone goes to a high school with a knife they aren't going to throw them automatically with precision at high rates of speed. Those are not the same.
I still believe in the right to own guns. I believe in hunting and protecting oneself. However, if those that support owning guns cannot help to find a solution to the problems that come with guns then we as a whole should not be entitled to own them. People kill people just as easily with thoughts of what freedoms they are entitled to yet not morally responsible for as with guns.
I fully support any checks, regulations, training, etc that's necessary for me to own a gun. I should be deemed fit for that responsibility and I have no qualms with that because I believe that I could pass whatever is required. If I am too afraid of being found unfit for such a responsibility as something that can take life so easily then I am not responsible enough to own a gun.
I think guns/ammunition should only be sold via a controlled source that is monitored by police. If you have no malice intent with your gun then why would you be afraid of the police knowing you own it? no one will care if I own a hand gun for protection and a few rifles for hunting. Why would they, until I break the law.
indeed freedom is a novel concept, so is social responsibility. Owning guns is an American right that I support, but by virtue, not living in the reality that I, and my family, could be shot anywhere, anytime should also be my right. Those should not be mutually exclusive.
fernleyhokie
I have visited many places around the world and have friends from all over and I can tell you it's quite the opposite of what you just said. They don't see gun ownership as freedom. They see gun controls as freedom, as in freedom from gun violence.
--------------------
I've lived more than half my life overseas, and I also have friends all over the word, but I don't think that makes anyone an expert on gun control, or even foreign perspectives. Popular opinion is a norm, not a natural law.
The United States is widely considered one of the more free countries, at least politically and economically. There are certain advantages to that. Some examples of that are starting businesses with fewer regulations than a lot of places, lower taxes, the ability to express opinions, and yes, gun ownership. Freedom is the opposite of restriction. Lower taxes means you get to decide what you do with your money, but you get less support from the government.
A good bit of popular opinion is based on the norm that people experience. Freedom isn't an absolute, it's a relative thing. Absolute freedom would be the absence of all laws (political, natural, social), and simply doesn't exist.
Control is the opposite of freedom. Gun control isn't freedom. Even in the complete absence of guns there is isn't freedom from violence. Freedom to do what you want, like I said above, is the opposite of living in a society, so where we as a society want to draw that line is open to our vote.
The U.S. has something most countries don't have. We are unique in that way. We are an experiment of government by the people. Lately, our democracy seems threatened by partisanship and manipulation. Only time will tell if we can set ourselves on a better course. One that allows us to discuss important issues without distortion.
From my own personal perspective, I don't so much mind some rules related to gun ownership. Most of us don't. I think the issue comes from both extremes, one that feels strongly that nobody should own guns, and one that thinks people should be able to keep grenade launchers at their house.
We've learned time and time again, though, that if you let the government help you solve a problem, they will create additional problems, which they will also need to solve, and often the cycle end up in either some type of ridiculous bureaucracy or an outright ban. Government expands it's authority naturally until you put a limit on it. It's the opposite of freedom.
Socialism. It's all I hear everytime someone says "social..." . I accept responsibility for myself and my actions, in exchange, I expect to be left the F*** alone, to do as I please. The only reasonable (aka supported by rational argument and the fewest possible number of assumptions) restriction, is the NAP. I'm done on this thread...I'll get in trouble if I keep posting...the social expectations for the right to comment would be violated.
You hit on an important point regarding extremes. Extremists are fear based in one way or another. Extreme pro gun are afraid of ultimately losing their guns. Extreme anti gun folks are afraid of the power of the gun. The solution lies in the middle, but there has to be trust on both sides that the actual goal is compromise for the greater good instead of either side's extremist view. Most people aren't extreme anything, and yet the extremists have the loudest voices.
vtkey
expert on gun control no. Understanding of foreign perspectives is subjective to your experience. I feel confident that I have explored this issue with people at many levels in many cultures to say what I said. It is in fact opposite. If you feel I am wrong that's fine. They are both subjective statements and moot.
Popular opinion is a norm, not a natural law. true, and neither is gun ownership. So point is moot.
This is incorrect. American "freedom" is self governance. A governance that is given power to restrict. A self-governing country can change it's laws as it needs to adjust to popular opinion, as the USA has demonstrated time and time again. Part of our self governing freedom can be if we so choose gun control. If that were to happen that does not mean USA is less free. That simply is not how the country works or how our rights are granted.
correct, but there is an absence of gun violence. again point moot.
Correct, and as I pointed out above our self governance is our freedom. We instill our own controls whether that be on guns, drugs, education, mining, etc it is by our own hand. Therefore any measure of control is by virtue of that freedom, including controls on guns or not.
Actually, we learned in it's creation that a government was needed to solve a problem, in that case English Rule, and empowering it through democratic resolution was the means to temper its power. One of those resolutions was the 2nd amendment which has caused the problem we face now. Your recommendation to do nothing in fear of infringement of freedom is precisely the opposite of why our country was formed and how we all enjoy our 2nd amendment rights. Ours is indeed an experiment of self governance. A unique one. yet, one that is fluid and one that will get things wrong over and over, until, we hope, it gets it right. The beauty of it is that it can keep trying and keep changing until it does, and we the people have that power and more specifically the freedom to do so.
You can clamor to the calls of freedom to obfuscate the topic at hand if you want, but to do so then you have to accept history as it happened and that guns our not our freedom. Guns are simply a right granted by our freedom, which is self governance. A government that can create or control those rights as we the people determine.
I don't know what post you're responding to, as a lot of thoughts you're attributing to me weren't in any post I wrote. I don't mind debating an issue, but I don't go along with someone setting up a strawman argument and attributing it to me.
I stand behind my post, in it's entirety.
I see what you're saying, but I disagree with it. Submitting to government, even one you create, isn't gaining freedom, it's giving it up in order to smooth our relationships and to gain security. It makes sense to do that, but it's not a gain in freedom.
Control is the opposite of freedom. If you voluntarily give up your freedom to the government, the odds are that you aren't getting it back. Again, it may make sense to do that in order to gain a sense of security, but you really should understand that you are giving something up in trade.
Our Bill of Rights is a statement of what we consider to be assumed rights. We had the rights already, we didn't trade anything for those. We did get it written down in trade for our consent to be governed, so we wouldn't forget what those rights were. The right to bear arms was important enough to include. The second amendment didn't cause a problem. It's one of a short list of rights that we determined would be the basis of our government when we formed it.
I think we need to be very careful when we consider giving up freedom for security, and we shouldn't do it with any illusions that it's not what we're doing.
you lost me. I literally copied and pasted your post word for word HERE
By definition, it's impossible for me to have created a strawman argument when I am directly using your words.
You call our government unique and praise the fact:
yet then lament the fact that our government actually has the power/right to govern. At it's core the Bill of Rights are still amendments that "control". In this case the controls are rights granted to the people against government, those are not freedoms. Those are rights.
Again, this is not how our government works. If something is taken away it can be reinstated. Prohibition is a perfect example. This is the specific uniqueness of our government. We the people have that power. If you do not like how things are you the individual have full rights to challenge government and make changes. This is done through representation where a group of people believe in what you believe and vote for you to office.
And why are you voluntarily giving anything up? We are a country of the people. If we the people vote for gun laws and that passes then we the people believe that is what is best for our country. If you the person disagrees then seek office and change peoples minds.
They are statements of controls on power of the government that are granted to people as rights. We did not have the rights already. They were written by Madison after the constitution and ratified by government and states. I don't see how I have asked for the trade of anything. I have only asked for controls that avert tragedies such as what people abusing that right are causing.
Actually it did. It did even at it's point of inclusion. Very hotly debated in the conventions throughout the original states. The biggest point of contention being whether that right extended to every person individually or to a militia, and how that militia was to be regulated, controlled or even allowed for in times of peace. this is a good account of it HERE
Of course, but again you are not giving up anything, specifically not a freedom. Gun ownership is not a freedom. This is a right. A right that is written as a control on government power. A control granted by our freedom to self govern. If in that self governance we choose to amend how people use the rights in which they have been granted then it is not an affront on freedom for security. It is the exercising of our freedom to self govern and to amend those rights to which we grant ourselves. That includes every amendment, even the Bill of Rights. There are no illusions there. It is simply how our government was formed, and to which you so passionately affirm your right to gun ownership, a right that was an exercise of the very government you are want to distrust.
Freedom is the opposite of control. We aren't granted freedom by our government, freedom is what we started out with. Our government is predicated on the premise that we have rights. Those rights aren't granted by our government, we assume they were there already. The Bill of Rights was written to specify limits to our government based on a set of assumed rights, and is incorporated into the Constitution.
From the Bill of Rights Institute: "The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power." Note that it "protects" liberties, it doesn't grant them.
While Prohibition is a notable exception, once you give up a freedom, or let government regulate something, you generally don't get that freedom back, or lose that regulation.
You indicate that government cedes some power to the people, but the opposite is true. People cede power to the government when they consent to be governed. That's the premise of the United States.
yet then lament the fact that our government actually has the power/right to govern.
Where did I do this, exactly? I don't recall questioning the government's right to govern.
lost me again. Not sure where you are getting this from but we started out under Monarchic rule. We revolted. Declared our Independence. We did not start out with freedom. We started with oppression. Taxation without representation. It is the fundamental core of our country as a representative government of the people.
Who assumes that? Nothing was assumed. It was believed by the Founding Fathers that "all men are created equal" and as such they established a government to ensure that belief. These are not mutually exclusive. Freedom was not there without the revolt and establishment of our Country and government. That simply is not how history happened.
The Bill of Rights were written after the ratification of the Constitution as amendments, and are still amendments. The very definition of "amendment" is change. Nothing says the Constitution can't be changed, nor any amendment made to it. That again is the actual "freedom" we enjoy. The freedom to change our governance as we see fit, of the people.
James Madison proposed a set of 17 amendments of which 10 were finally ratified at both federal and state level. These were written as summations of many things that States had already ratified, the 2nd amendment included. They were written and included after the Constitution as prohibitions on governmental power.
The government had to propose, debate and ultimately ratify in Conventions and federally for them to be accepted as amendments. They were not universally assumed nor unilaterally accepted without reasonable debate. It was a process of governance that "granted" these amendments be ratified. It wasn't that people thought we deserved them and they magically appeared as part of the Constitution.
Ok, name one freedom that you've lost that you could not get back through our freedom of self governance?
did I say this?
I am stating that we the people of a self governing representative country can change or amend how we govern ourselves. That change can be on any aspect of our society, including guns. You are stating that to do so is somehow a loss in freedom. But guns are a right, not a freedom. The freedom we enjoy is the ability to self govern, and that includes choosing to control guns or not. If you do not in fact lament government from governing then you should be fine with it governing change on on gun control if we the people so deem.
Alright, now that I've read through this whole exchange, I'll step in. First off, this "freedom of self-governance" you keep trying to push is being used totally incorrectly. SELF governance means that on a majority of things, I decide what's best for me. I do not transfer those decisions to others in the form of representative government. American freedom is based in Lockean natural law theory, in which the freedom discussed is negative freedom, or freedom FROM something, rather than freedom TO DO something. So the Bill of Rights does not give rights, it prohibits the government from taking them. Vtkey's point about "starting with rights" is correct, but you misinterpreted it. Rights are innate. You are born with them. They are based in natural law and no government can rightfully take them from you.
Also, you repeatedly state that guns are a right and not a freedom. Not only is this statement nonsensical, but by saying guns are a RIGHT, you've defeated your own argument. As a RIGHT, the government really can't do much to infringe on it, even if that is a representative democracy.
Finally, you seem far too optimistic about the legislative process. 535 people decide what's best for the rest of us, and it can hardly be said that they do exactly what John Q. Public wants. They have massive corporate and lobbyist donations and their own egos which influence their votes on legislation as well. Besides, it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment (like Prohibition), and I don't know if you're aware, but the numbers game for amendments is pretty ridiculous. You'd need a ton of bipartisanship and sweeping state support. For an amendment that would remove rights from the people. Good luck with that one, when we can't even get a balanced budget amendment.
self governance as I am using it has always been stated in the context of the people, not an individual.
It is without doubt that Locke was inspirational in declaration of independence but to say American freedom is based only on Locke is a stretch. There were many inspirations.
Sure it can. It says so specifically in the declaration of independence, that which you believe is based only on Locke's natural law. I explained it to vtkey below. Can take a look.
Your last point about being optimistic may be true. However, it doesn't mean what I say is not true. We can and have the right to alter, or abolish, government as we wish. That is the freedom of self governance. It literally gives us the freedom to choose what rights our unalienable, which are granted, and which are neither. It also gives us to the right to change those rights as we the people deem so. Now it may be hard to do. I have never stated that it was easy. Only that it is within our power to do so. But the truth remains that we define our own liberty through our self governance, and that is by definition freedom.
"Freedom
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
I get that. And again, you are using it totally incorrectly.
Rights are inherent. They are not granted by government. Government can only restrict rights. The same is true of freedom. Government can never give freedom, it can only take it away. Our government was designed as it was in order to maximize the freedom of the people by minimizing the government interference.
I love the dialogue between you, Vtkey, and me, and you're very articulate in what you're trying to say. You just have some misconceptions about Constitutionalism, historical context, and political theory. Reading (and understanding) Hobbes, Locke, and Paine, with a little Rousseau thrown in for flavor will help you better understand the ideas of the founders. Reading the Anti-federalist papers and the Federalist responses is also necessary to get a full view of original intent. And Tocqueville gives a great look at America in its young years directly after the founding. It's a long, rather boring, reading list, but it'll really open your eyes as to what freedom, liberty, and government are all (supposed to be) about in America.
My response to vtkey below is pretty much a reply to this as well. I also have enjoyed the debate. But let me summarize my point and then speak about Locke and Natural Law:
rights, inherent/endowed/unalienable, can always be felt and philosophized. you can be oppressed and feel you deserve these rights. believing in them in whatever manner you feel they are endowed does not make you free unfortunately. The specific freedom we enjoy is that to control which controls us, which is liberty. A liberty to secure those rights that natural law endows in the manner we see fit. Without the freedom to govern ourselves natural law is nothing more than wishful thinking of an oppressed people.
In fact, I have read everything that you have listed. In particular, the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is something I have been studying since I was in high school. I feel confident to say that I know as much or more than most.
The problem you are facing is that you are assuming that the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke was in itself a freedom. It is not. It is a belief that everyone has certain inherent moral rights that should be respected. However, without the means in which to freely secure those rights as you see fit, you are not free. You simply hold a belief you are endowed something which you do not have.
If you've read Locke's Second Treatise then you know that he specifically illustrates that the right of the people as a Common-wealth are empowered to change government that is unfitting as to maintain the natural law. Without that power then natural law is not freely enjoyed, inherent or not.
If you know more about Locke you know that he and Hobbes actually were in contention about many things with natural law. Locke drawing inspiration from Aquinas which is the inspiration of Jefferson to proclaim the right of Independence of Monarchic rule, through revolution. Locke specifically states people have the right to overthrow unjust rule if life, liberty and property are not protected.
What you mean, and are not interpreting correctly, in regards to Locke's natural law in regards to freedom is the idea that every individual is naturally free. This however, is merely only the beginning of what Locke writes. From that pure state of natural freedom he goes on to ascribe how we are free in a society of man, politics and government, whereby each context changes the state of freedom.
Locke speaks about tacit consent to government and how that affects the natural freedom, and clearly states that an individuals tacit use of that which the government embodies changes the nature of that freedom. He uses the example of the foreign resident walking down the government roads that which by use of the roads has a tacit agreement to abide by the rules of the government in which those roads are governed. He states that a child's acceptance of property under certain governmental rule is a tacit acceptance to governmental rules on property. BUT, and this is the point, he states that the individual has the right to dissent and alter or overthrow how they are governed, or who is governing them. he states, specifically this is the protection of liberty. This is perhaps the largest point of contention between him and Hobbes.
liberty is defined as: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
freedom is defined as: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
The right to control that which controls us is liberty, our freedom.
I urge you to go back and reread Locke and his Second Treatise to understand it more. As well as Bacon who was also a big inspiration to Jefferson.
I had a draft answer that would have been similar to Highty Tighty's response, below, but as his response also reflects my thoughts on this, I'll leave it at that.
I think we have vastly different understandings of Locke. That, or you simply disagree with him (which is totally fair). What I took from the Second Treatise (and what was solidified by my professors at Tech), was that man starts out with total freedom. This is complicated by encountering other men. Others will, and often do, infringe on our rights to life, liberty, and property. It is far more difficult for individuals to secure their rights, so they collectivize and form a small, limited government designed solely to protect them from others infringing on their rights. For this security, we give up a small amount of freedom/self-determination. But the major point is that individuals should largely be left to their own devices and that the proper role of government is solely to secure life, liberty, and property from abuses by other members of the community. From this, I'm not sure how you can take away your understandings of freedom, self-governance, and rights. The collection of your comments sounds far more influenced by Rousseau's take on social contract theory.
As to Hobbes, of course I understand the fundamental differences between he and Locke's philosophy. However, the most relevant parts of Leviathan are not his advocacy for monarchic rule, but the early portions where he describes the state of nature and the need for government (covenants without swords are but words is one of my favorite lines ever), which Locke then uses as the baseline for his Second Treatise.
hmm... interesting. I both agree and disagree.
Not sure how this differs from what I said in post: What you mean, and are not interpreting correctly, in regards to Locke's natural law in regards to freedom is the idea that every individual is naturally free. This however, is merely only the beginning of what Locke writes. From that pure state of natural freedom he goes on to ascribe how we are free in a society of man, politics and government, whereby each context changes the state of freedom.
So it seems we agree so far. Up until here:
I definitely do not interpret this from Locke. He expressly states that government is required, and not merely to leave people to their own devices.
Yes. He does state government is required. In the extremely limited capacity I described above. In all other cases, man should be free to do as he will, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
What he says is that government is limited to the public good. "no other end but preservation"
From what you said above I am assuming you have read Tuckness, who stated that Locke's view on the role of government as a power to promote the common good including such things as improving the military, strengthening the economy and infrastructure, and so on, provided these steps are indirectly useful to the goal of preserving the society.
That is not a limited capacity. That isn't what Locke said. He view on government is that it is as big or as small as it needs to be to ensure the public good.
Our government was established to protect the rights we believe are inherent.
1) Government is NOT freedom. It's the opposite of freedom. We believe in limits in government in order to protect our freedom. Look up the word freedom in the dictionary.
2) Amendments become part of our Constitution. They are inseparable from it. Once added, they are every bit as binding as anything else in the Constitution, and require the same Congressional action to change them. The first 10 Amendments are so important as to be named "The Bill of Rights". The Constitution doesn't "grant" us rights. It enumerates and protects those rights that we assume to exist. It's not even an exclusive list, meaning there are others, but these are the ones so important as to be enshrined in our governing document.
3) If you cede a freedom to the government (In other words, if you allow a new law to get passed), it's pretty difficult to change it. Look at Obamacare. 'Nuff said?
4) There are two fundamental flaws in your argument. One, you claim that freedoms aren't rights. That's incorrect. Freedoms and rights aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, several (if not all) of the rights delineated in the Constitution ARE freedoms. The right to bear arms is simultaneously a right AND a freedom. Two, you suggest that freedom (or rights) are granted by our government. Our government was established in order to protect and preserve the political freedom that we believe we already had the right to. We didn't establish a government that then generously threw us a few rights.
5) You pretend that self governance is the only freedom we have. It's not. It's one of the freedoms that we established for ourselves. We granted that to ourselves based on the other rights that we assume to be there.
I offer this as evidence that our government was established to preserve the rights we assume we already have:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
That's how our rights are granted. We are endowed them by our Creator. We instituted a government in order to secure them.
reply as per number:
1) Never said government is freedom. I said the freedom we enjoy is self governance. A self governance that can give us rights to things such as guns which we were denied under British rule. We established a government to ensure our freedoms. We were not free prior to establishing that government. Colonists wishing it were true did not make it so, they had to fight for it and build a country with government to make it so, which by definition (def: the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement) is freedom.
2) Where is it written that amendments are inseparable? We can amend the Constitution and we can repeal amendments. That is how our government works. It does not, and has never operated how you describe. Nothing is unassailable. Those first ten amendments were ratified ( def. to approve and give formal sanction to) which is to be granted:
The were not just enumerated one day on the steps of congress and written down on parchment after the Constitution. It took a long process for Madison to propose and get approvals. That is the process of ratification. Cannot be escaped. It's simply how it happened.
3) So you mean to say that government cannot repeal Obama's health care plan? Of course they can. Again, it is precisely how our government works so that we can change or repeal anything that we need to. I'll forgo the snarky "Nuff said?" because there is no argument here. Anything can be changed, that's how our government works.
4) One, They are literally called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Freedoms. Only one amendment in the Bill of Rights even has the word freedom and that is the 1rst amendment. It was written in to specify the nature of "certain unalienable rights" as written in the Declaration of Independence. These five freedoms of the 1rst Amendment to be considered unalienable, including the Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly and Petition. Notice that those freedoms do not include guns because it is a right, specifically so, else it would have been included in the inalienable freedoms expressly written in the 1rst Amendment.
Two, I have never said freedom is granted by government. I said rights are granted by government. If it has been ratified then it has been, by definition, granted. The aptly named Bill of Rights included.
5) I never said self governance is the only freedom. I said it is the freedom that the Founding Fathers created the the government on, so that we can at some point in the future have this debate and know that if the necessity arises we can indeed change the manner in which we govern ourselves. Including whether or not to control guns.
and this from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
makes no mention of guns as an unalienable right. Wishing it so does not make it so. Those rights endowed to everyone by the Creator was left vague so that it can be interpreted, which the States wanted clarification on, which as I explained above is the purpose of the 1rst amendment, and none others. But you should pay more attention to the line that you cut off:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Self governance sets us free because we can interpret how we are to be governed on our own, and alter, or even abolish, it when we deem necessary. That is inclusive of everything, even guns.
1) Self-governance isn't a freedom. The right to self-govern is a right that we established by breaking the bonds with the English monarchy, and it happens to be the one that secures all of other rights.
2) The Amendments are inseparable from the Constitution in the sense that they are treated with the same reverence and authority as the rest of the Constitution. They are incorporated into it. It doesn't matter how long it took to propose them or ratify them, and it doesn't matter who wrote them. They are now considered a part of the Constitution, and are equal in stature to the original words of the Constitution. To say that the rights in the Bill of Rights were granted by the document is conceptually imprecise. The idea of our Constitution is that we believe that human beings were created with rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. We don't have to request them and be granted them from a monarchy. We had them even before we had a government. We established a government and codified them into law so that our laws would protect those rights. It's our bond with each other.
3) I think it's theoretically possible to repeal Obama's health care plan, but very unlikely. The point there is that once you pass a law, it's purposefully difficult to rescind it. Which is why it makes sense to think it through carefully before it's passed.
4) Rights and freedoms aren't mutually exclusive. Not that it really matters. What specifically protects a right in a legal sense is the fact that it is written into the Bill of Rights. If it's written there, it's protected.
5) I think the Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear why we established a government. It was to secure and protect the rights endowed by our Creator. We don't get our rights from the Constitution, they're just codified there. The Constitution dictates how we will govern ourselves, and what we consider to be protected rights. The right to bear arms is among those protected rights.
This doesn't mean we can't have laws related to guns. There is lots of middle ground in the debate. The real problem is that the debate is being held between the two extremes on the issue, and neither trusts the other.
There are lots of things we can do related to these mass shootings. Better laws regarding mental health seem like a slam dunk to me. For some reason, though, both sides take a "my way or the highway" approach, and often the sensible solutions that it seems everyone would agree to get cast aside.
Don't understand why this was downvoted. Sure it wasn't a bare minimum response but I don't feel like it warranted a downvote.
Can confirm that it was not me.
but I suppose time to end it anyway, we are not going to convince each other. personally, I enjoyed the debate.
Can confirm, because of this, DAMN I love this community! Continued prayers for the fams in Oregon.
I'll come back later and respond, I just don't have the time right now. I threw in the lol to hold the spot, so I could actually respond near the comment.
no worries. no offense taken. If you do respond I will be happy to read it.
I have enjoyed the read. Thanks to both of you for staying level headed.
We disagree fundamentally on what is freedom. You believe rights and freedom are the same, while I do not.
It would be fair to say that most oppressed people in history believed they deserved better than they were getting, that they had a right to a better life. We as colonists believed that, just as persecuted peoples in history had. Does that make us free just because we believed we are endowed with those rights yet still oppressed? No. It does not. Those are rights. Only rights. Rights that we believe in no doubt and rights that we feel are endowed spiritually, soulfully, or otherwise. But having those rights endowed in us as individuals from any beliefs we have does not set us free. What set us free is revolution and the formation of a government that secured those rights. What maintains that freedom is the opportunity we afforded ourselves to determine how we are governed. Self governance is our freedom. Without it no rights, endowed spiritually by our Creator or legally by our government, can be secured or enjoyed by anyone. Without it we are still oppressed and without liberty, hence freedom.
The idea that anything in our governance is unassailable is precisely opposite to the foundation of our country that fought for the right to choose how we govern ourselves. We revolted against a rule that was unassailable and established one in which we the people have the right to empower, or if need be alter or abolish. That right of power to control that which controls us is liberty, is freedom. There is nothing, not a single thing in our governance that is unassailable. Would certain things be difficult to change? Absolutely, but that's the point. Look at this debate on gun control. It is not a simple decision, and again that is the point. Difficult decisions should be difficult to make. It should require a democratic process of people coming together to push for change through discourse. If it did not, and could not be changed at all then we are not free. We are once again oppressed. This fortunately is not the case. You saying anything is inseparable or unassailable is flat out wrong. It has never been written, nor upheld that this is the case. Ever. History proves you wrong.
Guns are not an endowed right by our Creator, nor unalienable as deemed in the Declaration or Constitution written by man. It is a granted right by our government. Again, history proves this true. It was a proposed amendment/change that was debated, ratified and granted. A prohibitory control on government, but granted through debate, ratification and government process nonetheless. This is exactly how it happened in history. Just because you say it didn't happen that way does not make history change. We have the power to alter or abolish that right as we see fit. We have liberty to do that because we govern ourselves, hence we are free to do so because we govern ourselves. If we did not have that liberty/freedom to self govern then we are, as stated, once again oppressed without rights.
We disagree fundamentally on what is freedom. You believe rights and freedom are the same, while I do not.
I don't believe I said that. What I said was that they overlap, which is not to say that they're the same. What we disagree about is the origin of freedom. Some feel that freedom is innate, and that our government was formed to protect that innate freedom. Government that is not of the people (and sometimes the ones that are representative, as well) do a terrible job of protecting those freedoms that we should have as a right of being born. Why should some men tell others what their rights are? Should freedoms and rights be an accident of birth? Or are all men created equal, with certain inalienable rights?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It seems clear to me what this means, and where they believe our rights come from. I don't even see much debate on whether rights and freedoms overlap.
You seem drawn to the circumstances under which we formed out government. We broke the chains of our prior government, and in doing that were free to form our own. We gained political freedom from doing this. But I think it's a critical mistake to then believe that this is now the origin of all freedoms and rights of man. Do those men who are less fortunate than Americans have the same rights? Should they? Because if you believe our rights are granted us by our government, then it may make sense that those in other countries don't have those rights, and that this is just. I disagree. I think part of our premise as a nation is that others should follow our example of self-governance, so that they can recapture the freedoms and rights that they've been stripped of by their government.
You're completely distorting my view on the flexibility of our government. Yes, our Constitution, Amendments, and laws can all be changed. My point wasn't that laws can't be changed, but that there is a tendency for all government to expand it's authorities. Once you cede a freedom, the likelihood is that you'll never get it back. If you allow the government to regulate something, what are the odds that later the government will decide that it no longer needs regulation? Let's just call them low. So we should be careful when establishing laws. Government solutions to problems are almost always more government, and an unreasonable amount of government is established in order to fix problems that government created in the first place.
I didn't intend to respond, but I feel compelled to, as we disagree fundamentally on the origin of freedom and rights.
[Continued in next post]
As far as your last paragraph is concerned...
Guns are not an endowed right by our Creator, nor unalienable as deemed in the Declaration or Constitution written by man
Just because you say it didn't happen that way does not make history change.
I never said either of these things. My discourse on freedom is pointing out that freedoms are innate, and we have the freedom to do anything that our government doesn't restrict.
But honestly, it doesn't matter if "the right to bear arms" is considered a freedom or a right. In a legal sense, it's a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. It's not assumed, it's actually written there.
If we did not have that liberty/freedom to self govern then we are, as stated, once again oppressed without rights.
Our rights are secured by out government. Even with no government, we'd have those rights, as they are innate. We just wouldn't necessarily have a government to secure them.
You saying anything is inseparable or unassailable is flat out wrong.
I never said anything was unassailable. Again, nice try. I think my words were pretty clear on this. The Amendments aren't any lesser of a governing document because they are Amendments. Every word in the Amendments is just as sacred as if it had been written into the original Constitution. They are protected by the same rules as the Constitution.
Nobody here is saying you can't change the Second Amendment. If you've got the votes, have at it. I don't think you'll be successful in getting 2/3 of Congress to support that anytime soon.
The kind of debate we're having here does show that we need to keep constant vigilance over the rights we have, as there will always be people trying to take them away. Like Benjamin Franklin said, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. "
I saw what you edited out and thanks for that. I think if the conversation is getting to the point where it is upsetting to either side then should call it a day. But I really do appreciate the reply, so will respond in kind.
A few posts up HERE you wrote:
we disagree about this as I said. rights and freedoms are not the same. And if you really know your history here then you know that every word of the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights was inordinately scrutinized. If the word was to mean freedom they would have written freedom. They are used separately and uniquely on purpose.
Freedom being innate: You and HightyTighty are both talking about the innate freedom of natural law. yes, there is an innate freedom that everyone is endowed. But as I said in my last post, it means nothing if you are not in fact free. Do you think slaves did not feel endowed certain rights? of course they did, but they were not actually free. IMO this is what you are missing. The creation of our country, and it's Declaration that "all men are created equal" was not to state that every colonist is now innately righted the ability to do as the please because they are now free and have an innate freedom. You must read the rest of the Preamble which provides context to it's first sentence, specifically the very next sentence:
The Preamble and Declaration of Independence is the establishment of government, not of natural law or innate freedom. A government "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Again, as I have explained, this is liberty. Our freedom.
I have never said this. I don't believe it is the origin. You are talking about innate freedom that anyone can feel. I have stated I agree with that. I've also stated and exhibited that innate freedom on it's own does not make you free. If you read what I wrote above to HightyTighty regarding Locke is that what you and he are talking about is about natural freedom in it's pure state, and unfortunately stopping there. Your superficially cherry picking Locke's notion of natural law without the context in which Locke explains how natural law is applied in society. No one in the United States is innate free to do as they please. This misses the point of natural freedom entirely.
I don't think I am. You literally wrote this in a post above:
Either they are inseparable or they are not. The fact is that they are not inseparable. Everything can be changed or abolished. Whether it is difficult to do, or difficult to get back IMO is meaningless. We have the power to do either, and with difficult decisions it should be difficult. But many regulations are changed every year. To take something completely off topic to illustrate look at the endangered species act and the list it regulates. It is has been changed many times over. Look at what is happening with marijuana right now. Change can happen, to anything. The fact that it is difficult to do is both premeditated by the Founding Fathers and a very good thing.
I never said it was assumed or protected. I said it can be changed. It is a right and therefore can be changed because we are free to self govern. That is true. And my point about guns not being an endowed right or unalienable is in response to your claims that the Bill of Rights are inseparable, protected and a freedom as illustrated above in this post.
Again, you are talking about something that is meaningless without actually being free. If the colonists felt that innate freedom was actually freedom then they would have never revolted. But that didn't happen. Locke states that innate freedom is not freedom without the power to maintain it by government. Jefferson wrote in the Preamble of the Declaration that a government of the people must be establish. Having innate freedom under oppression is not freedom.
actually what you said was that they are protected and inseparable. That means that you believe it cannot be defeated. But as you wrote just below this it can actually happen and requires a very difficult process to do so.
My basic point is this: Nothing is concrete. We are free to govern ourselves and that is specifically what makes us free. To control what controls us. Innate freedom is indeed endowed into everyone, but other than spiritually setting you free in your heart, mind and soul it alone does not make you free. The ability to govern and change that governance at our own behest is the explicit freedom that we all enjoy. Without it no rights endowed or granted, no freedoms innate or unalienable can be enjoyed.
Can I get one or both of you to sign something that will give me credits for reading this exchange?
haha, absolutely. email me something.
You said: "we disagree about this as I said. rights and freedoms are not the same."
I didn't say they were the same. I said they weren't mutually exclusive. You see the difference, right? Freedom of assembly is a freedom AND a right. The right to bear arms is a freedom AND a right. Need we go on debating the difference between a freedom and a right?
You said: "No one in the United States is innate free to do as they please. This misses the point of natural freedom entirely."
If you can point to anywhere I said that, I'll send you a photo of me wearing a UVa hat. My argument was, and still is, that freedom is inherent, and that man gives up some of that freedom in order to live in a society.
You said: "A government "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Again, as I have explained, this is liberty. Our freedom."
That, as I state previously, is where we disagree. We don't get freedom FROM the government we GIVE UP freedom in order to have a government to protect our rights and to provide for our common security. It's a fair trade.
You said "Again, you are talking about something that is meaningless without actually being free."
No, it's not meaningless. Self-government is the means by which we secure our rights, but your rights don't exist only if you have the power to enforce them. We believe that every person, by virtue of birth, has human rights. Some countries don't respect them, or disagree which rights people should have, but we believe in a whole list of rights that exist regardless of the power to preserve them. If your government takes your life, does it mean you didn't have the right to live? No. It just means you were powerless to protect that right.
You said: "actually what you said was that they are protected and inseparable. That means that you believe it cannot be defeated"
No, that's not what inseparable means. It means exactly what I detailed that it meant. I was very clear on it. It just means Amendments are just as sacred as the rest of the Constitution. It can be changed with a 2/3 vote of the House and Senate, AND 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
I didn't say it couldn't be changed. What I said is that it's very difficult to change it, which is why that's only happened 17 times since the Bill of Rights was ratified. If you want to change the Second Amendment, that's all you need to do.
In your last paragraph, it seems you've finally come around. I've maintained all along that we have certain freedoms and rights that we believe are innate, and that we formed a government to secure those. That's really just a restatement of one line in the Declaration of Independence, but I think it's conceptually different than what you are arguing.
It seems that you're arguing that you only have the right if you have the power to protect it. I think that everyone born is entitled to human rights, even if they don't have the power to protect them. We don't get our rights from our government. We cede some freedom in order to establish a government to protect our rights.
You say that rights ARE freedoms. You say they are inseparable and not mutually exclusive. Yet they are. And it lies in where you believe guns are a freedom. They are not. It is not written that way. It is a right, exclusive to freedom. The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that speaks to freedom is the 1rst Amendment.
Innate freedom: You keep stating that people have these freedoms no matter what, whether oppressed or not. I have literally stated the very same. The issue that you keep avoiding is that innate freedom under oppression is not freedom. The definition of freedom is this:
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Were colonists free under British rule? No. Were slaves free under American ownership? No. Neither group had the power or right to behave as freedom is defined. Did they all have innate freedom? yes. But they were not free.
I said that to illustrate my point, not to say you said it. My point being that innate freedom on its own does not make one free. Yes, as per the philosophical understanding of innate natural freedom we give up some of that freedom to government. But as I pointed out above and several times before, innate freedom is not actual freedom. It is a belief in moral rights. Actual freedom is as defined above. Our self governance gives us that definition of freedom which preserves as much of our innate freedom as we so choose.
Meaningless: Look at what I wrote after the sentence you quote. Answer the question. Did the colonist feel content with innate freedom? Or did the revolt to become free? This is to illustrate the difference in how you and I regard freedom. I believe in everyone's innate freedom, but I don't believe you are actually free unless you have the definition of freedom. Under a rule of law that cannot be changed by the people there is no freedom. Yes, everyone still has innate freedom but they are not actually free.
The definition of inseparable is this: unable to be separated or treated separately
that means you believe that it cannot be separated. But it can. It can be separated by being abolished. If we so choose that is how we the people wish to govern ourselves then that is exactly what we are free to do, and it will be separated from the rest of the Bill of Rights. The difficulty of doing it is pointless, because it can in fact be done.
No. Incorrect. I too, as I have said, believe everyone is entitled to human rights, even if they don't have the power to protect them. But that entitlement does not make us free. What made us free is revolution and installation of a government of the people. To control what controls us, my point from the very beginning. Self governance is freedom. Your point about innate freedom is a belief of moral rights, one which I share, but not actual freedom.
these responses are getting more and more difficult to read. Pretty soon we'll be arguing political theory one character at a time...
Going for one word per line.
This post is only to correct mischaracterizations of my statements.
You say that rights ARE freedoms. You say they are inseparable and not mutually exclusive.
I didn't say that. I said they weren't mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean they're equivalent, it means that they overlap.
[Amendments vs Constitution] "that means you believe that it cannot be separated."
I was pretty clear on what I meant. And it's not whatever you're arguing. Go back and read it again. My point, and I stated it plainly, was that the Amendments are considered part of the Constitution, and that changing them requires the same process. I don't see that that's confusing in any way.
Continued as a new posting, below.
Is it game time yet?
Please. It's time.
I'm sorry, but I have to say this....You (vtkey) sound like Thomas Jefferson.
I'll take that as a complement, notwithstanding the University he established. He meant well.
I guess I'll do the whole preface thing: I am a gun owner. I have a .22 long rifle and Chinese-made SKS. I don't hunt. I acquired the guns because, when I was doing student ministry at Tech, taking suburbanite students who had never shot before to the range out in the national forest was a popular bonding activity. It's fun to shoot stuff. It's fun to work at getting more accurate (as much as you can with my guns). Ostensibly, I also have the guns for protection, but since I don't exactly sleep with them under my bed, I'm not sure how that would work... I guess I'm moderately prepared to aide in the defense of America when Red Dawn happens.
OK, now that I've established a little bit of credibility (maybe?), I want to address something.
There's this idea people keep bringing up that freedom and control are opposite (not Fernley, I'm actually sort of agreeing with this quote). I think I can say that this is an oversimplification. We cannot say, in black and white terms, that freedom always disappears with the introduction of control or, if we do say that, then we are using very narrow definitions of freedom and control.
Here's an example: creating a personal budget. Before I learned to budget, I had the "freedom" to spend money however I wanted, but always had to worry about exceeding my means. In the end, the only safe thing was to try to spend as little as possible and hope that was enough. It was a very stressful experience that, frankly, didn't even work. So then I introduced some controls. I figured how much I needed for essentials like rent and food and other regular bills. I decided how fast I wanted to pay off my loans and save for goals like a car/house/whatever. Then I set up limits for what I could spend on everything else. I knew that if I didn't drop more than, say, $100 in a month on eating out, then I would be in good financial shape (at least as good as my plans allowed). The introduction of controls actually resulted in more freedom for me. I could make decisions to do more than I had before without guilt or worry. In fact, by limiting myself, I avoided further limitations down the road (like having to live while working my way out of credit card debt).
Now I'm not saying that this is a direct analogue to gun control, I just want people to admit that there are situations where instituting control, even to an outside source allows for more freedom. We've all seen examples of this going to far and being abused (socialist, communist states and the like) and that's why there is such a backlash, I assume, but to completely discount the idea is foolhardy and, honestly, very inconsistent with how most of us live our lives.
Along the same lines, I want to throw this out there: every day we submit to traffic laws that exert control on our lives. A reasonable person, presumably, could drive safely without being told how to do it, but what happens when driving is considered a right and most everyone does it? My sister just moved to haiti and was excited to show me the Port-Au-Prince episode of "Don't Drive Here." I was terrified. Seriously. I am so glad I live in a country where we've decided to cede our right to complete automotive autonomy in exchange for freedom from chaos on the roads (ok, maybe not South Carolina).
Another point that I take issue with is the idea that guns are just a tool for bad people to use for bad things and for good people to use for good things. A bad person will kill with a gun, a knife, or a bic pencil if he is intent on killing. A good person can be trusted with all of the above. This is factually correct, but one must take scale into account. Why is it that jaywalking is never enforced, but running a stoplight is a serious driving infraction? They are very similar offenses, right? The difference is the scale of the end result. A car speeding through an intersection illegally poses a much higher risk to public safety. The point is, we live our lives under the assumption that if an action causes enough damage, we should work harder to prevent it through whatever means possible. So it is incongruous for us to completely discount this idea when it comes to gun control.
TL;DR - I like guns. I want responsible people to have guns, but have no idea where to set that bar. I think some voices in the pro-gun crowd do their side a disservice by putting out arguments inconsistent with how life actually works.
great post. Agree with everything you said.
1) Using a gun or owning one doesn't give anyone more credibility in the gun control debate. It's like saying "I pay taxes, so that makes me an expert on tax policy.", or "I use health care, so I have more credibility in the health care debate." You have a right to an opinion, but people who don't own guns also have a right to an opinion, and might be just as expert on gun policy. Being a member of a group doesn't mean you are the voice of that group.
2) The freedom vs control debate. "There's this idea people keep bringing up that freedom and control are opposite" "We cannot say, in black and white terms, that freedom always disappears with the introduction of control or, if we do say that, then we are using very narrow definitions of freedom and control."
Those aren't "narrow" definitions of those terms, they're the definitions. Those are opposite things. Freedom is on one end of the spectrum, and control is on the other end. More control is less freedom, and more freedom is less control. There isn't an alternative way of looking at it. "Freedom from chaos" is sort of a disingenuous way to equate control with freedom. I'm not saying that control and organization are bad, but they aren't freedom.
The example you provided, of having a budget, isn't an example of gaining freedom even if it feels that way. You had more freedom before you established a budget. You gave up some freedom to establish your budget, and that gives you some comfort/security. You don't have more freedom, you have less, even if it's voluntary. You can keep trying to find an example of giving up freedom to gain freedom, but I think you'll find that you're actually trading freedom for security or some other benefit. Or maybe even no benefit. Sometimes we give up freedom and don't even realize we're doing it. This happens when we allow the government (or companies) to encroach our privacy without understanding whether we're getting anything in return.
"I am so glad I live in a country where we've decided to cede our right to complete automotive autonomy in exchange for freedom from chaos on the roads"
Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right sanctioned in the Constitution. You don't have a right to drive. The government can grant or withdraw your driving privileges. You get too many speeding tickets, you lose your license. You submit to driving laws in order to gain the privilege to drive on a public roadway. In spite of that, you can choose to drive however you want on your own private property. You want to drive on the left? Go for it. You want to drive really fast? Feel free. But you don't have a "right" to drive on public roads. So society can dictate any rule they want, as long as they don't interfere with your Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Am I willing to cede some freedom on the roads in order to have organization? Absolutely. I'm giving up the right to drive however I want so that others have to do that, too. In this case we as a society are trading freedom for safety. But we should make no illusion that we aren't making that trade. We're just valuing our safety more than the freedom to drive whatever speed we want. Mostly because we don't trust individual judgment over our collective judgment.
Regarding the gun debate, the same concept applies. We can give up our freedom to own guns in order to gain more security, and the debate is where to draw that line. Some feel that there should be no restriction, and some feel that all guns should be confiscated in the name of security. Most of us are somewhere in the middle (and according to polls, in favor of gun ownership).
you are absolutely right. I was not trying to put myself out there as an expert on guns or gun policy. I only brought that up to make it clear that I'm not in the #gunsareevilandhavenoreasontoexistewwomgwhywouldanyoneeverwantagunsureletsbanthembecauseitwouldhavenobearingonmylifeanyway crowd.
1: So I don't really have a dog in this
fightdebate.2: I didn't even read your post (no offense) but I wanted to put this here in the middle somewhere
3: At first I was like...
4: and then I saw this, thought it was pretty funny...and relevant
Very funny, but who gets to decide who gets light sabers?
This guy.
I've always thought that it would be fun to do a fan film in mold of a history documentary talking about the battle of Naboo from Episode 1 that gives Jar Jar too much credit for the victory and points out things like how he pulled open the back of the cart carrying the Boomas as they were falling back destroying a lot of the trade federation droids, rallying the Gungans in the process, and destroyed an AAT.
What if a gun owner buys a gun when mentally sane, but becomes depressed, unstable, etc?
What if a family member/friend of a gun owner takes the gun without the gun owner knowing?
Well said I wish I could give more legs. gun-free zones = targets of opportunity. Law abiding citizens respect the laws. Criminals do not. Stop giving them easy targets.
Anyone crazy enough to shoot up a school and then kill themselves isn't going to stop just because the targets aren't "easy". These are not logical decisions to begin with.
Other countries are not as free, prosperous, and powerful either.
And your statement is a lie. A few years ago a crazy in Denmark, or some damned place, attacked a bunch of kids camped on an island with an knife and killed dozens. Are you for the Danes banning knives? C'mon. THINK!
Your post is incorrect on a few items, and I'm not even talking about the opening jingoism.
The attack you are referencing happened in Norway and the perpetrator definitely utilized several guns while doing it. It also doesn't help your point because that is the ONLY mass shooting Norway has had in decades...the US has had over 140 in just the last few years.
I'm not sure if the two of you are talking about the same attack or not. I remember hearing about a knife attack somewhere in Scandanavia a few years ago that did not involve guns.
There are mass attacks that don't involve guns. Here's one in China, where 29 people were killed with knives.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/
Again, that was over a year ago. These events happen with guns multiple times a year in the US. I agree that you can never prevent madmen from doing these things, but I don't think the result of that statement is "oh well". You can always try to prevent what you can.
Yeah, a few years ago, yet this happens multiple times a year in the US. I like how they do it better.
Vote with your feet?
Yeah, that adds to the discussion, America, love it or leave it, huh? That has always seemed kinda unAmerican to me.
Murder happens everywhere because human nature is everywhere.
The question is whether gun control is the answer. Chicago had 20 murders last week - with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. It should be a murder-free social liberal paradise. Hmmm.
So do this mean if we give everyone in Chicago a gun, there would be less murder?
Blatant smartassery doesn't help your argument bro. His point was clearly that criminals will be criminals regardless of what the law says. If banning guns worked, then Chicago should have a significantly lower gun-related homicide rate. They don't. Because guns are not the problem. The people using them are.
This is a guy who accused me of not thinking, and is now mouthing off about "social liberal paradise". Did I say something offensive, or are you taking offense because my opinion is not the same as yours? (legitimate question, not smartass comments).
Again as I've said before, if people are going to commit a crime anyway, why is it that this automatically means we can't try and make it hard for them to do so?
I don't take offense at all. I myself take pride in being a smart ass. But I also know from plenty of experience that it tends to weaken an argument. Debate the issue, not the person. I didn't see his comment about you not thinking or whatever, but just because he reduced his argument to that doesn't mean you have to as well. And I don't disagree that there should be something done to reduce gun violence. I simply disagree with the means you propose. Banning guns simply does not work. Restricting types and features of semi-automatic weapons has negligible effect. Something must be done, but taking the ineffectual easy road is not the way to bring about change. The issue is deeper than that. IllinoisHokie's mental health proposals and my proposal for media coverage are proposals from this thread that most could agree on and might have a real impact. As would harsher penalties for the use of a firearm in commission of a crime. Harsh penalties for those that allow access to firearms to those that legally cannot own them (whether by actively giving them a gun or through negligence). A concerted effort to staunch the flow of illegal guns. Removing gun free zones (they clearly don't work, and those that can legally carry a firearm must prove proficiency to do so in most states). The solution must be broad-based. It must be impactful. And it must respect the constitution. That won't be easy. But hasty, simplistic approaches tend to do more harm than good in the long run.
Your views are noted and accepted. We both agree and disagree on some points, and that's fine by me.
As for your initial statement, and what started this, I was not being a smartass at all when I asked if giving everyone a gun would reduce gun violence. I don't believe it will, and I don't believe there's consistent evidence to support that (the gun-free zone evidence merely shows that these monsters will choose the easiest way to do the most damage, not that they only do it because no one there has guns).
Simple misunderstanding then. Giving everyone a gun is definitely ridiculous, and even allowing everyone to own guns, much less carry them publicly is dangerous. But for those of us who have been vetted and trained, allowing us to do so pretty much everywhere seems like it could do more good than harm.
And yet we keep issuing laws for all sorts of things. Why bother by that tired logic.
And for what it's worth, gun ownership is not banned in the city of Chicago. There are limitations on sales, but owning a gun is not illegal there for a number of years now.
Actually, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Our legislators pass way too many laws, many of which are needless and largely unconstitutional.
But my point was that criminals don't follow laws. So adding more laws would only negatively effect those of us that follow them. And on this issue, it would constitute the exact infringement that we're supposed to be protected from by the 2nd Amendment.
And the problem with the criminals don't follow laws argument is the one that's been repeatedly stated, that some of these monsters AREN'T criminals until they actually shoot up a school/church/etc. And if these laws were simply stricter background checks/mental evaluations, or mandatory training, they wouldn't prevent good, law abiding citizens from owning guns, and may help reduce the problem of gun violence.
If all you're advocating is stricter background checks and mental evaluations and a tougher training requirement, then I'm in. Because those seem like common sense that wouldn't really be contentious to people who think a bit. Opposition to these basic reforms is what pisses me off about the NRA.
Is it necessarily what I would want in an ideal world? No. I admit I did not grow up with guns, and I don't feel that more guns make me safer. Perhaps that's the core of what causes the differences in opinion between me and someone else.
However, this is most certainly a compromise I would be willing to accept, because I realize that I can't necessarily get exactly what I want, but I think I can hope for a compromise that I would be willing to accept.
Well said...and you have some excellent proposals.
As I posted elsewhere, I think those who value their right to bear arms need to get out in front with these types of common sense proposals.
Most of the time, but not always, we find problems regarding the shooter that people were aware of before the shooting, but weren't able or willing to address.
Not to mention (unless I somehow missed it) throughout your posts and responses you didn't appear to address the issue of a reduction of personal and individual freedoms. I didn't down leg btw.
Throughout my posts, the only solution I've actually proposed is that if we do allow gun usage in public areas, we should train people on how to react in threatening situations so that they don't also become a danger to those around them. I don't think that's a reduction of your personal and individual freedoms.
I have expressed opinions different than others, but I recognize being able to do so is one of the great things about this country (and the internet, maybe).
By "gun usage" you're referring "those individuals that carry firearms in public setting that aren't necessarily government or public sector"? That seems a tad vague.
Yes, if you are allowed to carry a gun in a public setting, then I believe you should be trained on how to properly use it in a threatening situation so that you can defuse the situation with the minimum of danger to other people. Regardless of whether you're an upstanding citizen, or a government employee (e.g., police officers).
Ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I was dealing specifically in regards to the individual non public official carrier/owner.
Pretty much every state that issues CHLs requires a class and test on gun laws and a shooting test to determine proficiency. So there is some training required, though having taken the course, I can say the standards should definitely be upped. The shooting portion for the Texas license is pretty laughable. I could pass it using my feet instead of my hands.
This is the route I think we need to take. I refuse to believe that there is no way we can keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them to commit horrible crimes and yet still allow good, law abiding citizens the ability to own a gun responsibly.
More stringent, universal controls and checks, mandatory training that's actually useful (not just can you hit the target), etc. A valuable discussion to have with both sides of the argument, I think.
In Virginia, one needn't have ever owned, touched or much less, fired a gun to get a CCP. Gotta love on-line training.
One also needn't live in the state of Virginia. For $40 bucks, anyone can get a nonresident Virginia CHL. I know this, because it was being advertised at a gun show IN TEXAS.
I loved the lack of hassle...I was rained by a police vet and competitive shooter...I've got the basics, and didn't need the extra range time. Originally, you had to have owned a handgun for three years or have a Hunter's Safety Course to go through the online training. Not sure why it changed...regardless, the extra CCW's prevent crime just because criminals know there's a bigger chance of meeting someone equipped with the weapon and the training to deal with them.
Yes. The data is clear, more legal guns = less violence.
In 1996 -http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB841185795318576500
In 2015 -http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/28/fbi-report-more-guns-...
NOTABLY RELEVANT: U of Chicago...
interview with a professor studying the subject...interesting things he said...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
The areas with the strictest gun-control are always at the top of the violence lists, Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, etc. Again, not a coincidence.
With those cities, however, you can also say that there are other social problems which may help contribute to the violence. Poverty, lack of access to housing, education, etc.
This is not so strictly a black-and-white issue.
You can say so, but the data I've seen says that even when you "control" for those other factors, it's still those things. Have you seen the data on mass-shootings and "Gun-free" zones? Check my other comments for links. There have been 2, yes that says two, mass-shootings (4 or more people shot not in connection with another crime) on US soil, since 1950, outside of "Gun-Free" zones.
Yes, I've seen it, and I've responded to it. At this point we're just running in circles.
What are the gun laws in the areas surrounding these cities?
Until there is uniformity countrywide pointing to hose areas as if the people there magically create these guns out of thin air is meaningless.
The govt can't keep drugs out of prison, I think that tells us all we need to know... we could build walls around the country and put armed guards every 100 feet, and people will still get what they want, legal or not
For all the "gun-control" advocates on the board...maybe you would consent to read an article in Reason Magazine? (https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/04/ending-gun-violence-common-sense-...)
I'm just going to leave this here for folks who think "mental illness" is the problem:
Probably the most hard-hitting journalism out there
I'm a gun owner. I have a .22 Ruger that groundhogs and rabbits wish I didn't have, a 9mm pistol (that I do not carry but leave loaded on top of my bedroom dresser), and a 16 gauge shotgun that was my grandfathers - that I haven't shot in 20 years.
I do not conceal and carry because I do not want to ever shoot another human being. I think I'm typical of most law-abiding gun owners. However, if I was in a killing zone, and someone was concealing and carrying, and killed the shooter, I would be most thankful. I'd pay their legal fess if they stopped me or my family from being killed, but were violating the law in the process.
I giggle at those who don't own guns, don't know anything about them, and yet, based solely on some philosophical notion, have certainty that guns are a bad thing and should be restricted, if not banished - and who have very confident opinions about who gun owners are and how they think.
There are no laws that can eliminate mass shootings. There are things that can be done to reduce the incidence and minimize the damage. I think the majority of gun owners are willing to embrace those things, even if they mean a little inconvenience to them. The fact that those on the other side of the political divide always run to "ban/restrict the guns" indicates that they are interested more in that political objective then actually doing something that could actually help. And I think that is incredibly sad.
This is true. However, there is also the opposite end of the spectrum as well. Unfortunately, the world we live in has become increasingly polarized, and (especially on the internet), it can seem like no one is willing to compromise. I wouldn't just point fingers at one side of the political divide, as that merely strengthens the opposite. There are people on both sides of this debate (in a general sense) that are preventing any sort of reasonable actions from happening.
LoveVan,
I've never shot a gun. I have no love for guns (at least hand guns). Please, by all means, giggle at me.
As a centrist, I see your view (please believe that), but I also see something from the other side of the political divide "guns aren't the problem, stay away from my gun".
The fact is, guns are PART of the problem, but not the whole problem. The gun-owning side of the debate ISN'T contributing either. I don't see the NRA throwing verbal (or monetary) support to ending the stigma against mental health issues. I don't see any gun-advocacy groups lobbying for gun control (which is different than restrictions). And lets not even begin to discuss the socio-economic issues that NO ONE is talking about pertaining to gang violence.
I'm not sorry that I disagree with the second amendment. Its a stupid right. The right side of the political aisle talks about how no one is "entitled" to anything, yet the right to own something that makes it super easy to kill someone is something every American is entitled to? I don't buy it.
Guns should be a privilege. Assume legal responsibility, pass the required checks and education, and you should be allowed to have a gun. And if the gun owning world wants to continue to own them, then be a POSITIVE force of change.
BOTH sides of the aisle need to wake up.
Rant over.
What are you implying by this part of the sentence?
he's implying you read the full sentence for starters.
let's not do the thing where we take part of a sentence without the contextual part and exacerbate it to create false contention.
boiled down to it he feels those with rights should be a force of change to make sure those rights are not used in a negative way. If there are guns then lets ALL figure out a way to make it so these mass shootings no longer happen.
This brings up a good point. You reside and work in China, right? Do you currently possess a firearm?
Nope
Ok. Do you hold dual citizenship?
Nope. USA only.
Guns are part of the problem? I'm not sure.
If I put my loaded Ruger on a tripod on my front porch with the safety off and pointed it toward the steps leading up to the porch, the odds that anyone would be hurt by that are so astronomically low that they aren't worth talking about. However, if a person has their finger on the trigger, or is in the vicinity of that gun, now the odds go up considerably that something tragic could happen - and a good chunk of that increase in odds would involve accidental discharge. When you take that out of the equation, you come to the conclusion that a gun in the hands of a well-meaning individual is no to minimal danger to anyone, but a gun in the hands of a mentally unbalanced person or an evil person is a danger to everyone.
Gun control = taking guns away from well-meaning individuals and creating a situation where only the mentally disturbed and evil persons will have them. When that makes any sense to me, I'll go over to the other side.
"Gun control = taking guns away from well-meaning individuals and creating a situation where only the mentally disturbed and evil persons will have them..."
If someone actually proposes to do that, I might also switch sides. The biggest threat to gun ownership is the irresponsible use of guns. We all might be well served to find a logical, reasonable, and implementable way to reduce those pointless injuries and deaths.
What? This seems a little too much like sensationalism. I'm pro- more gun control, and by gun control I mean: making sure that people who would abuse the power of a gun don't have easy access to said gun. Says nothing about responsible, well-meaning individuals. I don't care if responsible, well-meaning people have guns, nor do I think we shouldn't allow them to have guns.
Does me wanting increased gun control mean that those responsible, well-meaning people may have to wait a bit longer, or fill out some more forms to get those guns? Yes, it most likely does. I don't think that's too much of a sacrifice to ask for.
I hear you, but....
I'm a reasonable person (I think). Show me how inconveniencing me, making me wait to by a gun, filling out some additional paperwork, or even infringing on my constitutional rights will affect the problem of mass shootings, and I'm in.
I'm a doc. I am very, very interested in health and safety, as well as preserving life. I am not interested in cures that do not address the disease. The gap in logic I am struggling with is let's go to extreme gun control and take away my .22, 9mm, and shotgun. They are gone, confiscated. How many lives does that save? Zero. Not a one - because I am not going to use those guns to kill innocent people.
I need someone to fill in that gap.
I agree. The proposed solutions should actually have a chance at solving something.
Well it's a good thing that's not what I'm proposing we work towards, then.
"The gap in logic I am struggling with is let's go to extreme gun control and take away my .22, 9mm, and shotgun."
Who is proposing that?
If I'm the gun lobby, I'm getting out in front of the issue and not just saying "no, no, no, I have my rights." The current strategy may be effective for raising money but it let's the opponent frame the debate and every tragedy makes it seem further out of touch.
What I did there was basically posit that if gun control is the answer, let's take it out to its most extreme implementation, and think about whether that would save any lives in the micro - just using my guns as an example. It's pretty clear (at least to me) that not one life would be saved by totally controlling my guns. From there, you can walk it back with some less restrictive gun control measures, but you have to answer the same questions: Will this address the problem and save any lives? And I think you keep coming up with the same answers and hitting that same gap in logic.
The answer to a difficult problem often begins with asking the right question. I would suggest the right question could be: How can we identify and intervene with those who intend mass murder, and how can we keep guns out of their hands? That's a question that gun owners and opponents should be able to have a discussion about.
"The answer to a difficult problem often begins with asking the right question. I would suggest the right question could be: How can we identify and intervene with those who intend mass murder, and how can we keep guns out of their hands? That's a question that gun owners and opponents should be able to have a discussion about."
Leg for you
One thing we need to deal with is the cluster of dysfunction we have created in the area of mental health. Many younger people don't know this, but when I was a kid, there were hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people who were institutionalized in asylums. At one time, it was possible for family members and authorities to have the mentally ill involuntarily committed. It still is, but the legal process is laborious and very expensive. Part of the civil rights movement involved the mentally ill. There were examples of abuse and neglect in some of those institutions, and there was a sense that a national sin was being committed by "warehousing" these people. So, more legal rights were extended to the mentally ill, we emptied the asylums, and dumped them on families unprepared and unable to care for them, and often, out onto the street - in the name of compassion. We provided no help to families or communities to deal with them, and we included them in the ADA, essentially creating the mentally ill as a protected group with additional legal protections. HIPAA law prevents a mental health professional or doctor from reporting the danger to police except in very narrow, specific circumstances. The result has been that the streets and our jails and prisons are our present day asylums.
So, if mental illness is a significant part of this problem, then the cluster of dysfunction we have created has to be reconstructed in a way that balances the best interests of the mentally ill person while protecting society from the most dangerous among of them. In the same way the NRA frustrates any gun control legislation, you will have all of the civil rights attorneys on the left frustrating anything that balances those social interests. It is very difficult politically to be successful in a movement that is seeking to roll back rights that have been established. It's too easy for the opposing side to say, in this case, "Those horrible people hate the mentally ill, and want to go back to the dark ages." And since the majority of the American people aren't really paying enough attention to grasp the more complex aspects of the argument for doing it, the talking point becomes how the issue is framed.
But if we want to do something real, that might actually address a part of the problem, we would need to have an honest debate on this issue. Doctors/mental health pros would have to be given more freedom to share information with police, and parents, teachers, pastors, etc. would have to be better trained to recognize a problem and have somewhere to turn to have a professional evaluation done. The process would involve profiling - which seems to be a dirty word to a lot of people - but it is how crimes are prevented and solved. Some people would get caught up into that unfairly at times, and that is why this would be a very, very hard thing to do practically and politically. Sometimes we have to cause a problem here to fix a problem there. But if we want to direct a cure to the disease, this is an issue we would have to come to consensus on.
The fact is that the devil is in the details.
Sadly, the NRA is correct that the people pushing some of this legislation have an end goal to collect all guns, and when they propose something, they're trying to set precedents or jump hurdles that make that end goal easier.
More training? I agree, though I'm not sure that would stop mass shootings. Mental health and background checks? Sure. Registering everyone's guns? Hmmmm. What's the goal of that again?
I would think the point is so you can hold people responsible if someone else uses their gun to commit a crime, or if a gun is illegally sold to someone it shouldn't be.
If the issue is that people who shouldn't have guns do, wouldn't we want to prevent those people from having guns?
So are you advocating a whole new branch of the legal system that holds people responsible for the guns that are registered to them? Or to check constantly to see if someone who currently owns a gun shows up on one of the "shouldn't own guns" database?
Ooof.
The real fear of gun owners is that once the government has such a list, then the anti-gun advocates will want to use that list to confiscate their guns. Otherwise, what would be the point of such a list? Oh, you're just going to use it selectively?
Ummmm, no thanks.
Not a whole new branch, but yes. We register cars and homes, and we track controlled drugs, I don't understand why we don't register guns?
I have no problem with responsible gun owners. But if someone sells their gun through the incorrect channels, or they fail to properly stow their weapon, and someone irresponsible gets a hold of it, I think the initial owner should be held responsible.
I don't understand this 'slippery slope' concept? I don't think that just because the government has a list means they'll confiscate it. When has this ever happened in the past?
Not a whole new branch, but yes. We register cars and homes, and we track controlled drugs, I don't understand why we don't register guns?
We register cars and homes mostly to establish ownership of our most expensive assets. (Though with cars it's also to hold car owners responsible for their vehicles, which is a fair point.)
I don't understand this 'slippery slope' concept? I don't think that just because the government has a list means they'll confiscate it. When has this ever happened in the past?
The Holocaust?
I was thinking the US gov't. I don't think it's reasonable to compare Nazi Germany to 2015 United States.
I've never been a gun owner, and I've never been in a situation where I've felt unsafe, or wanted/need one. I'm honestly trying hard to understand the other side of the argument. I just feel like if you're a responsible gun owner, you have nothing lose?
At some point the results stop being a coincidence:
https://img.njdc.com/media/media/2015/09/01/wholechart.png
those southern states
The reason that diagram isn't a coincidence is that it was designed by an advocacy group to look like that.
When you select your own data, it usually shows what you want it to show. Do you suppose the NRA has any statistics that show different correlations?
Perhaps. The NRA lost its credibility with me (I own and have owned sporting arms for nearly 5 decades and am a former NRA member) when it shifted its focus from responsible gun ownership to fear-based lobbying.
Gun deaths per capita is not a biased figure and the rates vary widely. Exploring the reasons for those differences can be a scientific, unbiased exercise. There are no states where one cannot enjoy the benefits of gun ownership, just some where it is more of a pain in the ass than others. If some of those pains reduce deaths, then I have no objection.
Gun deaths per capita is not a biased figure and the rates vary widely. Exploring the reasons for those differences can be a scientific, unbiased exercise.
Gun deaths per capita isn't a biased figure, but the conclusions based on that figure might be awfully close to whatever the interpreter wants them to be.
Our politics these days are full of diagrams like this one, which has nothing to do with scientific-based analysis. They serve only to provide 100% clarity to those who are sold on the idea. I have no problem with people using the scientific method to draw conclusions, I just hope that they are honest about their conclusions.
There is too much of this:
when there should be more realization that some things aren't science, and there are legitimate differences in philosophy and opinion. It doesn't mean we can't compromise on solutions, but it's a lot more difficult to compromise when people are working under the assumption of 100% certainty that they are right, and everyone else is stupid.
Freedom vs. security is a classic conundrum, and one we confront more every day. Should we let the government collect all of our phone data, or even content? Should we restrict people's rights to bear arms? Do we need laws about people flying drones? What should we do about driverless cars? Can you play "words with friends" on an airplane runway?
I think that may very well be a biased table; ignoring potentially important sources of data and using subjective measures in some of the columns.
The standards for truth when it comes to politics are very loose. So when I see a claim by an advocacy group (ANY advocacy group), listen to politicians' claims, or hear the opinions of talking heads in the media, I assume that I'm getting, at best, a half truth. I don't expect anyone with an agenda to tell me everything I need to know about a topic. When I hear/see a fear-based ad, I assume that the source is distorting the truth.
But we do have a lab experiment of sorts underway in that the states have employed various measures to reduce gun violence. We may be able to learn from their experiences to shape a national policy that can reduce needless deaths and at the same time not infringe upon Constitutional rights which we hold dear. Do we have an example where gun violence has dropped, post regulation? How has that regulation impacted gun owners? Is the program effective, reasonable, and implementable?
I'm not into conspiracies, I don't have an inherent fear of government, and when it comes to gun regulation, I'm not afraid of losing my right to bear arms. I would like to see fewer people needlessly injured or killed. The students at the college weren't killed trying to protect my freedoms. They just died.
True- but the scientific method is to gather all evidence, and use that to then support a theory. You should look at charts like this, and the various studies that have been posted all throughout the thread as simply pieces of evidence. No one thing should be considered as the be-all-end-all, but simply a portion of evidence to be considered along with everything else.
We can say it's freedom vs. security, but there are compromises out there that allow people to still bear arms, but may reduce the chance of a maniac using those weapons to kill innocent people. I think that's something everyone can get behind, and should. If it means that you have to go through another hoop to own a gun, is that really a loss of freedom? Is that inconvenience to you really worth more than the life of some innocent stranger who may just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I'm not going to bash all charts, but the ones presented here have nothing to do with the scientific method.
If the NRA has data that presents a different correlation, they are certainly welcome to share it. To date I have seen very little in terms of hard data from that particular lobbying organization funded primarily by gun manufacturers.
Although I would find it difficult to believe there is data out there that would support a negative correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths per capita.
There is a positive relationship, but it should be noted, given the original intent and subject of this post (wayyy too political argumentation going on above you), that gun deaths per capita includes suicides, which are approximately double the homicide rate in the US (consistently, in every study), and orders of magnitude greater than the unintentional (accidents) gun deaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death...).
Suicide. That's a mental health issue, not a gun ownership issue.
It's also worth nothing that the US ranks 13th in total gun deaths, 15th in homicides, 17th in unintentional, and 3rd in suicides in this chart.
The fact that suicides are counted in gun death statistics has always seemed disingenuous to me. If someone wants to kill themselves and chooses to do so, what gun law would keep that from happening? To counter that, why wouldn't we instead try to treat the depression or cause for them wanting to kill themselves?
For that matter, if the latest school shooter did not have a gun, would that make the world that much safer? Maybe. But you would still have someone who wants to kill other innocent people knowing the end game is their death on the loose. Taking away one means of doing that and claiming mission accomplished is ludicrous. For me to take the more gun control crowd more serious, I want them to tell me how they plan to protect me from a crazy person killing me with a bomb, knife, arson, whatever.
We have to address mental illness in this country. It is not going to be easy, but it is necessary. If your neighbor wanted to kill you, would you feel safer if his guns where taken away? Sure. But would you still feel safe when you turned off your lights to go to bed knowing they wanted to kill you even if it meant their own death? Don't think so. Crazy people shouldn't own guns. But above that, crazy people shouldn't be crazy.
I don't know if it's the case with the statistics this chart is based on, but most of the time when statistics list "gun related deaths" it includes suicides and police involved shootings that are ruled justifiable. I tend to think of this as a misleading practice, since most gun related deaths (64% in 2012) in the US are suicides. While suicides are always a tragedy, gun control isn't likely to affect anything other than the method the person chooses to use to take their life. Japan for example has almost double the suicide rate of the US, despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the world. If someone is determined to end their life, they'll find a way to do so regardless of the availability of guns.
If only this thread was about discussing these legal gun owners killing themselves first...
You make a fair point regarding the suicide data, but even that argument that "a person that wants to take a life (be it their own or someone else's) will find a way to do" to me still comes across as a lazy way to avoid having truly meaningful discussion on the issues this country in particular has with firearms.
This whole situation I find very interesting. What I find most interesting is that, if you go to social media, the comments for gun control is usually accompanied by a chart with numbers to back up arguments. The comments against gun control are usually accompanied by a meme.
Much of this can be attributed to real media tending to favor increased gun control, so there's articles and charts easily accessible for that side, while on the other side, you have the proliferation of all the ignorant, terrible "conservative" facebook pages that post garbage that people share without thinking critically. Before anyone on here takes offense at me ragging on "conservatives", I just want to say I'm a proud Republican myself, but I cannot stand all the facebook "conservatives" and tea partiers and their ilk. They drag down the party and make the seemingly few sane ones of us look bad by association.
Continued from above, response to Fernley:
Our freedom isn't only a concept relative to the prior government. Control (or government) is the opposite of freedom. We established a government, by which we gave up some freedom in order to secure our rights and common security. We declared our independence from the English monarchy, but not just so we could reward ourselves with a few rights, and our freedoms aren't just relative to the monarchy.
Our freedoms are what we consider to be innate freedoms. From the beginning of time. From the time you're born. We made an attempt to get it 100% correct, not just relatively correct. We're endowed the rights by our Creator. Our government secures them. Where have we heard that before?
The universality of rights, and the innate nature of them are important distinctions. Why? Because it means that people who have a different government still have those rights. It also means that if we are powerful enough, we should be fighting for their rights as well. So it's not just a matter of our government granting us rights. We empower our government to secure and protect those rights that we believe we already had.
Forgive me, but I cannot be mischaracterizing your statement if I am using your words.
You say the Bill of Rights are "both a right AND a freedom". They are not. If you believe so please provide proof of any mention of freedom in Bills 2 - 10.
You use the word "inseparable" but then say you don't mean that. The word means what it means. That which cannot be separated. I have pointed out the fact that they are indeed able to be separated. Perhaps you mean to use a different word, but that's the word you used and that is the word I am replying to.
These are not mischaraterizations these are clarifications of facts that you are missing or have misinterpreted.
In regards to freedom:
You again are talking ONLY about innate freedom. By innate freedom you mean natural freedom to which has been philosophized by Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas all the way down to Plato. Natural freedom is something to which all that have philosophized on it have agree is endowed to every individual, as you say, innately. All of this I have agreed with repeatedly, so perhaps you can move past it and focus on what I am asking., to which you have yet to answer:
Were the colonists content with innate freedom, or did they revolt to be free?
The reason I keep asking this is because this is a common litmus test for the state of being free.
Freedom is an absolute. You either are or you are not, free.
Absolute: Does everyone have natural freedom? Yes.
Absolute: Do you retain your natural freedom if you are oppressed? Yes.
Absolute: Are you free if you are oppressed? No.
If you had read and do know Locke, and by chance have studied his Second Treatise then you would be familiar with Sections 99 - 150 on government. In it you would see that Locke notes precisely what I am saying repeatedly to you. That while every individual is innately free that does not in fact make you actually free.
He is specifically talking about the definition of freedom. If you are under a government that does not give you the definition of freedom then you ARE NOT FREE, no matter your natural right to innate freedom. Here he is talking about all forms of government known to be instituted up until his time, which does not include self governance.
The importance of this statement is that there is a real difference between natural freedom and actually being free. Jefferson knew it and wrote about it, Locke did as well, as did Hobbes, as did every one who has philosophized about natural law, ever.
Locke also writes that until such times as when man forms a government of consent where all men freely give up their freedoms there shall not be liberty or freedom. This was before the USA and is written in historical context that there had never been such a government. And he goes on to state specifically that such a government of men coming together into a commonwealth of consent shall be the only way in which man shall be free.
and,
(emphasis mine)
Innate freedom is NOT actual freedom. Freedom has a definition and it must be that absolutely for one to be actually free. And as Jefferson and Locke both state until such times a government made of consenting people may govern themselves then those people shall not be free. Yet, a formation of a government of consent shall retain the liberty of natural freedom. Thus attaining actual freedom.
I realize you are passionate about this, but you are taking natural law out of context by representing only the very basic concept of it. What you speak of is essentially only the introduction to natural law as written by Locke in his First and Second Treatise. It may be what you personally believe it to be which is absolutely fine. However, when you are speaking about the intention of it in the formation of our government then it must be understood in the context in which it is being used. And under that context, and as history proved, the colonists born of natural freedom were not free and were forced to revolt and install a system of government of the people to be free.
There is no ambiguity here. natural freedom and actual freedom are different constructs. This is how it happened for the USA, and this is how it has always be philosophized. It is not about whether we rewarded ourselves with rights or not, it's about the necessity of self governance to be free.
Any government can be constructed to secure freedoms. Locke uses many examples of past constructs that have done just that yet whereby man was not actually free. The important distinction that you are missing is the retention of liberty to achieve actual freedom. Locke states many times that there has never been this form of government, and that one must be made so of the people, for man to ever be free. Hence, self governance is our freedom.