Another shooting... California Disability Centre

[RandyForRubio]

Ignoring the blanket collective right/individual right argument, I don't believe there's any evidence that it would actually help. The 2009 Fort Hood shooter was an Army Psychiatrist. Being in the military at all infers firearm safety. That, and 40% of shooters in this link here committed suicide. Most at the scene.

I'm not sure of what a "Gun Safety" course you're imagining entails, but if you draw it up I'd entertain the concept.

It would help with a multitude of accidental deaths, and I believe it could help with suicide as well.

Teach them how to handle a gun, how to make sure people who shouldn't be around them can't access them, treat every gun like it's loaded...basic stuff.

And that's nice you want to ignore the rights issue. Maybe we can just ignore all of them. I'm gonna go get me a slave now!

 

[Harambe]

It would help with a multitude of accidental deaths, and I believe it could help with suicide as well.

Teach them how to handle a gun, how to make sure people who shouldn't be around them can't access them, treat every gun like it's loaded...basic stuff.

And that's nice you want to ignore the rights issue. Maybe we can just ignore all of them. I'm gonna go get me a slave now!

Read the thread. Look at the history of it in the courts. It's certainly still up for debate, no matter what we were taught in school, or how either of us choose to interpret it.

Accidental deaths I can see it helping. Suicide, not so much. Mass shootings, not so much.

 

[Gameface]

Mass shootings are about the smallest of all the gun problems we have in the U.S.. Mass shootings are also probably the hardest to stop, especially since the shooters intend to die. Semi-automatic rifles are used in the least amount of homicides. Banning them would have the smallest possible effect on gun violence.

Why are so many people focused on the highest hanging fruit, that also happens to be the smallest fruit.

There's low hanging fruit out there, big juicy fruit, but the anti-gun folks are not picking it. Why?

 

[Harambe]

Mass shootings are about the smallest of all the gun problems we have in the U.S.. Mass shootings are also probably the hardest to stop, especially since the shooters intend to die. Semi-automatic rifles are used in the least amount of homicides. Banning them would have the smallest possible effect on gun violence.

Why are so many people focused on the highest hanging fruit, that also happens to be the smallest fruit.

There's low hanging fruit out there, big juicy fruit, but the anti-gun folks are not picking it. Why?

Propaganda.

 

[Gameface]

Propaganda.

Yeah that's probably why.

 

[Harambe]

Yeah that's probably why.

You could call it media coverage, political ploys... probably a number of other things.

But in the end, it's just something people end up fixating on even if it's the exception to the rule. Exposure from the news, people s**t themselves a little bit, newscasters see it as what the public is interested in, and report more on it.

 

[Stoked]

Read the thread. Look at the history of it in the courts. It's certainly still up for debate, no matter what we were taught in school, or how either of us choose to interpret it.

Accidental deaths I can see it helping. Suicide, not so much. Mass shootings, not so much.

I've entertained your idea. I have no problem doing so.

But back to reality for a moment in my response. I do not feel it is up for debate at all really. Gun rights won. All that is left is the nerves firing off in the gun control crowd after they died.

Now will it come up for debate again one day? Sure, anything is possible. But for now the gun rights crowd won. Handily.

 

[Gameface]

I've entertained your idea. I have no problem doing so.

But back to reality for a moment in my response. I do not feel it is up for debate at all really. Gun rights won. All that is left is the nerves firing off in the gun control crowd after they died.

Now will it come up for debate again one day? Sure, anything is possible. But for now the gun rights crowd won. Handily.

And let's not forget, regardless of the original intent, gun rights have been individual rights since inception. Let's also not forget, all right's are inherently individual.

 

[Gameface]

What if the U.S. did switch to a militia system? No individual person owned a gun, but they could join a private militia which had an armory and they could carry weapons from their militia's armory. The militia's would be required to provide gun safety and education training and have membership standards. Would that improve anything?

 

[Stoked]

What if the U.S. did switch to a militia system? No individual person owned a gun, but they could join a private militia which had an armory and they could carry weapons from their militia's armory. The militia's would be required to provide gun safety and education training and have membership standards. Would that improve anything?

It would certainly change the dynamic of the problem.

But no matter what you do short of confiscation the shootings will continue for decades. Even then...

 

[Harambe]

I've entertained your idea. I have no problem doing so.

But back to reality for a moment in my response. I do not feel it is up for debate at all really. Gun rights won. All that is left is the nerves firing off in the gun control crowd after they died.

Now will it come up for debate again one day? Sure, anything is possible. But for now the gun rights crowd won. Handily.

5-4 votes are about as handily as banning the ban on gay marriage; Very close and controversial.

And let's not forget, regardless of the original intent, gun rights have been individual rights since inception. Let's also not forget, all right's are inherently individual.

United States v Miller; "..Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the. National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ."". This stood for 68 years.

All rights are individual only in the meaning that any individual can claim them. That does not mean their purpose is individual, protecting that one person, or offering them complete autonomy.

 

[Harambe]

It would certainly change the dynamic of the problem.

But no matter what you do short of confiscation the shootings will continue for decades. Even then...

I think it would. A check-in check-out system would help.

But I will concede that Stoked is right in that it would still take a long time to come into full compliance. Even if, somehow, the government got away with the obtrusive door to door searches.

 

[Stoked]

I think it would. A check-in check-out system would help.

But I will concede that Stoked is right in that it would still take a long time to come into full compliance. Even if, somehow, the government got away with the obtrusive door to door searches.

I doubt this would ever have full compliance. There are millions that will openly defy this from day 1. This is one of those issues I can see causing a split in the nation. As a group the south, great plains and most the rocky mountain states (CO and NM are possible exceptions) would refuse.

 

[Harambe]

I doubt this would ever have full compliance. There are millions that will openly defy this from day 1. This is one of those issues I can see causing a split in the nation. As a group the south, great plains and most the rocky mountain states (CO and NM are possible exceptions) would refuse.

So we give them a reason to like the idea.. make the militia body responsible for the gun upkeep, maintenance. Throw in two free trips(and X bullets fired) a year required to keep your membership. Multiple types of firearms to play wi-- er.. "available to certify" on without need for purchasing; they'd just purchase the ammo and time for someone to show them how it's done, etc. Throw your "gun safety" in there, too.

Funding would be difficult, and so would finding oversight, but I think most would consider it.

 

[Gameface]

So we give them a reason to like the idea.. make the militia body responsible for the gun upkeep, maintenance. Throw in two free trips(and X bullets fired) a year required to keep your membership. Multiple types of firearms to play wi-- er.. "available to certify" on without need for purchasing; they'd just purchase the ammo and time for someone to show them how it's done, etc. Throw your "gun safety" in there, too.

Funding would be difficult, and so would finding oversight, but I think most would consider it.

Just trying to imagine what it could/would be like...

I imagine there might be a few very large nationwide militias, with some medium sized special interest type militias and then many small local militias. Getting accepted into a larger militia might come with major perks, like access to their top of the line shooting ranges, access to their high-end arsenal for training and practice sessions, a cool club-house, etc.

As I think about it, I actually think a militia system could enhance the 2nd amendment. I'm assuming that as long as the militia has the right certifications/controls they could posses military-grade equipment. The intent, after all, is supposed to be for the people to be able to resist tyranny. Well regulated militias could do that better than millions of random jackasses with guns as toys.

 

[Harambe]

Just trying to imagine what it could/would be like...

I imagine there might be a few very large nationwide militias, with some medium sized special interest type militias and then many small local militias. Getting accepted into a larger militia might come with major perks, like access to their top of the line shooting ranges, access to their high-end arsenal for training and practice sessions, a cool club-house, etc.

As I think about it, I actually think a militia system could enhance the 2nd amendment. I'm assuming that as long as the militia has the right certifications/controls they could posses military-grade equipment. The intent, after all, is supposed to be for the people to be able to resist tyranny. Well regulated militias could do that better than millions of random jackasses with guns as toys.

Galvanizing the 2nd amendment by clearing up the confusion left by the framers, Gun Safety, Gun Control, Objective Responsibility, increased public defense, and firearm variety all rolled into one.

We do good work.

 

[Stoked]

Just trying to imagine what it could/would be like...

I imagine there might be a few very large nationwide militias, with some medium sized special interest type militias and then many small local militias. Getting accepted into a larger militia might come with major perks, like access to their top of the line shooting ranges, access to their high-end arsenal for training and practice sessions, a cool club-house, etc.

As I think about it, I actually think a militia system could enhance the 2nd amendment. I'm assuming that as long as the militia has the right certifications/controls they could posses military-grade equipment. The intent, after all, is supposed to be for the people to be able to resist tyranny. Well regulated militias could do that better than millions of random jackasses with guns as toys.

I agree.

But unlike Roach I don't think they go for it.

 

[Deleted member 848]

And yet >50% of Americans want to ban Muslims from entering the country.

 

[Stoked]

And yet >50% of Americans want to ban Muslims from entering the country.

I think the ban on Muslims is absurd. I do think due diligence needs to be done on who we let in but that goes beyond Muslims. Terrorists (Muslim, Christian, domestic, eco...pick your adjective) are a very real problem.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

And yet >50% of Americans want to ban Muslims from entering the country.

Wyoming and North Dakota never looked so good. I agree that banning Muslims would be knee jerk. It's a stupid proposal only rolled out there for political points by a candidate who is so attention starved he can't seem to help himself. That said, we should be exercising reasonable precautions and they absolutely cannot allow any terrorists to enter this country through the refugee program.

BTW, I'd be interested in seeing a similar map showing christian extremist suspects, etc. My guess is that the vast majority of these shootings are actually gang-on-gang crime.