Las Vegas Shooting

[Stevicus]

None of those address my points. One being that places like England and Japan are not authoritarian, dictatorships, or tyrants, yet they don't allow guns for most people. And there is Canada, which seems to have found an ideal balance in gun ownership/restriction laws. Places like Brazil and Mexico are violent, essentially more-or-less, because drugs are illegal and the drug cartels are providing for those markets and becoming wealthy, powerful, and very dangerous in the process. And, of course, things like poverty walks hand-in-hand with violence, so, gun control won't fix all the violence in America. But, nevertheless, we can work and make great improvements in reducing the amount of accidental deaths from guns as well as make sure those who shouldn't have a gun at least have to go the extra distance to acquire one. Of course it's not full proof, but there is no excuse or reason for letting people buy a gun without ensuring they are trained to properly use, handle, and store one.
Guns and cars are two things we must take, as a society, far more seriously than what we do.

The overall point is that every country is different, and I just don't believe it's an applicable argument to say that Canada or Britain or Japan have tougher gun laws, which implies that the same results would happen in America if we had tougher gun laws.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

The UK provides for rights, yet they don't even have a constitution. They are given by a government, by the state, and no one or anything else.

Yes that's wonderful fine, but it is unlike the USA' s constitution. Their Constitution does not give rights it guarantees rights (inalienable rights as per the Declaration of Independents) rights. The documents say our rights are given by THE CREATOR.

Ask the citizens on NK or China about the "inalienable natural rights" they have.

They do not have guaranteed and guaranteed (inalienable) rights. The difference is the word inalienable. I was attempting it seems to explain that all people have inalienable rights but not all people have a Constitution that protects (guaranteed) natural rights. You can have a natural right to live but someone can violate that right and kill you.

We have freedom of association and speech, Chinese citizens don't even legally have Facebook. Nature gives us no rights, or apostasy laws would not exist anywhere, ever, not at any point in time.

Google what guaranteed unalienable rights mean. There are some that do not believe in natural rights. However the I am arguing that the USA is the only nation on earth that Guarantees via founding documents inalienable (natural) rights.

; {>

 

[YmirGF]

Gun experts are not mental health experts, and those with a psychotic disorder can indeed plan, calculate, be highly intelligent, and could carry out such an attack. They don't all start out as kids torturing small animals, they aren't always recognized/diagnosed as psychotic, and though most of those with such disorders are fine people, and handful of them do have the potential to carry out terrible attacks.
However, it can't be stressed enough that we can't even speculate too much at his mental health. He's dead now, I've not seen anything brought up that he has sought mental health services, and without being able to actually access him it's just as pointless (and unethical) to try to say certain historic figures had whatever mental illness (much like how we can't definitively say the Biblical Paul was psychotic, though his hallucinations on the road to Damascus are strong indications).

I'm quite aware of all that, Wolfie, but thanks for elucidating it for those still on the lower tree branches.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also, regarding the British, it should be noted that their possessions of Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands, and British Virgin Islands also have higher murder rates than that of the United States.

Is this the source where you got this stat?

What Are the Murder and Crime Rates in the Caribbean?

Claiming that Montserrat's murder rate is "higher than that of the US" as if this is significant is very misleading:

Finally, remember that statistics for small countries can be greatly affected by relatively isolated incidents. For example, a single murder in Montserrat in 2012 inflated that nation's homicide rate to 19.7 per 100,000 population.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The overall point is that every country is different, and I just don't believe it's an applicable argument to say that Canada or Britain or Japan have tougher gun laws, which implies that the same results would happen in America if we had tougher gun laws.

Maybe not exactly the same, but the logic of "stricter gun laws --> fewer legal guns --> fewer guns for crime --> fewer gun-involved crimes --> less murder (and suicide)" seems pretty straightforward to me. Which part is giving you the trouble? Which part do you think wouldn't apply to the US?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Google what guaranteed unalienable rights mean. There are some that do not believe in natural rights. However the I am arguing that the USA is the only nation on earth that Guarantees via founding documents inalienable (natural) rights.

; {>

Which rights are "inalienable" in the American Constitution? AFAIK, the amendment process it gives doesn't exempt any part of the Constitution from being amended.

 

[SkepticThinker]

www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths
Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all



So lets make law abiding citizens jump through more hoops before owning a legal product ? That is a hoop that does nothing but add restrictions to a system that already has too many gun laws. NO THANKS.

I do not want a government that can tell me what color to poop, and that has a camera in my bedroom. I don't want a government that jails more citizens than any nation on earth mostly for BS reasons (read non-violent drug offenders). Gun control can be added to useless and dangerous things like laws against marijuana. Its those kinds of thing I am 100% opposed to.

: {>

Yes! Especially when the product is a tool designed to kill.

People have to "jump through hoops" to own and drive a car or buy a house or to purchase health insurance, Hell, in most places you have to have a licence just to go fishing. Why shouldn't people have to jump through hoops to buy weapons designed to kill living things?

 

[YmirGF]

Which rights are "inalienable" in the American Constitution? AFAIK, the amendment process it gives doesn't exempt any part of the Constitution from being amended.

While true, in today's toxic political climate it is unlikely either party could get enough votes to add a new amendment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Their Constitution does not give rights it guarantees rights (inalienable rights as per the Declaration of Independents) rights. The documents say our rights are given by THE CREATOR.

The Constitution does not use the phrase "unalienable rights." The Declaration-a document that declared war-is where we found that and it does not grant us any rights.

USA is the only nation on earth that Guarantees via founding documents inalienable (natural) rights.

Is that why the PATRIOT Act took away our right to be secure in our persons and possessions and free from unwarranted searches and seizures, allowing the state to mass-collect data without probable cause or warrant?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So our rights are not given by the Constitution or by the government they are given by the Creator ie unalienable.

Except that the rights were all conceived, agreed upon and enumerated by men, were won by men, are enforced by men, are defended when necessary by men, and can be modified by men. There's no other creator of those rights apart from mankind.

When rights are giving by the creator it keeps the government etc from taking or changing them as time etc changes.

I have a different idea why that phrase was inserted. The Christian Bible is pretty clear about how the colonials were to think and behave:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

It's 1776, and you're declaring independence from the divinely appointed king of England. You're going to claim that it is your right to cast off the fetters of unjust government. You'd better sanctify that idea with a mention that the right to do so comes from the same source as the scriptures that command submission.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Yes! Especially when the product is a tool designed to kill.

Of course they were designed to kill. Nothing beats a firearm for meting out lethal force in areas of self-defense, equipping armies, and for hunting. Yes bad PEOPE use them for bad things. Welcome to the real (bad) world!

People have to "jump through hoops" to own and drive a car or buy a house or to purchase health insurance, Hell, in most places you have to have a licence just to go fishing. Why shouldn't people have to jump through hoops to buy weapons designed to kill living things?[/QUOTE]

Another argument from nowhere. First it is a PRIVILEGE to own an automobile, to own property and even to go fishing. To own keep keep firearms is a guaranteed right. That FACT vetted the SCOTUS trumps everything else. Besides to get a firearm one must do the paperwork do the background check, and there are severe laws for using a firearm while committing a crime. That is enough for starters. Look everyone would love to live in a dream world paradise where the lamb lies down with the lion. That will not happen as long as man rules and dominates this earth. It will happen one day when man will finally practice the teachings of Jesus. Until then we can wish in one hand and poo in the other guess which one will fill up? I don't like that I don't want that but its the way of the world.

: (>

: {>

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Guns - especially automatic weapons - make killing easier.

So do silencers (make killing easier), which was next up for Congress.

From In wake of Las Vegas shootings, no plans to bring gun silencer bill to House floor, Ryan says

"Republicans said Tuesday they had halted plans, at least temporarily, to advance a bill that would make it easier for Americans to buy gun silencers. The shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday night that left at least 58 dead and hundreds injured magnified the focus on the legislation, which passed a House committee last month."

What possible justification can there be for such legislation?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course they were designed to kill. Nothing beats a firearm for meting out lethal force in areas of self-defense, equipping armies, and for hunting. Yes bad PEOPE use them for bad things. Welcome to the real (bad) world!

Umm, okay.

Another argument from nowhere. First it is a PRIVILEGE to own an automobile, to own property and even to go fishing. To own keep keep firearms is a guaranteed right. That FACT vetted the SCOTUS trumps everything else. Besides to get a firearm one must do the paperwork do the background check, and there are severe laws for using a firearm while committing a crime. That is enough for starters. Look everyone would love to live in a dream world paradise where the lamb lies down with the lion. That will not happen as long as man rules and dominates this earth. It will happen one day when man will finally practice the teachings of Jesus. Until then we can wish in one hand and poo in the other guess which one will fill up? I don't like that I don't want that but its the way of the world.

: (>

: {>

Is this your serious answer?

You don't think people should have to be slightly inconvenienced when purchasing killing machines because it's a right? Okay then. There's an attitude I'll never, ever understand. And you're preaching the teachings of Jesus??

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily]Except that the rights were all conceived, agreed upon and enumerated by men, were won by men, are enforced by men, are defended when necessary by men, and can be modified by men. There's no other creator of those rights apart from mankind.[/quote]

One can have rights without being written that is natural law. You have them wanted or not.

I have a different idea why that phrase was inserted. The Christian Bible is pretty clear about how the colonials were to think and behave:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

It's 1776, and you're declaring independence from the divinely appointed king of England. You're going to claim that it is your right to cast off the fetters of unjust government. You'd better sanctify that idea with a mention that the right to do so comes from the same source as the scriptures that command submission.

The 'creator' is a philosophical term. Some founding fathers may not have been God fearing men, so to serve everyone the term Creator works and it excludes man.

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

You don't think people should have to be slightly inconvenienced when purchasing killing machines because it's a right? Okay then. There's an attitude I'll never, ever understand. And you're preaching the teachings of Jesus??

First I did not say that. I said we do not need MORE gun laws. The laws on the books are enough, too much really. Instead of accusing falsehoods you should ask first.

; {>

 

[SkepticThinker]

First I did not say that. I said we do not need MORE gun laws. The laws on the books are enough, too much really. Instead of accusing falsehoods you should ask first.

; {>

That's how I took what you said. You say it's a right and not a privilege and that right trumps everything else. Then you went on about some dream world, as though it's impossible to live on earth without having to live in fear of a gun massacre breaking out any minute. I live in a country where this doesn't occur constantly like it does in the US (and most people who live in any other developed country in the world can say the same). We have strict regulations surrounding gun ownership and ya know what? It works. Or at least it's working a lot better than it is in the US.

If the laws on the books are enough ("too much really"), why is it that these mass shootings just go on and on and on and on ..... ? Maybe the wrong laws are on the books and you guys need some different ones. But to just throw one's hands up in the air and proclaim there's nothing else that can be done, when people continue dying en masse, is just unconscionable to me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

First I did not say that. I said we do not need MORE gun laws. The laws on the books are enough, too much really.

Clearly untrue given recent events. Where everything he had there was legal, legally obtained and legally modified. Nobody needs that kind of firepower, and if you think you deserve it, then doubly you shouldn't have it

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First I did not say that. I said we do not need MORE gun laws. The laws on the books are enough, too much really.

How do you figure? What's your measure for "too much" or "enough"? Enough for what?

 

[Stevicus]

Is this the source where you got this stat?

What Are the Murder and Crime Rates in the Caribbean?

Claiming that Montserrat's murder rate is "higher than that of the US" as if this is significant is very misleading:

I got the stat from the link I posted above. I am aware of the population differences of all the countries mentioned, including that of the US, Canada and Australia.

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe not exactly the same, but the logic of "stricter gun laws --> fewer legal guns --> fewer guns for crime --> fewer gun-involved crimes --> less murder (and suicide)" seems pretty straightforward to me. Which part is giving you the trouble? Which part do you think wouldn't apply to the US?

None of it is giving me any trouble. It's a simple argument. Too simple. Why are you ao certain it would work? What guarantee can you give that it would lower murder rates? Chicago and DC have very strict rules, and they the highest murder rates in the country.

Bottom line: Your proposal won't work.