Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No it isn't.
Your argument is over unnecessary loss of life and whether it be from guns or cars. It's the same. Intentional or unintentional.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Your argument is over unnecessary loss of life and whether it be from guns or cars. It's the same. Intentional or unintentional.
And Article I gives Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia[.]"
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It seems the UK has gotten serious about knives now since guns are already out of the picture.
Addum
Sometimes you just can't make things up...
UK Knife Law updated March 2017 | Legal knife Carry UK
esmith
Veteran Member
There are numerous ones.
3 gun competition
IPSC
USPSA
ISPA
IDPA
Binachi Cup
Trap
Skeet
To just mention just a very few
The definition of "the militia" in the age of the Constitution's writing was quite
broad. So in a constitutional originalist sense, they're absolutely correct.
Here's an ominous quote.....
"I, for one, am quite happy to be stopped and searched for a weapon at any time."
Fun fact: I never had to go through a metal detector to get into an event venue until I went to a concert in the US.
Intrusive searches are a much more frequent thing in your country than mine, and the reason for that is our differences in firearm policies.
esmith
Veteran Member
There will always be those that have issue with firearms to various degrees from civilians should not own firearms, handguns should not be in the hands of civilians, semi-automatic firearms should be outlawed and various measures in-between; this I will call group 1. Then we have those that do not have any issue with and current Federal laws concerning firearms to any and all types of firearms should be legal with various measures in-between; these I will call group 2
The problem I see is that group 2 does not trust group 1, and why should they with the current hostility exhibited by some in group 1 toward firearms. Now group 2's problem is that they may agree with some of the more moderate ideas proposed by group 1 but again they perceive, whether right or wrong, that group 1 is on a mission to remove all or some firearms from citizens.
Now I keep hearing and reading about deaths caused by firearms. Yes in 2013 there were 33,636 deaths caused by firearms. The only problem is when you break the data down. Of the 33,636 deaths 21,175 were suicides, 11,675 homicides, 502 mass shootings (mass shooting is 4 or more in one incident), and 786 "other". Now I hear the "well if we eliminated firearms, 21,175 lives would have been saved". The only problem is that there were 19,974 suicides by other means. So, wouldn't it behoove us to concentrate on the reason behind suicides vice the instrument that caused the death. Just think 41,149 people committed suicide. How many could have been saved if the focus was on the cause and prevention of suicides vice the constant "hype" about firearms.
above data taken from How many Americans die by guns versus other means?
Look as a person in group 2 I understand some of you who are reasonable when it comes to firearms regulations and laws, but I will never come close to agreeing to those that I consider extremist when it comes to firearm laws. I think that there is room for reasonable discussion between both parties as long as the "extremist" on both sides of the argument are left out of the discussion. On and the idea of making semi-automatic firearms illegal I consider extremist. That is unless your state votes to do so.
The problem I see is that group 2 does not trust group 1, and why should they with the current hostility exhibited by some in group 1 toward firearms. Now group 2's problem is that they may agree with some of the more moderate ideas proposed by group 1 but again they perceive, whether right or wrong, that group 1 is on a mission to remove all or some firearms from citizens.
Now I keep hearing and reading about deaths caused by firearms. Yes in 2013 there were 33,636 deaths caused by firearms. The only problem is when you break the data down. Of the 33,636 deaths 21,175 were suicides, 11,675 homicides, 502 mass shootings (mass shooting is 4 or more in one incident), and 786 "other". Now I hear the "well if we eliminated firearms, 21,175 lives would have been saved". The only problem is that there were 19,974 suicides by other means. So, wouldn't it behoove us to concentrate on the reason behind suicides vice the instrument that caused the death. Just think 41,149 people committed suicide. How many could have been saved if the focus was on the cause and prevention of suicides vice the constant "hype" about firearms.
above data taken from How many Americans die by guns versus other means?
Look as a person in group 2 I understand some of you who are reasonable when it comes to firearms regulations and laws, but I will never come close to agreeing to those that I consider extremist when it comes to firearm laws. I think that there is room for reasonable discussion between both parties as long as the "extremist" on both sides of the argument are left out of the discussion. On and the idea of making semi-automatic firearms illegal I consider extremist. That is unless your state votes to do so.
esmith
Veteran Member
Then stay home
However, in all seriousness....
But be prepared if terrorist attacks continue you will start seeing more and more policies and procedures put in place.
I prefer to avoid venues which require metal detection.
So far, I've only encountered this at court houses & airports.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
A lot of things were different back then. Including the guns.
Notanumber
A Free Man
President Trump is trying to stop terrorists but he doesn’t get many thanks for his efforts.
So the presence of metal detectors - which is a consequence of your country's gun policies - is a constraint on your liberty.
I thought you were making yourself out to be the champion of liberty here, no?Then stay home
There's much more to freedom than packing heat.
esmith
Veteran Member
Have a problem taking a joke??????
esmith
Veteran Member
Do you go through screening at airports in Canada, how about court houses
hmmmm...Court Security Screening
Guess you have some issues up there.
Last edited:
Your response suggests to me that you missed my point.
I'm not arguing for a magical land where nobody ever gets searched; I'm saying that arbitrary searches are a constraint on liberty, so if you're arguing for the right to carry firearms on the grounds of "freedom," then it's important to point out that in many important ways, I'm freer than you are because your society is more armed than mine.
You have to go deal with intrusive, arbitrary searches more often than I do (again: I'm not saying I never deal with them, only that you deal with them much more).
You're also more likely to be killed by a police officer in a traffic stop than I am... because your cops have to be more ready to deal with a driver with a gun.
If I get cut off on the highway, I can flip the guy the bird with near-perfect certainty that he won't try to shoot me in response.
There are all sorts of ways that I'm more free than you are because of the differences in our nations' gun policies.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not only do I not have a problem with his fighting of terrorism, I think probably all of us here feel the same way as well. But what some of us also believe is that he should not have tried to get legislation passed that would stop any Muslim from emigrating to the States, much like he pushed during the campaign and what he tried to get passed at first when pres. The judges looked at what he proposed, matched it to what he had said previously, and they basically had ruled against him.
BTW, why did you bring this up here when this is not at all what's being discussed, nor does it relate in any way to justify as a "side-bar"? Maybe stick to the topic.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And since we are now averaging roughly 30,000 gun related deaths per year, how does that fit into anyone's concept of "freedom"? Seems to me that if one's dead, their freedom has been cut rather short.
As we're seeing with some, they worry far more about their precious toys than with the innocent lives, including children, that are being slaughtered by these weapons. Notice they don't show any sign of concern for people whatsoever-- it's their guns that are paramount. No solutions offered-- just "I don't want my toys taken away!". Sick, which is one reason why it's virtually impossible to have any kind of serious discussion with some.
Families being slaughtered in a church or theater or school is not a video game whereas we can hit "reset" and start all over again. A dead child in real life is a dead child. A person who really cares to try and help families from such tragedies looks for real solutions to real problems, and we have some real problems.
As we're seeing with some, they worry far more about their precious toys than with the innocent lives, including children, that are being slaughtered by these weapons. Notice they don't show any sign of concern for people whatsoever-- it's their guns that are paramount. No solutions offered-- just "I don't want my toys taken away!". Sick, which is one reason why it's virtually impossible to have any kind of serious discussion with some.
Families being slaughtered in a church or theater or school is not a video game whereas we can hit "reset" and start all over again. A dead child in real life is a dead child. A person who really cares to try and help families from such tragedies looks for real solutions to real problems, and we have some real problems.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
I wonder why that is? Group 1 is tiny. Group 3 consist of those who want sensible regulation. Group 2 is terrified of them because they have been fed the lie that group 3 is group 1 when clearly, looking at polling, it isn't.
Of the three, group 3 is actually the largest group, by far. But they barely get any press, while all you hear from right wing politicians is about the extremes on the liberal end. There is a reason for that and it is called the NRA.
How about both? I am all for dealing with the mental health problems. But that doesn't solve the problem either.
12,000 gun homicides does not tell the entire story either. There were also 73,505 non fatal gun wounds.
The problem is that most pro gun people will not have that discussion. Just as the NRA will not have that discussion.
Every time anyone in politics suggest any form of gun regulation the NRA paints a target on their back. Even many democrats have been silenced by their tactics.
As I have pointed out before, their tactics are very likely to backfire. Because when the inevitable day comes when the regulation crowd controls enough votes to implement change, the NRA and gun owners will be left out of that discussion. Why would they be brought to the table after decades of bitter lies and obstructionism? The laws then passed will be more intrusive and possibly less effective as a result. It is what's happened in NY and other, more liberal, states.